Ernst zundel trial

You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. That is no longer the case, as the exterminationists have at last been forced to marshall technical evidence of their own to counter the increasing visibility and influence of the revisionist position.

Something resembling a true debate or dialogue on the issue may finally be in the offing. Should this come to pass, it will be largely because of the enormous pressure generated internationally by the revisionists through the and trials of Toronto publisher Ernst Zundel.

The first Zundel trial was carefully covered by the Canadian media, but the second trial suffered a virtual media blackout. Zundel was convicted on Feb.

He didn't serve that sentence though; in January the Ontario Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, citing procedural errors. A new trial was granted in June , which proved even more remarkable than the first. This time, the defense attempted to prove that the Nazis had never gassed Jews and others through the testimony of a self-taught "engineer" named Fred Leuchter. Leuchter had illegally removed chunks of bricks from presumed gas chambers at the Polish extermination camps of Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, and then examined them for traces of Zyklon-B gas.

He concluded there was no evidence that humans had been gassed. Leuchter's samples had been exposed to the elements for close to 50 years, and likely included bricks that were never in the chambers when they were in use but added during a postwar reconstruction. Thus, it was no surprise that he found little gas residue. Leuchter's findings were summarized in the so-called Leuchter Report , a Samisdat publication that has become a classic amongst Holocaust deniers.

The Canadian court dismissed Leuchter's testimony, citing his lack of credentials. But to no avail. Zundel was sentenced to nine months in jail, and an appeal was denied. He entered Toronto's Don Jail on Feb.

Two years later, however, in August , the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the law against publishing false news was unconstitutional and the government halted deportation proceedings against Zundel. In , Zundel applied for Canadian citizenship. But after objections from Canada's Security Intelligence Service over his links to far-right extremist groups, a complicated court battle developed. Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

The Supreme Court of Canada declared a provision in the Canadian Criminal Code as unconstitutional since it did not constitute a justifiable limit on freedom of expression.

Ernst Zundel published a book that denied facts about the Holocaust and was charged and convicted for spreading false statements under Section of the Canadian Criminal Code. He appealed, citing freedom of expression. The Court reasoned that even lies and false statements are protected forms of expression, and therefore Section infringed Section 2 b of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The publication contended that there is not sufficient evidence that can confirm six million Jewish people died before and during World War II.

The pamphlet also alleged that the Holocaust is a myth and a conspiracy created by the Jewish people. Zundel was convicted for spreading false news contrary to Section of the Canadian Criminal Code, which he then appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

He challenged the constitutionality of Section because it was a restriction of his right to freedom of expression pursuant to Section 2 b of the Charter. The issues presented to the Court were whether Section of the Criminal Code violated Section 2 b of the Charter and whether the infringements were justifiable pursuant to Section 1 of the Charter.

The majority judgment concluded that Section 2 b of the Charter had been infringed. The Court followed the two-step analysis established in the Irwin Toy case.

The first step consists of determining whether the expression conveyed is within the realm of protection of Section 2 b of the Charter. The second step requires determining if the purpose of the government action or legislation is to restrict expression.

McLachlin asserted that the Court in various occasions had recognized the broad domain of expression protected under Section 2 b of the Charter and that all expression that conveys or attempts to convey a meaning is protected by the provision.

However, it will not protect expression that is conveyed through violent form. McLachlin submitted that even lies and false statements are protected as expression under Section 2 b of the Charter.