← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Okiereddust
Thread ID: 6812 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2003-05-20
2003-05-20 16:01 | User Profile
[url=http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_05.15.03/news/editorial.html]Toronto Eye[/url]
There isn't a lot of sympathy around the office for Ernst Zündel, the man who called Adolf Hitler "the great one" during his own refugee hearing and denies the Holocaust ever happened.
Anti-Semite though he is, we'd never considered Zündel to be in the same category as Osama bin Laden. So imagine our surprise when we learned that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had just issued Zündel a national security certificate, citing links to terrorism and incitement of violence. It was a move that abruptly halted his refugee claim and began proceedings for his deportation to Germany, where he is wanted on hate charges.
Zündel's refugee application -- which he lodged earlier this year after being expelled from the US for an expired visitor's visa -- was a last-ditch effort, and was obviously destined to fail. It's clear his claim was without merit, but once the government allowed him to enter our refugee system, he gained access to a particular process -- and though it would likely have taken months to move through all the motions and appeals, we'd like to think Zündel would eventually have been sent back to Germany.
But now that CSIS has cut short that process by calling him a terrorist, we're left grappling with some thorny issues. First, what are the implications of playing the terrorism card in Zündel's case? And how on earth did he make it so far in our refugee system?
In truth, we all know the things of which he's guilty: spreading hate, fear and prejudice. Terrorism isn't one of his crimes, and we all know that, too.
So declaring Zündel a terrorist now is not the result of any startling new information ("CSIS source: Zündel took flight-training while in US! Zündel arranges clandestine meeting with Iraqi Information Minister on Baghdad hotel roof!"). It has to do with political pressure, and that's not just a guess on our part: on May 2, Citizenship and Immigration Minister Denis Coderre declared he would not allow anyone the opportunity to "make a mockery of our [refugee] system."
What we think is that, instead of misapplying a charge of terrorism, there should be a mechanism in our refugee system to deal with Zündel for what he really is.
Our first assumption was that no mechanism existed to deal with him properly. But as we looked into it, we found there were more than ample opportunities early on for Canadian officials to deny or prevent Zündel's refugee claim. Months ago, when he was still in the US, B'nai Brith pushed for the US to deport Zündel directly to Germany. But without support from Canadian officials, the US dumped him back on our doorstep.
Then we learned that the feds actually have 72 hours after a refugee application is made to quash it on the grounds that the applicant is a national security risk. Zündel was declared a national security risk in 1995, a questionable designation in itself for a racial propagandist, but leaving that to one side, either someone was asleep at the switch when he made his refugee claim this year, or the 72-hour period isn't sufficient time in which to prevent somebody who is known to be a risk from entering the system.
So here we are, three months after he applied for refugee status. The new security certificate admits Zündel has "virtually no history of direct personal engagement in acts of serious violence." It labels him a terrorist partly because he "seeks to destroy the multicultural fabric and underpinnings of Canadian society." Citing opposition to official multiculturalism as a type of terrorism risks expanding the war on terror to include everyone to the right of Pierre Trudeau.
Anti-terrorism provisions should not be used as a catch-all solution. Misapplying terminology in this way damages its credibility, and undermines the efforts against real terrorism. It has also, of course, damaged the integrity of our refugee system. If the fault in this case lies with officials who weren't on the ball, let's see someone deal with them. If it's the system that's at fault, then let's see the federal government start fixing its shortcomings.
Our current conceptions of terrorism were formed in fear. It wasn't too hard to predict (as PEN Canada and other organizations did when the bill was debated) that the term could be used as an excuse for authoritarianism-- or that it could start us down a slippery slope into a not-too-distant dystopian future. It's too bad one of the precedents on that slippery slope happens to involve a man for whom most traditional supporters of civil liberties are unwilling to fight.
2003-05-20 16:47 | User Profile
Originally posted by Okiereddust@May 20 2003, 11:01 ** It labels him a terrorist partly because he "seeks to destroy the multicultural fabric and underpinnings of Canadian society." **
English, French and Indian?? Is Zundel anti-Indian?
What can one say to this? It's like a Twilight Zone episode.
2003-05-20 18:33 | User Profile
Declaring Zündel a terrorist now is not the result of any startling new information. It has to do with political pressure, and that's not just a guess on our part.
How brave, how valiant you are for stating this! And where do you suppose that pressure is coming from?
Hello?
Hell-lo-o?
2003-05-20 19:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@May 20 2003, 18:33 ** > Declaring Zündel a terrorist now is not the result of any startling new information. It has to do with political pressure, and that's not just a guess on our part.
How brave, how valiant you are for stating this! And where do you suppose that pressure is coming from?
Hello?
Hell-lo-o? **
Hey, for a mainstream Canadian journal this is breathtaking. Look for Izzy to buy this out pretty soon.
No one here I'm sure legally sees anything with Zundel we haven't seen a thousand times already. What's perhaps of minor interest is the way the mainstream press is starting to notice this case and its broader implications, and formulate some rational sounding response.
2003-05-20 19:31 | User Profile
**Citizenship and Immigration Minister Denis Coderre declared he would not allow anyone the opportunity to "make a mockery of our [refugee] system." **
I see Coderre is still cribbing the same gag lines his predecessor (Kaplan) favoured. The fact is our so-called system for refugees invites mockery for good reason and everyone knows it. Whether refugees come in on derelict ships or choose cargo containers for stealth is irrelevant, we send back a few for show and the rest are deemed citizenship material. But we're big men when it comes to incarcerating and shipping back Nazi-tainted octogenarians or having fun with the likes of Zundel. Deeds Monsieur Coderre, not words.
**What we think is that, instead of misapplying a charge of terrorism, there should be a mechanism in our refugee system to deal with Zündel for what he really isââ¬Â¦
Anti-terrorism provisions should not be used as a catch-all solution. Misapplying terminology in this way damages its credibility, and undermines the efforts against real terrorism.**
Curious. Having discerned the true nature of the statutory exercise and finding it vaunting, the author wishes for another set of hoops for Zundel-types to jump through--ââ¬Åfor what they really are,ââ¬Â of course. What exactly is that? In his words: ââ¬ÅThe right of Pierre Trudeau.ââ¬Â :th:
2003-05-21 04:26 | User Profile
Interesting thread on this over at [url=http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_constitution&Number=629364&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=]Liberty Forum[/url]