NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1101333207257_43

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109683146179_5

While I don't in any way support what the man stands for, funny that he was imprisoned for three years and deported to Germany so that he can face five years of prison by a country that claims to support people's right to an opinion.

Damn Canucks. Oh yeah, I'm Canadian.

Is it me or are twenty month not amounting to three years?
That out of the way, he was detained for being a security reason, not imprisoned for speaking his mind.
I am also quite happy that he is facing trial right now.

Outside Europe, this thing called "common sense" never applies to lawsuits and government, and "civil liberties" are seen mainly as a legal procedure that is an obstacle to the government and may be bypassed when it's "really necessary, honest." This is what they do in America - it's nothing new.
Deal.

Outside Europe, this thing called "common sense" never applies to lawsuits and government, and "civil liberties" are seen mainly as a legal procedure that is an obstacle to the government and may be bypassed when it's "really necessary, honest." This is what they do in America - it's nothing new.
Deal.

You can't be jailed for being a Holocaust denier in the US.

You CAN be jailed for it in France or Germany. So I guess this is what they do in Europe - it's nothing new.

More reliable source. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4310087.stm)

Is it me or are twenty month not amounting to three years?

The date of the first article was Nov. 24, 2004 -- so actually, it IS three years. (20+15=36 months) Perhaps you need to read more closely.

That out of the way, he was detained for being a security reason, not imprisoned for speaking his mind.
I am also quite happy that he is facing trial right now.

Yes -- a security risk for having a website that stated that the Holocaust did not exist. I agree that he is an idiot for denying the Holocaust did not exist. I dislike him for his views on Jews. I simply find it hypocritical that a country that considers itself to be so very free finds ideas so dangerous they must deport a 40-year resident of their country (with a break in the US) straight to a country he's not been in for a lifetime so he can be sent to prison.

Of course, there are howls of outrage over holding people without charge at Guantanamo Bay, but strange silences over this situation. Curious.

Outside Europe, this thing called "common sense" never applies to lawsuits and government, and "civil liberties" are seen mainly as a legal procedure that is an obstacle to the government and may be bypassed when it's "really necessary, honest." This is what they do in America - it's nothing new.
Deal.

You are mistaken -- this is about Canada, not the United States.

Of course, the fact that his house was a refuge for every white supremacists group out there, especially the violent ones, was of no concern for our nationnal security.

He wasn't jailed for his opinion, he was jailed for the actions he was doing to back his opinion. Free speech has limits you know.

It's hardly unusual in the U.S. to be held a lot longer than that before trial.

But I love this part: Like the many lawyers in Canada who have found themselves before Federal Court judges in recent years, trying to defend against evidence they're not even allowed to see, Lindsay said defending his client has been a frustrating task.

''How can I answer a case that I don't know what the case is?'' he asked.

"How is it fair that one side gets to present evidence, the judge gets to consider that evidence, the other side doesn't even know what the evidence is and is somehow supposed to challenge it?''

Gee, it's the Canadian Patriot Act.

It's hardly unusual in the U.S. to be held a lot longer than that before trial.

But I love this part: Like the many lawyers in Canada who have found themselves before Federal Court judges in recent years, trying to defend against evidence they're not even allowed to see, Lindsay said defending his client has been a frustrating task.

''How can I answer a case that I don't know what the case is?'' he asked.

"How is it fair that one side gets to present evidence, the judge gets to consider that evidence, the other side doesn't even know what the evidence is and is somehow supposed to challenge it?''

Gee, it's the Canadian Patriot Act.

Secret evidence has been used in the US long, long before the Patriot Act.

Don't blame it on the Patriot Act.

Secret evidence has been used in the US long, long before the Patriot Act.

Don't blame it on the Patriot Act.


Unless I'm mistaken, Bitchkitten was making a comparison between this situation in Canada and the situation in American concerning the Patriot Act -- meaning that both countries are doing similar things?

Unless I'm mistaken, Bitchkitten was making a comparison between this situation in Canada and the situation in American concerning the Patriot Act -- meaning that both countries are doing similar things?

Yes, that's what she was trying to do.
But, you can't be jailed in the US for being a Holocaust denier. Free speech, you know. And if you have white supremacists in your house, that's ok, too.

Not that the FBI won't be wiring your house for sound, and you can't talk about committing any real crimes...

But long before the Patriot Act, we could shoot the innocent wives of white supremacists while they held their newborn babies, and we could get away with it without even an administrative punishment. We could burn down entire compounds full of children with military vehicles just to try to capture one man who routinely left the compound to visit the Post Office alone every day.

And we've had secret evidence in trials for decades.

I don't even believe Zundel was ever charged with hate speech. He was deemed a national secdurity threat. Now, the problem is that the Crown has way too much power over these suspected (immigrant) threats, however the courts do find that the law is reasonable enough to uphold as an issue of national security.

Once again, this is no thought police tactics. It's just a very unfair law.

The article Myrth linked to stated that Zundel was charged and convicted of hate speech, but that the conviction was later overturned.

What I want to know is, if he wasn't a Canadian citizen, why did the US deport him to Canada for "allegedly violating immigration laws". Shouldn't he have been deported to a country where he had citizenship?

WOW - I was reading an article on how Canadian censorship is really bad earlier today, and now this. Coincidence? I dont think so

You can't be jailed for being a Holocaust denier in the US.

You CAN be jailed for it in France or Germany. So I guess this is what they do in Europe - it's nothing new.

As far as I know, you have to threaten the national security with Nazism. This is a relatively minor offence, if we compare that to the two-year more-or-less arbitrary imprisonment Canada applied. Without a sentence, that is.

And I meant America as in the American continent.

Hell even New Zealand held a guy for a few years without charge. We had our own little gitmo bay going.

You can't be jailed for being a Holocaust denier in the US.

You CAN be jailed for it in France or Germany. So I guess this is what they do in Europe - it's nothing new.
Encitement of violent actions is illegal

I'd love to say something about this. But I may be arrested if I do.

And people slam the US over gitmo. :headbang: Let he/she who is without sin throw the first bolder. :D

The article Myrth linked to stated that Zundel was charged and convicted of hate speech, but that the conviction was later overturned.

What I want to know is, if he wasn't a Canadian citizen, why did the US deport him to Canada for "allegedly violating immigration laws". Shouldn't he have been deported to a country where he had citizenship?


And what the articles also do not mention is the fact that Zundel only spent as much time in jail as he did because he and his VERY well funded legal team (paid for by skinheads everywhere) took full advantage of every possible legal avenue including multiple appeals to fight his extradition to Germany tooth and nail.

He was first ordered deported in May of 2003, and CHOSE to remain in a Canadian prison fighting his deportation as a supposed refuge rather than accept the initial order.


So anyone assuming that he was held without charge or due process for a period of almost two years is flat wrong.

And people slam the US over gitmo. :headbang: Let he/she who is without sin throw the first bolder. :D


People have been held in Gitmo for years without charge, without access to legal counsel, and without due process.

Zundel had the full benefit of all of those things in Canada.

People have been held in Gitmo for years without charge, without access to legal counsel, and without due process.

Zundel had the full benefit of all of those things in Canada.


Well there is a difference, folks in Gitmo were taken in foreign countries after engagements with the US Military...did Zundel get into a scuff with Mounties someone forgot to mention or something? Because last I checked he was deported for saying the holocaust didnt exist..and somehow his saying the holocaust didnt exist was a threat to Canadian national security...how does one leap to that conclusion?

This is rediculous and hypocritical. I get to say this so seldomly, lemme indulge...
Yee-haw, I'm happy I'm an American! :D
Any social libertarian (of any nation) should be able to successfully grasp the concept of free speech. And it's not always pretty. But you should defend speech, period. Good or bad, within reason. Meaning that you are responsible for the direct results of your actions.
Calling "fire" (fraudulently) in a crowded theater is illegal, because people can physically hurt. Nobody can be directly harmed physically by an offensive web site. Not going to happen.
The worst thing that could happen would be that you could get sued for slander.

Now if someone directly threatens a particular individual or group, then that's definitely illegal, and should be. By phone, in writing or on the internet. Everyone has a right not to be afraid of physical harm, but you are not protected from being offended.
I'm wondering, where's the Canadian version of the ACLU to defend this guy?

We have several holocost deniers up here, same as anywhere. HE was not expelled for that.


He was also openly inciting violence against certain groups, which was why he was denied the right to stay here.

Saying "Hitler was really a nice guy" is abhorent, but allowed.

Saying "Hitler was really a nice guy, and he was also right, and everyone should join up and get back to the business of exterminating Jews, homosexuals, and other minorities. I'm up for it so lets go kill us some kikes." is not what we look for in a landed immigrant.

In other words, calling him just a Holocost Denier is a disservice to the truth. It's not as if the US let him stay either for those who seem to feel that they have moral ascendancy over Canada on this matter. All it means is that the US is far more efficient at deportations, although we had to deal with the additional legal hassles of stripping him of the residency status he had which was not an issue south of the border.

People have been held in Gitmo for years without charge, without access to legal counsel, and without due process.

Zundel had the full benefit of all of those things in Canada.
Ah, but a substantial portion of those in gitmo have been taken during war. Some of whom are no less hateful than Zundel.

So while I find Mr. Zundel to be a repugnant asshole, I find the double-standard in this situation disturbing.

This is rediculous and hypocritical. I get to say this so seldomly, lemme indulge...
Yee-haw, I'm happy I'm an American! :D
Any social libertarian (of any nation) should be able to successfully grasp the concept of free speech. And it's not always pretty. But you should defend speech, period. Good or bad, within reason. Meaning that you are responsible for the direct results of your actions.
Calling "fire" (fraudulently) in a crowded theater is illegal, because people can physically hurt. Nobody can be directly harmed physically by an offensive web site. Not going to happen.
The worst thing that could happen would be that you could get sued for slander.

Now if someone directly threatens a particular individual or group, then that's definitely illegal, and should be. By phone, in writing or on the internet. Everyone has a right not to be afraid of physical harm, but you are not protected from being offended.
I'm wondering, where's the Canadian version of the ACLU to defend this guy?


HE had PLENTY of defence - which is why it took so damn long to get rid of him.

Ah, but a substantial portion of those in gitmo have been taken during war. Some of whom are no less hateful than Zundel.

So while I find Mr. Zundel to be a repugnant asshole, I find the double-standard in this situation disturbing.


What double standard?

My complaint about Gitmo is the removal of legal rights and access to due process. Zundel suffered neither.

Very well then.

Oh yes, and another factor that people should remember is that this is an immigration case - not a criminal one. In pretty much ALL countries people deemed undesirable are held until deportation. IT is not a matter of there needed to be a criminal charge, simply that the person is attempting to stay in a country that they have not been granted the right to stay in.

And, as mentioned, he was only in jail so long because he used each and every legal avenue available to fight his deportation.

If I were to hop of the plane in LaGuardia and tell customs that I was applying for refugee status I would go through a legal process, be denied, and be tossed from the country - without ever facing any sort of charge. And if I were a person who had a previous conviction for inciting violence, you bet your ass I'd be spending my time there incarcerated while they got my deportation rubber-stamped.


So don't confuse this case with anything other than any other immigration process - which is a totally different thing than criminal court.

Zundel is being held under a rarely-used security certificate, which classifies him as a risk to Canadian security based on secret evidence which Blais will use to decide whether the certificate is reasonable.


Secret evidence? You may as well have just turned him over to us and put him in Gitmo. Amazing how you fail to see your government has stooped as low as what the US has done to a pair of its own citizens. (Of which courts have ruled that US citzens arrested in the US cant be held as enemy combatants they have to be brought up on charges). What happens at Gitmo isnt a civilian legal matter. This is. And what Canada is doing is dubious at best.

Secret evidence? You may as well have just turned him over to us and put him in Gitmo. Amazing how you fail to see your government has stooped as low as what the US has done to a pair of its own citizens. (Of which courts have ruled that US citzens arrested in the US cant be held as enemy combatants they have to be brought up on charges). What happens at Gitmo isnt a civilian legal matter. This is. And what Canada is doing is dubious at best.


I'm not that fond of secret evidence either. In fact I think it sucks.

That being said, we didn't go to another country, pick Zundel up, bring him back, and then hold him for two years on secret evidence. and, in the case of your two citizens our government NEVER denied Zundel access to due process or his legal team, nor was he ever a citizen to begin with - so your comparison is invalid right off the bat.

He wanted to have the priviledge of citizenship in our country which was denied, and was subsequently ordered to leave.

HE chose to remain in jail to fight his deportation rather than accept the fact that we did not want him here. If not for that fact, he would have been out of our jail a year ago after the first deportation order was handed down.

Residency and citizenship is not something that we are obliged to give anyone. It needs to be earned.

I'm not that fond of secret evidence either. In fact I think it sucks.

That being said, we didn't go to another country, pick Zundel up, bring him back, and then hold him for two years on secret evidence. and, in the case of your two citizens our government NEVER denied Zundel access to due process or his legal team, nor was he ever a citizen to begin with - so your comparison is invalid right off the bat.

He wanted to have the priviledge of citizenship in our country which was denied - as it should have been with his conviction of inciting to violence here in Canada during his residency - and was subsequently ordered to leave.

HE chose to remain in jail to fight his deportation rather than accept the fact that we did not want him here. If not for that fact, he would have been out of our jail a year ago after the first deportation order was handed down.

Residency and citizenship is not something that we are obliged to give anyone. It needs to be earned.

Yea but Zundal never picked up a gun in a conflict and shot at the Canadian military now did he? Was Zundal ever actively implicated in plotting to sneak a radioactive device into Canada? You're the one who brought Gitmo up first and then say my point is invalid. So either it has a parallel to Gitmo or it do doesnt and you cant keep refering to how the US treats folks who shoot at soldiers in war time. Which of all things under the Geneva convention means they cant be tried in the first place for crimesand thus they dont get legal representation. Because what does a POW need with a lawyer?

What Canada did, was deport someone back to a country who would deny them their civil rights and jail them for saying the holocaust doesnt exist. Not because Zendal incited violence..but because he posted a website that went against the norms of the government and what is socially acceptable. How is that in the least bit defendable?

there is another thread on this. apparently america chucked him out for immigrations issues. i agree this is an immigration issue, not a criminal one, and he is a german citizen, not a canadian one. if a person chooses to stay and fight a deportation charge, they should not complain about staying in jail. if he was fighting it, he knows he is stuffed when he goes to germany, so why is everyone complaining?

If I were to hop of the plane in LaGuardia and tell customs that I was applying for refugee status I would go through a legal process, be denied, and be tossed from the country - without ever facing any sort of charge. And if I were a person who had a previous conviction for inciting violence, you bet your ass I'd be spending my time there incarcerated while they got my deportation rubber-stamped.


Not necessarily. Depending on the decision of the INS officer, you may be released pending all appeals. It's quite a problem, though less so these days.

Canada's different though I suppose. Guilty until proven innocent and all that.

there is another thread on this. apparently america chucked him out for immigrations issues. i agree this is an immigration issue, not a criminal one, and he is a german citizen, not a canadian one. if a person chooses to stay and fight a deportation charge, they should not complain about staying in jail. if he was fighting it, he knows he is stuffed when he goes to germany, so why is everyone complaining?

Because on these thread Resist, had it been the US, you'd have seen 2-3 threads lambasting the US for violating this persons rights. And as much as some folks will deny that, its true. This represents a rare opportunity to point at Canada and say.."Okay..now what, you think you still have the morale high ground?" And what is being seen is to say the least predictable. If things were reveresed then this would be another US bashing thread. Thats why folks are complaining, this isnt a simple immigration issue, if Canada is such a bastion then frankly this shouldnt have been an issue now should it?

Not necessarily. Depending on the decision of the INS officer, you may be released pending all appeals. It's quite a problem, though less so these days.

Canada's different though I suppose. Guilty until proven innocent and all that.

As you say - depending on the decision of the INS. In Canada also you are not automatically jailed during an immigration proccess, however Zundel was deemed enough of a risk for incarceration.

So enough with the blatantly incorrect generalizations please.

Because on these thread Resist, had it been the US, you'd have seen 2-3 threads lambasting the US for violating this persons rights. And as much as some folks will deny that, its true. This represents a rare opportunity to point at Canada and say.."Okay..now what, you think you still have the morale high ground?" And what is being seen is to say the least predictable. If things were reveresed then this would be another US bashing thread. Thats why folks are complaining, this isnt a simple immigration issue, if Canada is such a bastion then frankly this shouldnt have been an issue now should it?
the particular thread i am talking about is actually aimed at canada and germany, not the US. and in it, it comes up with the issue that he was actually deported from the US back to canada, so it says a lot for their position on the case.

the particular thread i am talking about is actually aimed at canada and germany, not the US. and in it, it comes up with the issue that he was actually deported from the US back to canada, so it says a lot for their position on the case.

Your missing the point. The reason why this thread is popping up and the complaints is be cause some posters from the US look at what Canada did and chuckle, because this proves several points about what some circles view as a bias. But thats a different topic for discussion all together.

He was sent back from the US because he didnt follow proper procedures. It happens. We do follow our own rules. He didnt try to seek asylum into the US, otherwise he'd have had the lengthy legal battle here and not in Canada.

Because on these thread Resist, had it been the US, you'd have seen 2-3 threads lambasting the US for violating this persons rights. And as much as some folks will deny that, its true. This represents a rare opportunity to point at Canada and say.."Okay..now what, you think you still have the morale high ground?" And what is being seen is to say the least predictable. If things were reveresed then this would be another US bashing thread. Thats why folks are complaining, this isnt a simple immigration issue, if Canada is such a bastion then frankly this shouldnt have been an issue now should it?


OK, so exactly which of the hot discussion items (e.g. Gitmo, the holding of US citizens without access to their lawyers, etc) regarding US actions do yu feel that this is morally equivalent to?


And why isn't this a simple immigration issue? Please explain.

OK, so exactly which of the hot discussion items (e.g. Gitmo, the holding of US citizens without access to their lawyers, etc) regarding US actions do yu feel that this is morally equivalent to?


And why isn't this a simple immigration issue? Please explain.

Gitmo is being played out currently. The courts have ruled that those US Citizens(and there arent many) are due to recieve due process of the law. That was a recent decision. Which means you bringing up Gitmo, non-existant.

What Canada did to deport this man and keep in custody through use of secret evidence and allegations that he incited violent acts of others is about the same level in which the US is keeping folks form Afganistan in jails, and US citizens implicated in a dirty bomb plot to hit Chicago.

How is this not an immigration issue? Its more complex then just that. Way more than your attempts to simplify the matter. You deport the guy and you send him to jail for practicing what you defend in Cananda as part of your freedom of speech. I've taken a look at your declartion of rights and you allow the same things we do. Its not just about some simple immigration dispute, he didnt sneak into the country and be there illegally. You guys are deporting him because he holds a mindset that offends. I wish we could do that with some of the people in this country. But that would make it wrong, now wouldnt it?

Yea but Zundal never picked up a gun in a conflict and shot at the Canadian military now did he? Was Zundal ever actively implicated in plotting to sneak a radioactive device into Canada? You're the one who brought Gitmo up first and then say my point is invalid. So either it has a parallel to Gitmo or it do doesnt and you cant keep refering to how the US treats folks who shoot at soldiers in war time. Which of all things under the Geneva convention means they cant be tried in the first place for crimesand thus they dont get legal representation. Because what does a POW need with a lawyer?


You would have a point - IF you were treating the prisoners at Gitmo as legal prisoners of war. You aren't. Your government has declared them not to be POW's and so also exempt from the legal protections under the Geneva Conventions that would be afforded to them, so using that as some sort of justification is farsical. Also, there has been no statement from your government that all of the detaines at Gitmo picked up guns and shot at your military. Some were held as suspects without access to due process for periods of years.

Now where did Canada deny Zundel his full rights to due process and access to his lawyers during his proceedings?

Oh right.... NEVER!

What Canada did, was deport someone back to a country who would deny them their civil rights and jail them for saying the holocaust doesnt exist. Not because Zendal incited violence..but because he posted a website that went against the norms of the government and what is socially acceptable. How is that in the least bit defendable?

So, are you suggesting that the US will not deport any of our citizens back to Canada if the law they broke here is not entirely in line with your own? I think you had best go back and read your treaty obligations because the results might suprise you.

You would have a point - IF you were treating the prisoners at Gitmo as legal prisoners of war. You aren't. Your government has declared them not to be POW's and so also exempt from the legal protections under the Geneva Conventions that would be afforded to them, so using that as some sort of justification is farsical. Also, there has been no statement from your government that all of the detaines at Gitmo picked up guns and shot at your military. Some were held as suspects without access to due process for periods of years.

Ya know, this is currently being argued out by folks more qualified than you and I. Its been argued out on these forums by folks less qualified than everybody and frankly its a legal murky area. The last time the US had to deal with a situation like this it was Vietnam. We left it up to the South Vietnamese to handle the VC and we all know how forgiving they were to the communists.Now there is no international convention dealing with how terrorists picked up should be treated, so using laws that dont deal specifically with the topic doesnt make sense. I used the Geneva convention because frankly it provides that legal murky loophole that lawyers for the government have used repeatedly for the past three years and some odd months to hold folks at Gitmo. Whether they shot at US troops, were captured with folks who shot at US troops, or were planning something else nasty. Unfortunatly something like this is not likely to be corrected, and marked down in law for years..if not decades, and only if there are glarring human rights abuses. So far at Gitmo, what the terrorists have to worry about is a lap dance and panties put on their head.


Now where did Canada deny Zundel his full rights to due process and access to his lawyers during his proceedings?
Oh right.... NEVER!

Are you gonna keep throwing back? The courts in the US already admitted the government was wrong and that the citizens are entitled to their due process. That point isnt in contention, what is, is what Canada is doing to Zandal by deporting him using secret evidence and how that parallels exactly some of the reasons which we keep our own citizens in detention. But I guess its okay for Canada to do it, because Zandal was an immigrant and thus not afforded all the rights under the Canadian constitution, huh?


So, are you suggesting that the US will not deport any of our citizens back to Canada if the law they broke here is not entirely in line with your own? I think you had best go back and read your treaty obligations because the results might suprise you.

Hmm..so Canada did return draft dodgers in Vietnam? Amazing, I fully missed the part where Clinton was put on trial in the US and jailed for his actions. Or how about the occassions where a murder suspect wasnt turned over to the US until the US promised not to seek the death penalty. Isnt that our call and not Canada's? Dont tell me to look at my treaty obligations when you seem to have a selective memory.

Any one comparing the two situations as any thing even remotely close to each other really has no clue what they are talking about. This was an immigration case. He was free to leave at any time. He decided to use all of the avenues that Canada offerers. He was never held in secret, nor was he ever denied legal council. I'm afraid any one trying to compare this to Gitmo is talking apples and oranges.

Really, come up with some thing better than this! :rolleyes:

Any one comparing the two situations as any thing even remotely close to each other really has no clue what they are talking about. This was an immigration case. He was free to leave at any time. He decided to use all of the avenues that Canada offerers. He was never held in secret, nor was he ever denied legal council. I'm afraid any one trying to compare this to Gitmo is talking apples and oranges.

Really, come up with some thing better than this! :rolleyes:

Then you should turn around to your husband, who first brought the issue of Gitmo up and smack him one. Because obviously he has no flipping clue what he's talking about. Speaking of which, did he tag out or something? Are you now going to post in his place?

On an unrelated note..how IS the PRCA doing anyway?

Then you should turn around to your husband, who first brought the issue of Gitmo up and smack him one. Because obviously he has no flipping clue what he's talking about. Speaking of which, did he tag out or something? Are you now going to post in his place?

On an unrelated note..how IS the PRCA doing anyway?


Go back and read the thread. Gitmo was first brought up by Celtland:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8341817&postcount=21


But hey.... you're obviously the expert here.... :rolleyes:

As most people know, Canada like most countries have extradition treaties with most 1st world countries. We did the due process, we afforded him every right to prove his case, he failed to do so, he was sent back to the country where he was wanted. This is like Gitmo? I think not. That is one hell of a huge leap of logic by any standards.

Go back and read the thread. Gitmo was first brought up by Celtland:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8341817&postcount=21


But hey.... you're obviously the expert here.... :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, didnt you try to draw conclusions between Gitmo and Zandal as well? Because if I'm not mistake Celtland said and people said Gitmo was bad..you tried to compare the apples and oranges by comparing them.

And..uh where did I say I was the expert again?

Round and round we go..its just fun being a hypocrite isnt it Zepp?

As most people know, Canada like most countries have extradition treaties with most 1st world countries. We did the due process, we afforded him every right to prove his case, he failed to do so, he was sent back to the country where he was wanted. This is like Gitmo? I think not. That is one hell of a huge leap of logic by any standards.

And extraditition treaties have meant how much to Canada in the past? Check what I said on the previous page. Canada as well as other countries love playing selective listening to extradition treaties when it goes against their morale standing.

Are you gonna keep throwing back? The courts in the US already admitted the government was wrong and that the citizens are entitled to their due process. That point isnt in contention, what is, is what Canada is doing to Zandal by deporting him using secret evidence and how that parallels exactly some of the reasons which we keep our own citizens in detention. But I guess its okay for Canada to do it, because Zandal was an immigrant and thus not afforded all the rights under the Canadian constitution, huh?


Why do you keep equating your judges finally forcing due process for your Citizens to Zundel. As you mention - he is NOT a citizen. Incidentally, why don't you ask your own governent why he was tossed from the US in the midst of his own immigration proceedings - even though he is married to a US citizen - and also given a 20 year ban from returning to the US if you think he is such a standup guy who is being unfairly persecuted by Canada?


Hmm..so Canada did return draft dodgers in Vietnam? Amazing, I fully missed the part where Clinton was put on trial in the US and jailed for his actions. Or how about the occassions where a murder suspect wasnt turned over to the US until the US promised not to seek the death penalty. Isnt that our call and not Canada's? Dont tell me to look at my treaty obligations when you seem to have a selective memory.


Err.... why are we talking about Vietnam and also complaining about Clinton? Was Billy in Canada? No. Did the US put in requests for extradition for most draft dodgers? No. Would they have been eligible for extradition under the treaty at the time? NO! which is why a new one was signed by Carter in the 70s. So what the hell are you talking about? Complaining that we weren't sending back people that we were neither asked to nor required to at the time and also that you weren't jailing Clinton?

It's hard to keep track of all of the muck you are trying to toss around.

And, as to Canada's refusal to extradite to death penalties - well that is something I am rather proud of. We do not believe in the death penalty and out supreme court has ruled that such a requirement is correct under our constitution. And it has nothing to the notion of the crime commited, but rather the penalty imposed.


Hey, I remember the outrage in the US and the State Department intervening in Singapore because a US citizen was facing a sentance of a caning for a vandalism conviction. Everyone screaming that it was cruel and that the government should do somthing to stop it - even some suggesting sending inthe marines to bust the kid out to protect him. Well, our government deems the death penalty to be cruel and DOES do something to try and stop it.

I'm sorry, didnt you try to draw conclusions between Gitmo and Zandal as well? Because if I'm not mistake Celtland said and people said Gitmo was bad..you tried to compare the apples and oranges by comparing them.

And..uh where did I say I was the expert again?

Round and round we go..its just fun being a hypocrite isnt it Zepp?


Right. The person brought up Gitmo in the context of this thread, and it's MY fault that I demostrated why they were not comparable.... :rolleyes:

And you state that you aren;t the expert, but that you know that I'm the one that doesn;t know what I'm talking about. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

At this point, I'm done feeding the trolls.


Hey, if this one immigration matter makes you sleep better at night compared to anything your own government may be doing - fine. Sleep well.

But I've had enough of your BS for one night.

At this point, I'm done feeding the trolls.

But I've had enough of your BS for one night.


As its been commented by others. Pot. Kettle. Of course you want to result to insults and calling folks trolls in the middle of a placid discussion in which no insults have been tossed than frankly your welcome to it. Maybe next time you can handle an arguement and not have your wife get involved. Did you need assistance or something? Were you trying to draw fire away from yourself?

As its been commented by others. Pot. Kettle. Of course you want to result to insults and calling folks trolls in the middle of a placid discussion in which no insults have been tossed than frankly your welcome to it. Maybe next time you can handle an arguement and not have your wife get involved. Did you need assistance or something? Were you trying to draw fire away from yourself?

Please by all means read just this page to note your insults towards my husband. As to me getting involved, my husband never asked me to.. actually I've been a member of NS longer than him and you. My husband doesn't have me on a leash, nor should he.. I say what I say because I believe what I believe.

Now if you could actually make a case for your argument, perhaps we wouldn't treat you in this fashion, but since you have been unable to do so.. I'm done with you too.

I'm done with you too.
I still say your dodging what you simply don't want to hear, and that's that Canada just fucked up.


Congrats, welcome to the big leagues, and don't let it kill you on the inside, the other Americans will make fun of you.


As for me, it's 10:00 and I am tired from my swim meet.

Please by all means read just this page to note your insults towards my husband. As to me getting involved, my husband never asked me to.. actually I've been a member of NS longer than him and you. My husband doesn't have me on a leash, nor should he.. I say what I say because I believe what I believe.

Now if you could actually make a case for your argument, perhaps we wouldn't treat you in this fashion, but since you have been unable to do so.. I'm done with you too.

Actually dearie thats my restart date, I was founded December 25th 2002, I'm like a nastier version of Santa Clause. Dont believe me? Ask folks who remember me from long ago.I was here before Marathon got banned and he was a respectable RPer.I was here when people like Demoness RPed.But you were never really an RPer so you wouldnt remember me. I was around before II even existed. There were old threads on the forum boards dating back to January 01 in which I was testing weapons systems in the Atlantic in NS..ask GMC, he probably remembers a picture I put up of something known as Stonehenge.

On other points so you have your husband on a leash? Guess what folks say is true..he's the lackey isnt he? A eunuch. Did you tell him it was time for night night and to stop playing with folks who can present an arguement? Because I've seen you two have no problems dealing with others who cant present arguements. You dont go out and insult them and call them trolls...you only run and resort to insults as last resorts when you cant handle it. Maybe you two should stop running from folks who can calmly debate instead of tossing around the same old spew from the right. When I try and treat you with some respect I find it not returned. I wont make that mistake again.

Finally though let me get this straight..because in your opinion I didnt make a case for my arguement..that gives you a reason for insult? Isnt that intellecutal elitism? What kind of examples do you set for your children? If you think someone is wrong its okay to insult them? Not real mature. Or is this something you do online because you dont respect other peoples opinions online..and if thats the case..why bother posting online?

That's it, I'm locking this thread!

Well, no I'm not. But I'm looking at the people who have keys, and gesturing at this thread frantically!

Well... no I'm not. But seriously, someone explain to me how Canada fucked up? German citizen, goes back to Germany for criminal trials, sounds legit to me.

As most people know, Canada like most countries have extradition treaties with most 1st world countries. We did the due process, we afforded him every right to prove his case, he failed to do so, he was sent back to the country where he was wanted. This is like Gitmo? I think not. That is one hell of a huge leap of logic by any standards.
Most extradition treaties require that you have the same/analogous crime. Last time I checked, denying the holocaust and saying hitler was right is not a crime in Canada. Was I wrong?

As most people know, Canada like most countries have extradition treaties with most 1st world countries. We did the due process, we afforded him every right to prove his case, he failed to do so, he was sent back to the country where he was wanted. This is like Gitmo? I think not. That is one hell of a huge leap of logic by any standards.
So when are you going to give us our deserters back?

The date of the first article was Nov. 24, 2004 -- so actually, it IS three years. (20+15=36 months) Perhaps you need to read more closely.



Yes -- a security risk for having a website that stated that the Holocaust did not exist. I agree that he is an idiot for denying the Holocaust did not exist. I dislike him for his views on Jews. I simply find it hypocritical that a country that considers itself to be so very free finds ideas so dangerous they must deport a 40-year resident of their country (with a break in the US) straight to a country he's not been in for a lifetime so he can be sent to prison.

Of course, there are howls of outrage over holding people without charge at Guantanamo Bay, but strange silences over this situation. Curious.

Ignoring the bad math (20+15 is 35) and bad facts ("I agree that he is an idiot for denying the Holocaust did not exist." ... He denied it existed.)

It's kinda stupid that he was jailed for this. Though he was a security risk. White supremacists are security risks, damnit.

Speaking lies shouldn't be a crime; If he'd, for example, burned down a synagouge, he should've be imprisoned. But speaking his empty Fascist propaganda? If McDonald's are allowed to advertise their horrible junk-food products, this fascist should be allowed to speak his lies. But then again, those who are insulted by this empty babble should be allowed to call him by name: a dirty, empty fascist.

But no one should be punished for speaking; only for deeds.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1101333207257_43

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109683146179_5

While I don't in any way support what the man stands for, funny that he was imprisoned for three years and deported to Germany so that he can face five years of prison by a country that claims to support people's right to an opinion.
Perhaps you skipped over this...

Zundel is being held under a rarely-used security certificate, which classifies him as a risk to Canadian security based on secret evidence which Blais will use to decide whether the certificate is reasonable.

and this...

A resident of Canada for 42 years, Zundel was jailed last year upon his return to Canada after overstaying his visa in the U.S. In Germany, he faces charges of suspicion of incitement to hatred.

Now it is normal procedure to detain individuals wanted in a foreign country with which we have diplomatic ties and bilateral extradition treaties. Canada aslo has anti hate crime legislation, as does Germany and I believe so does the US.

Now it is normal procedure to detain individuals wanted in a foreign country with which we have diplomatic ties and bilateral extradition treaties. Canada aslo has anti hate crime legislation, as does Germany and I believe so does the US.

Our anti-hate crime legislation only comes up when a specific crime reaches a certain intent..ie swastkas on Jewish temples and so forth. They dont come from people who put up websites claiming the holocaust didnt exist.

Having had the experience of reading (enduring, more like it) one of Mr. Zundel's rather thin tomes, "SECRET NAZI POLAR EXPEDITIONS" (published by Samisdat, Zundel's own openly racist printing company), wherein Ernst adamantly maintains the Nazis built a fleet of flying saucers and that a number of lucky Nazis escaped Germany before the end of the war and established secret subterranean (or sub-glacial, I suppose) bases under the ice in Antarctica, accessible only by top secret canals built below sea level, I feel I have earned the right to disparage the man.

Ernst Zundel is a talentless twit of a writer, who comes to mind-bendingly ludicrous conclusions based on shoddy research and distortions of truth (and that's putting it too mildly, really - outright whoppers and big fat lies would be a far more accurate way to describe them).

So, now to this supposed outrage, Mr. Zundel's deportation. Hey, guess what? Canada has anti-hate laws. Nope, you can't get away with producing and distributing hate propoganda, certainly not if there's someone complaining about it. Oh, you don't have laws like that where you live? That's interesting, but doesn't mean very much in this situation.

Yes, we're a democracy with rights and freedoms and protections, etc. But those freedoms do not extend so far as to allow the propogation of hatred. Don't like it? Well, go ahead and complain 'til you're blue in the face.
We're our own people here, in our own house. We'll continue doing things as we see fit, and if the Ernst Zundels out there want to continue violating our laws as they see fit, then they'll find themselves in trouble with the law.

Finally, to those who think you've finally stumbled on the chink in the Canadian armour, our 'Achilles heel', to gloatingly hold over our heads as a vast glaring omission of democratic ideals, nay a totem of innate hypocricy, our own 'Guantanamo Bay' as it were, remember that chances are you know nothing about this case, this man, our laws, or the fact that democracies aren't like McDonald's restaurants. Each one is different, and this is yet another way that our democracy is different than yours.

Our anti-hate crime legislation only comes up when a specific crime reaches a certain intent..ie swastkas on Jewish temples and so forth. They dont come from people who put up websites claiming the holocaust didnt exist.


Again, Ernst Zundel is wanted by Germany and he has been declared to be inadmissible to Canadian soil and is being held in detention pending review by the Supreme Court on grounds relating to national security. End of story.

Again, Ernst Zundel is wanted by Germany and he has been declared to be inadmissible to Canadian soil and is being held in detention pending review by the Supreme Court on grounds relating to national security. End of story.

He's being held on some charge using "secret" evidence, he's been wanted by Germany for awhile..why now? Germany's laws go into the area of denying folks free speech. Shouldnt an open and just society like yours protect an individual and his freedoms no matter how much you dont like them?

Free speech has limits you know.


Yes it most certainly does, in an unfree country or a zealously politically correct society.

Stalin was keen on free speech, as long as your free speech was absolute praise of him. Same with Hitler.

Don't you just love how "free speech" works for the dictators? You were technically free to make any speech you want in the old USSR or Nazi Germany, if you don't mind being taken away in the night and never seen again.

Is this really the best you can come up with to establish some sort of linkup between Canada and totalitarianism? If so, that's pathetic beyond belief. In fact, it's eminently laughable. The funniest part is, you don't even believe what you're saying so much you hope to persuade others to do so. I almost feel sorry for the dupes who have already fallen for this tempest in a teacup.

He's being held on some charge using "secret" evidence, he's been wanted by Germany for awhile..why now? Germany's laws go into the area of denying folks free speech. Shouldnt an open and just society like yours protect an individual and his freedoms no matter how much you dont like them?

Well la dee dah. Got a fricking clue why he's in Canada? His US visa expired and I didn't see the great land of freedom and democracy *cough* offering up political asylum to the poor oppressed misanthrope. Maybe you should write your congressman or something to put political pressure on Canada for his release, then you can have 'em. I'm sure he'd find himself surrounded and adored by like-minded individuals.

Well la dee dah. Got a fricking clue why he's in Canada? His US visa expired and I didn't see the great land of freedom and democracy *cough* offering up political asylum to the poor oppressed misanthrope. Maybe you should write your congressman or something to put political pressure on Canada for his release, then you can have 'em. I'm sure he'd find himself surrounded and adored by like-minded individuals.

But he went to Canada first. Its Canada thats going to extradite him back to Germany. Not the US. Lets not make this about the US seeing as how Zandal stayed in Canada for 42 years. He came to the US before his problems with Germany, but no I dont really see and local Congressmen or Senator going to his aid in the US, maybe the ACLU would, or several supremist groups..but I dont think he would be held in the US as a "security" threat. Now honestly, thats just stupid.

Having had the experience of reading (enduring, more like it) one of Mr. Zundel's rather thin tomes, "SECRET NAZI POLAR EXPEDITIONS" (published by Samisdat, Zundel's own openly racist printing company), wherein Ernst adamantly maintains the Nazis built a fleet of flying saucers and that a number of lucky Nazis escaped Germany before the end of the war and established secret subterranean (or sub-glacial, I suppose) bases under the ice in Antarctica, accessible only by top secret canals built below sea level, I feel I have earned the right to disparage the man.

Ernst Zundel is a talentless twit of a writer, who comes to mind-bendingly ludicrous conclusions based on shoddy research and distortions of truth (and that's putting it too mildly, really - outright whoppers and big fat lies would be a far more accurate way to describe them).

So, now to this supposed outrage, Mr. Zundel's deportation. Hey, guess what? Canada has anti-hate laws. Nope, you can't get away with producing and distributing hate propoganda, certainly not if there's someone complaining about it. Oh, you don't have laws like that where you live? That's interesting, but doesn't mean very much in this situation.

Yes, we're a democracy with rights and freedoms and protections, etc. But those freedoms do not extend so far as to allow the propogation of hatred. Don't like it? Well, go ahead and complain 'til you're blue in the face.
We're our own people here, in our own house. We'll continue doing things as we see fit, and if the Ernst Zundels out there want to continue violating our laws as they see fit, then they'll find themselves in trouble with the law.

Finally, to those who think you've finally stumbled on the chink in the Canadian armour, our 'Achilles heel', to gloatingly hold over our heads as a vast glaring omission of democratic ideals, nay a totem of innate hypocricy, our own 'Guantanamo Bay' as it were, remember that chances are you know nothing about this case, this man, our laws, or the fact that democracies aren't like McDonald's restaurants. Each one is different, and this is yet another way that our democracy is different than yours.

Oh right, so next time a Canadian decides to mention how the US really isnt free or mentions something about the PATRIOT Act I'll be sure to remember exactly what you said here. If you dont mind I'll even link them to this. Because frankly the reason why we Americans make a big deal is because guess what, you are being hypocrites. Your defending your laws as zealously as some Americans would defend the PATRIOT Act. And yet you dont see it because to you its "How dare an American try and comment on our nation." Amazingly you seem to be doing it all the time in the reverse though.

But he went to Canada first. Its Canada thats going to extradite him back to Germany. Not the US. Lets not make this about the US seeing as how Zandal stayed in Canada for 42 years. He came to the US before his problems with Germany, but no I dont really see and local Congressmen or Senator going to his aid in the US, maybe the ACLU would, or several supremist groups..but I dont think he would be held in the US as a "security" threat. Now honestly, thats just stupid.

No shit Sherlock! Further the US would legally be obligated to extradite him to Germany so let's not make this about Canada, even Germany. If you care to do so, the US is party to this as well.

Got a problem with the laws of sovereign nations? Tough. Ever wonder why Germany has such legislation? I should also remind you he's wanted on suspicion of charges and has not been convicted in absentia.

As for the trumped up charge of security threat, oh noes! It hasn't been established either way THAT'S WHY IT IS PENDING A SUPREME COURT REVIEW!!!! The United States has detained and deported hundreds of people using the same applicable laws I might add.

Please read and think before replying to me further.

The date of the first article was Nov. 24, 2004 -- so actually, it IS three years. (20+15=36 months) Perhaps you need to read more closely.
Ok, here it is for the intellectually challenged. 20 month in November 2004 + December 2004 (21) + January 2005 (22) + February 2005 (23) and i even add in March 2005 (24). And this is 20+15=36=three years in which paralell universe?

Yes -- a security risk for having a website that stated that the Holocaust did not exist.
Maybe a security risk for hosting, influencing and inciting violent racists?
How come that everone is up in arms about alleged infringements on freedom of speech when the canadian government seems to have evidence that there is more behind it? But of course, the average ns-poster knows more those who really concern themself with this case. :rolleyes:
I find the concept of secret evidence abhorrent and destructive to a legal system but that doesnt stop me from believing that they really have some dirt on him.

No shit Sherlock! Further the US would legally be obligated to extradite him to Germany so let's not make this about Canada, even Germany. If you care to do so, the US is party to this as well.

Got a problem with the laws of sovereign nations? Tough. Ever wonder why Germany has such legislation? I should also remind you he's wanted on suspicion of charges and has not been convicted in absentia.

As for the trumped up charge of security threat, oh noes! It hasn't been established either way THAT'S WHY IT IS PENDING A SUPREME COURT REVIEW!!!! The United States has detained and deported hundreds of people using the same applicable laws I might add.

Please read and think before replying to me further.

Will you shut up and actually read what I'm putting down? Or are you gonna continue to be needlessly defensive as if someone is attacking you? This is quite amusing really you've gone out and proved my point by agreeing with my.

And again dont tell me the legal obligations of extradition, Canada likes to hold folks back if it goes against the morale standing. Like folks who face the death penalty in the US wont be extradited unless the US promises not to seek the death penalty. Which no matter what Zeppistan says interfers with another nations right to prosecute the offender how they see fit. But as you said, dont like it? Tough. Soverign nations laws and all that extremely defensive crap. Honestly, get a grip you angry little man.

Will you shut up and actually read what I'm putting down? Or are you gonna continue to be needlessly defensive as if someone is attacking you? This is quite amusing really you've gone out and proved my point by agreeing with my.

And again dont tell me the legal obligations of extradition, Canada likes to hold folks back if it goes against the morale standing. Like folks who face the death penalty in the US wont be extradited unless the US promises not to seek the death penalty. Which no matter what Zeppistan says interfers with another nations right to prosecute the offender how they see fit. But as you said, dont like it? Tough. Soverign nations laws and all that extremely defensive crap. Honestly, get a grip you angry little man.

Would you shut up and read the farking article? :)

New York and Jersey are you just going to keep flaming and insulting every one who disagrees with you? It's not really a good debating tactic.

I'm not going to argue the merits of this case with again today, because frankly I'm not sure you understand what people such as Zeppistan have been trying to tell you. It's not like the guy was only denying the Holocaust ever happened. He was inciting violence. Lets not forget it was the US who deported him first. He was not a citizen of Canada. Get over it!

Would you shut up and read the farking article? :)

Oh I did, and as I keep saying I find the parrallels utterly funny and as clear as day as some other folks I know who are Canadian. They may not like this guys ability to speak, but to be deported for a crime that restricts his civil rights (holocaust denial is a freedom of speech issue) is kinda wrong. Draft dodging in both the US and Canada is wrong but we didnt get our draft dodgers back in Vietnam. And like others have said, normally a crime needs to exist between two nations before extradition can occur. But this isnt an extradition hearing. His ability to stay in Canada is under review.After some 42 years. Why not get rid of him 41 years ago? Its not like this guy is a new holocast denier or anthing.

Oh I did, and as I keep saying I find the parrallels utterly funny ....

Then you are functionally illiterate.

Then you are functionally illiterate.

Or your just blind. Or not even listening to your own words.

As for the trumped up charge of security threat, oh noes! It hasn't been established either way THAT'S WHY IT IS PENDING A SUPREME COURT REVIEW!!!! The United States has detained and deported hundreds of people using the same applicable laws I might add .

So far at Gitmo, what the terrorists have to worry about is a lap dance and panties put on their head.

He said he suffered constant abuse, before and after his transfer to Guantanamo Bay in May 2002.
On one occasion - the date was not specified - he claimed he was beaten by more than a dozen men, who stripped and sexually assaulted him before making him wear nappies.
Mr Habib has insisted that such mistreatment was common.
The 48-year-old said that he endured electric shocks, long spells in isolation and had menstrual blood from a prostitute thrown into his face during questioning.
David Hicks alleges torture, including beatings while being handcuffed and blindfolded, having his head slammed into concrete, being forced to run in leg shackles and being routinely deprived of sleep.
Human rights organisations say prisoners have been mistreated, and released detainees have spoken of beatings and coerced confessions.
Last November, media reports quoted a leaked International Committee for the Red Cross report, from a visit last summer, as saying practices at the camp were "tantamount to torture".
The five Moroccan defendants claim that on numerous occasions while in detention at Guantanamo Bay, they were stripped naked and handcuffed before having dogs set upon them.
Martin Mubanga claimed he was stripped of his clothes and mattress and forced to remain in an empty metal box, naked except for boxer shorts.
And he said an interrogator used a mop to daub him with his own urine while he was chained hand and foot.
"The conditions of detention, especially of those in solitary confinement, place the detainees at significant risk of psychiatric deterioration, possibly including the development of irreversible psychiatric symptoms," UN human rights investigators said
The military has reported 34 suicide attempts at Guantanamo Bay since January 2002.
In 2003, there were 350 incidents of self-harm, including 120 "hanging gestures", army spokesman Lt Col Sumpter told the Associated Press news agency.
Details of US government documents alleging further abuses of inmates at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.
The allegations, made mostly in e-mails between FBI officials in 2002-04, were released in connection with a lawsuit against the US government:

Marked "Urgent report"
Dated 25 June 2004
Addressed to "The Director" (FBI chief Robert Mueller) and other senior officials
The account of "an individual" who allegedly witnessed serious physical abuses of prisoners in Iraq, including strangulation, beatings, placing of lit cigarettes in detainees' ears and unauthorised interrogations.
The individual was said to have contacted the FBI because those involved were trying to cover up the abuses.

Dated 2 August 2004
Name of sender blanked out
The writer claims to have witnessed abuses at Guantanamo Bay, including seeing an inmate chained hand a foot in a foetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. They often urinated or defecated on themselves and had been left for over 24 hours.
On one occasion a detainee appeared to have pulled his hair out after having to spend the night in a room without ventilation or air conditioning.

A request for guidelines on the definition of abuse
Dated 22 May 2004
From "on-scene commander, Baghdad" to senior FBI officials
The writer states that prior to a revision in policy President Bush authorised interrogation techniques including "sleep management", stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods etc."
The writer notes, however, that these techniques were outside standard FBI practice.

Dated 5 December 2003
Sender unknown
The writer expresses concern that the FBI will be held accountable for abuses of a detainee after impersonation of FBI agents by military interrogators.
"If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, Department Of Defence interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [by] the 'FBI' interrogators. The FBI will be left holding the bag before the public," the writer says.

Marked "sensitive but unclassified"
Dated 30 July 2004
Sender unknown
An unnamed agent describes seeing a detainee at Guantanamo Bay wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights, adding the supposition that such practices were employed by military personnel. No physical abuse was witnessed.
The agent describes the practices as "non-FBI policy treatment".

"lap dance and panties" indeed. :rolleyes:

"lap dance and panties" indeed. :rolleyes:

Links please?

Links please?

Yeah some nice tasty links'd go great right about now. Mmm, the spicy ones with mustard and relish and some chopped onion, maybe a little grated cheddar...

I love linked sausage too.

ZeppistanSaying "Hitler was really a nice guy, and he was also right, and everyone should join up and get back to the business of exterminating Jews, homosexuals, and other minorities. I'm up for it so lets go kill us some kikes." is not what we look for in a landed immigrant.[QUOTE}

In other words, calling him just a Holocost Denier is a disservice to the truth. It's not as if the US let him stay either for those who seem to feel that they have moral ascendancy over Canada on this matter. All it means is that the US is far more efficient at deportations, although we had to deal with the additional legal hassles of stripping him of the residency status he had which was not an issue south of the border.

Kicking him out of the country is one thing. Keeping him in jail while doing it, when he had done nothing illegal is another. Or, is hate speech illegal in Canada. Here it is despicable but not illegal.

What double standard?

My complaint about Gitmo is the removal of legal rights and access to due process. Zundel suffered neither.

Zundel was not captured during a war trying to kill people. Zundel was taken into custody in Canada and imprisoned in Canada. His crime was despicable speech.

Oh yes, and another factor that people should remember is that this is an immigration case - not a criminal one. In pretty much ALL countries people deemed undesirable are held until deportation. IT is not a matter of there needed to be a criminal charge, simply that the person is attempting to stay in a country that they have not been granted the right to stay in.

And, as mentioned, he was only in jail so long because he used each and every legal avenue available to fight his deportation.

If I were to hop of the plane in LaGuardia and tell customs that I was applying for refugee status I would go through a legal process, be denied, and be tossed from the country - without ever facing any sort of charge. And if I were a person who had a previous conviction for inciting violence, you bet your ass I'd be spending my time there incarcerated while they got my deportation rubber-stamped.


So don't confuse this case with anything other than any other immigration process - which is a totally different thing than criminal court.

Maybe I misunderstood this case. I was under the impression he was a legal immigrant not a person applying for refugee status. I thought he was residing legally in the country after which they found out what he was saying. He was then arrested, put in jail and tossed out of the country.

In the US, people who enter the country legally and apply for a permanent visa are not tossed in jail while their case is being reviewed unless they have committed a crime.

So please clear this up, was he a legal immigrant, an illegal immigrant, or a refugee?

Had he been convicted of a crime in some other country before coming to Canada? If so, and he was a legal immigrant how did they let him in in the first place?

He wanted to have the priviledge of citizenship in our country which was denied, and was subsequently ordered to leave.

HE chose to remain in jail to fight his deportation rather than accept the fact that we did not want him here. If not for that fact, he would have been out of our jail a year ago after the first deportation order was handed down.


Do all applicants who are denied, and choose to appeal, placed in jail during the appeals process? Or was this a "special case?"

I support the German government on this one, I can certainly see why it would be important for them to remain though on their policy in regards to the Holocaust.

Because what does a POW need with a lawyer?


Just a correction, not a critisism. The people being held in Gitmo are not POW's they are enemy combatants. There is a huge difference.

POW's are members of the military of the government a country is at war with. They are protected and afforded rights under the Geneva Convention.

The people in Gitmo are not members of the military of any country. They are members of a terrorist group. As such, they are not covered by the Geneva Convention. As they were captured in a foreign country, are not held in the United States, and are not US citizens, they don't have any rights under the US constitution. They will be tried by a military tribunal, and will have legal representation at the tribunal.

He did bring up the Gitmo thing first, but there is absolutely no parallel between what happened in Canada and Gitmo.

however Zundel was deemed enough of a risk for incarceration.

So enough with the blatantly incorrect generalizations please.

So Zundel was a risk because of what he was saying. So in Canada you there is no such thing as freedom of speach.

Is that specific enough?

OK, so exactly which of the hot discussion items (e.g. Gitmo, the holding of US citizens without access to their lawyers, etc) regarding US actions do yu feel that this is morally equivalent to?


And why isn't this a simple immigration issue? Please explain.

IMHO it is not the moral equivalent to any of the above. I would agree that it is a simple immigration issue. I also do not believe a person should be held in jail during the immigration process unless they have entered the country illegally, committed a crime, or prove a substantial threat to society. I do not believe that his exercise of freedom of speech, although despicable, was a substantial threat to society. So, he should not have been held in jail during the appeals process.

Go back and read the thread. Gitmo was first brought up by Celtland:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8341817&postcount=21


But hey.... you're obviously the expert here.... :rolleyes:

Guilty as charged. :D

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1101333207257_43

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109683146179_5

While I don't in any way support what the man stands for, funny that he was imprisoned for three years and deported to Germany so that he can face five years of prison by a country that claims to support people's right to an opinion.
In Canada, Hate Crime is against the law and is therefore punishable:

http://hatemonitor.csusb.edu/other_countries_laws/HateCrime-English.pdf

In Canada, the notion of “hate” as a social/criminal policy concern emerged following the 1965 Report to the Minister of Justice of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada (Cohen Committee). The mandate of the Cohen Committee was to ascertain the nature and scope of hate
propaganda in Canada. Some of its conclusions stressed that although the extent of the problem in Canada was limited to a small number of persons, such activity could create a climate of malice and destructiveness to the
values of our society (Cohen Report, 1966:24). As a result of the committee’s efforts, Parliament amended the Criminal Code in 1970, thus rendering hate propaganda as a punishable offence (Law Reform Commission of Canada, 1986:7). These laws fall under sections 318-320
of the Criminal Code.

Hear! Hear!

Because if I'm not mistake Celtland said and people said Gitmo was bad..you tried to compare the apples and oranges by comparing them.

Noo, Celtlund did not say gitmo was bad. What Celtlund said is:
And people slam the US over gitmo. :headbang: Let he/she who is without sin throw the first bolder. :D