The following is a background document for the study in the psychology of hate group recruitment.
CSIS Report on Ernst Zundel Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Report for the Security Certificate [77(1)]**CAERS can not vouche for the accurcy, or completness, of the information provided below.
Table of Contents
Part I Introduction … …… ………………………………………………………………………………….1
Part II Position of the Ministers …………………………………………………………………………….2
Part III Danger to the National Security or to the Safety of any Person……………………………………2
a) The White Supremacist Movements…………………………………………………………………….…3
b) Support for Violence and Contacts in the Movement………………………………………………….......4
Part IV Unlikely to Appear at a Proceeding or Or for Removal………………………………………… …..9
a) Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC)……………………………………………………………9
b) Failure to Address U.S Immigration Requests…………………………………………………………….11
c) Contempt for the German State……………………………………………………………………………12
Part I Introduction
1. On May 1,2003, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the the solicitor General of Canada (the Ministers) signed a certificate stating that Ernst Christof Friedrich Zundel (“Zundel”), a permanent resident of Canada, is inadmissible on grounds of security. Specifically, the certificate stated that the ministers believed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel is inadmissible to Canada pursuant to sections 33 and 34(1)(c), (d),(e) and (f) of the IRPA
Section 33: The Facts that constitute inadmissibility under section 34 to 37 include facts arising from omissions and, unless otherwise provided, included facts for which there are reasonable grounds to relive that they have occurred, are occurring may occur.
Section 34: (1). A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security of grounds for.
Note: The name of individuals and organizations contained in this report are taken from various open sources and in some cases, they have been spelled as they were transliterated in the original source material in order to comply with the facting. As a result, these names may appear differently in various references, and may differ from spellings used in practice by these individuals and law-enforcement or intelligence agencies. In order to clarify the identity of the individual or organization, footnotes or additional information info parentheses have been employed where a different transliteration any cause confusion.
Statement summarizing the information available to the designated judge in the matter of Ernst Zundel in relation to national security or the safety of persons, pursuant to the sections 78 and 84 of the Immigration and Refugees Protection Act (“IRPA”) who is named in a certificate described in sections 77(1) and the IRPA.
Part I Introduction
1. On May 1, 2003 the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Solicitor General of Canada (the Ministers) signed a certificate stating that Ernst Christof Friedrich Zundel (Zundel), a permanent resident of Canada, is inadmissible on grounds of security. Specifically, the certificate stated that the ministers believed that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel is inadmissible to Canada pursuant to sections 33 and 34(1)(c), (d), (e), and (f) of the IRPA: (c) Engaging in terrorism; (d) being a danger to the security of Canada; (e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of person in Canada (f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b), or (c)
2. On May 1, 2003, the Ministers signed a warrant for Zundel’s arrest pursuant to section 82(1) of the IRPA.
Part II Position of the Ministers
3, The Ministers believe that Zundel’s detention pursuant to section 82(1) of the IRPA should be continued because there are reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel is a danger to national security or to the safety of any person and is unlikely to appear for removal.
Part III Danger to the National Security of to the Safety of Any Person
4. The Ministers have reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel is a danger to the national security or to the safety of any person. Based on the Security Intelligence Report (“SIR”) filed in support of the certificate, although Zundel has virtually no history of direct personal engagement in acts of serious violence, his status within the White Supremacist Movement (“Movement”) is such that adherents are inspired to actuate his ideology. By his comportment as a leader and ideologue, the Ministers believe that Zundel intends serious violence to be consequence of his influence. To this extent the Ministers believe and assert that with those who actually execute the acts.
a) The White Supremacists Movement
5. White supremacists are defined as racists, neo-Nazis and anti-Semites who use violence to achieve their political objectives. Leading white supremacists may inspire others to use or threaten use of violence. Zundel is viewed by white supremacists as a leader of international significance and was viewed as the patriarch of the Movement in Canada prior to his removal from the United States (“U.S”) Zundel is one of the world’s most prominent distributors of revisionist neo-Nazi propaganda through the use of facsimiles, courier, telephone, mail, media. Short-wave radio transmissions, satellite videos and the internet, through his website the Zundelsite, which is a platform for financing and contains white supremacist documents as well as hyperlinks to other white supremacist websites. This has resulted in Zundel playing a critical role in the movement both in Canada and internationally.
6. The fundamental belief of the movement is that the white race is an endangered species in need of protection as a result of non-white and Jews seeking to attack the foundation of western civilization.
7. The movement in Canada is characterized by violent right-wing extremist organization such as the Heritage Front, and the Church of the Creator.
b) Support for Violence and Contacts in the Movement
8. Zundel has openly advocated his support for individuals who have committed serious acts of violence. On April1, 2003, during a detention review before the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, in response to questions concerning Adolf Hitler Zundel stated:
Q: Mr. Zundel, yesterday you referred to what you describe as your truth as you found it. That was your terminology that you used, correct? A: It’s a phrase that I have uses, yes. Q: Now, and the fact is your truth is that you’re an admirer of Adolf Hitler, right? A: Yes, I am. Q: And in fact you refer to him as the Great One, correct? A: That’s correct.
9. The service believes that Zundel maintained contact with British white supremacist Nick Griffin and his extreme right-wing organization, the British National Party (“BNP”). The BNP has been involved in acts of politically-motivated violence. In April 1999, three bombs exploded in London, England, killing three people and injuring hundreds of others. The man charged with these bombings, David Copeland, was determined to have been linked to the BNP. He was given six life sentences in July 2000 for the bombings.
10. In October 1997 Griffin was charged with offences under the British Public Order Act and was subsequently convicted in relation to his right-wing publication, The Rune, an anti-Semitic quarterly magazine designed to evoke racial hatred. Griffin wrote of the need to defend “rights for whites” with “well-directed boots and fists” and “when the crunch comes, power is the product of force and will, not of rational argument” as well as references to “mongrel slaves”. The prosecution said that the magazines conveyed “the clearest possible message of a call to arms to white supremacists.”
11. The service believes Zundel has also maintained sporadic contacts with William Pierce, leader of the National Alliance (“NA”). The NA uses violence as a tactic to achieve its goals. Zundel acknowledged that Pierce verbally supported the use of violence against the government in power.
12. The Turner Diaries, a novel written by William Pierce which recounts the thoughts and actions of a member of a white revolutionary group set to overthrow the American government, has helped motivate a rash of crimes for the past 20 years. In particular, it was said to be a major source of inspiration for Timothy McVeigh, the convicted Oklahoma City bomber. McVeigh was so captivated by the work that he would sell, or provide at no charge, a copy to random acquaintances. There are striking parallels between the Oklahoma City bombing and a bombing described in the book. In the book, a group of “patriots” exploded a 4-400 pound Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (“ANFO”) bomb that destroys a federal building at 9:15 am. McVeigh, who frequently carried The Turner Diaries with him, was convicted of exploding a 5000-pond ANFO bomb that destroyed a federal building at 9:02 a.m. Prosecutors argued that the book was the blueprint for McVeigh’s plan.
13. The service believes that Zundel has relationships with, exerts influence over or assist violent and/or influential members of the Movement in achieving their goals. Some of the individual are: Wolfgang Droege; Marc Lemire; Terry Long; Tony McAleer; George Burdi, Christopher Newhook; Eric Fisher; Tom Metzger; Richard Butler; Siegfied Verbeke; Dennis Mahon; Ewald Althans; Oliver Bode; Christian Worch; Gottffied Kuessel; and Bernard Klatt.
14. Zundel promoted the sue of politically-motivated violence Zundel called for acts of violence against the German authorities in a circular letter sent to Germany in 1981. Referring to a nation-wide search operation against white supremacists in Germany which took place in march 1981, Zundel stated that “the bigwigs and their Zionist behind-the-scene manipulators” have gone too far with their searches and, then states “To say it with Mao Zedong: Then justice will be spoken from the barrel of a gun.”
15. Based on the critical role Zundel plays in the movement both in Canada and internationally, his statements concerning Adolf Hitler, promotion of the use of politically motivated violence in Germany, his support for individuals such as Nick Griffin and William Pierce and control and or influence over individuals such as those stated in paragraph 13 above, the Ministers have reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel is a danger to national security or the safety of any person and his detention must therefore be continued.
Part IV Unlikely to Appear at a Proceeding or for Removal
16. The Ministers have reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel is unlikely to appear for removal. Although Zundel may attend the proceedings that are held by this Honourable Court concerning the reasonableness of the certificate, Zundel’s testimony during the Immigration detention review on April 1, 2003 concerning the Canadian Human Rights Commission (“CHRC”), his U.S. Immigration history and contempt for the German state demonstrate that he will not accept the legal authority of the Minister of Citizenship of Immigration to remove him from Canada.
17. During the April 1, 2003, detention review Zundel demonstrated his contempt for Canadian institutions that do not make rulings favourable to him. In response to questions in cross examination concerning the “Zundelsite” and the decision of the CHRC’S that the Zundelsite was operated by Zundel, that Zundel was found in violation of disseminating material fostering hatred and contempt, and that he remove the offending sections of his web site, Zundel testified as follows:
Q: Now, you agree with me that the CHRC found that you had control over the Zundel site?
Q: Would you agree that they made a finding that you control the site?
Q: And you agree that they made a finding that having been ordered to remove certain offending material from the site that you failed to remove that material?
A: I was no longer in Canada and therefore no longer under the control of the Human Rights Commission. It did not apply to me. Their decision was moot. Mr. Penza says he passed a symbolic decision. I was protected by the United States Constitution the moment that I applied for status in the United Sates. My wife who owns, runs, designs, has done so with this web site since 1996 is an American citizen. She is totally protected by the United States Constitution, has a Constitutional right to say anything on the web site because the President of the United States, Clinton and also Bush, the 9th circuit court and the Supreme Court have ruled that the internet content is inviolable.
Q: Well, let’s just go back to what you just said a few minutes ago. You just finished teling met hat because you were not in Canada the order didn’t apply to you. That was your evidence, correct?
A: It’s an American based web site on an American ISP, the Americans have a constitutional right to say anything that and to do anything on an American based web site. My wife is an American. I was by then living in America, therefore my legal advice was from American attorneys and from two Canadian attorneys, that the point was moot.
Q: And in fact, previously at your detention review held before the Immigration and Refugee Board member, Mr. Thomson, you referred to the Canadian Human Rights tribunal as a hick tribunal. That was your statement, correct?
Q: Do you see those words that are at the bottom of page 56: “now, she is not going to stop the web site because some Canadian hick tribunal is going to rule against it, besides I was living lawfully in the United States.” Do you see that?
Q: That’s your statement you made last time?
A: Yes. (Emphasis added)
18. By refusing to comply with the order of the CHRC concerning the Zundelsite and Referring to the CHRC as a ‘hick tribunal’ that had no jurisdiction over him, the Ministers believe that Zundel is unlikely to appear for removal.
b) Failure to Address U.S. Immigration Requests
19. During the detention review on April 1, 2003 Zundel demonstrated his ability to flout requested of U.S immigration authorities. On February 5, 2003 he was removed from the U.S. to Canada. During the detention review on April, 1, 2003, in response to questions concerning his U.S. immigration history, Zundel testified as follows:
Q: Page 20 says the following, reading from the third paragraph, lengthy paragraph from the top, “You failed to appear on June 12th, 2001 for your scheduled interview. The Service held your application in abeyance for six month period, however no communication was received from your requesting resulted in the termination of your petition and application based on abandonment of January 30th, 200.” So, they held the matter in abeyance for a period of six months and they didn’t receive any communication from you. That’s what they’ve said there? A: That’s their version of the story and that’s why there’s ongoing litigation because my attorney say they did not follow procedures. That we could not respond to something that we didn’t know was open to us and so therefore that is what the legal disputes is and that’s why I tell you there are three court cased pending in the United States. Q: So I suggest to you, Mr. Zundel, that you’ve had ample opportunity to comply do so and not only did you not show up for an interview, you failed to communicate with them subsequent to the interview? A: That’s your version of events…..
20. By refusing to comply with the requests of the U.S. immigration authorities, the Minister have reasonable grounds to believe Zundel is unlikely to appear for his removal from Canada.
c) Contempt for the German State
21. During the detention review on April 1, 2003, Zundel demonstrated his contempt for the German State:
Q: Now you said that you send dissident material to the home country? A: That’s right. Q: Correct? A: That’s where I was born. Q: And I take it that by the home country you mean Germany, is that correct? A: Correct. Q: And I suggest to you that what you describe as dissident material the German A: Correct Q: And I suggest to you that what you describe as dissident material the German authorities consider to be material that incites hatred and that’s why you were convicted in the German court in December 1991, would you agree with that? A: No, I don’t. Some of the material might have been…my relation to Germany has been going on for 40 years and this is one instant out of 40 years where one piece of my writing or piece of videotape was pillared by the German state and that’s not a record in 40 years and it is dissident material. Q: Well, that’s how you describe it, but the German courts view it differently, don’t they, sir? A: Well, Stalinist courts, any other dictatorship basically marginalized its dissidents. I am in a long line form Dilas (ph) to Saloman Rusthtie (ph). So…. Q: So in your view the German legal system is a Stalinist totalitarian system, is that correct? A: The German legal system was imposed by the ally military conquerors of Germany in the state that they created to serve them. Germany is not a democracy. It is not founded on democratic principles. It is an occupation regime, Mr. Macintosh. An illegal, an illegally imposed occupation regime with democratic (inaudible) where truth is not a defence.
22. By testifying that German is not a democratic country and he is a dissident from that country, Zundel, a German citizen by birth, will be unlikely to appear for removal to Germany if the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration determines that is where he is to be removed to. The Ministers therefore have reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel is unlikely to appear for his removal from Canada.
Part V Conclusion
23. The minister have reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel is a danger to national security or the safety of any person an is unlikely to appear for removal because of his status within, connection to and influence over individuals within the Movement, his lack of respect for adverse decisions of Canadian quasi-judicial bodies, his failure to address requests of U.S immigration authorities and his contempt for Germany.
24. It is the opinion of the Minister that not continuing Zundel’s detention will place him in a position to continue in his role as the patriarch of the Movement in Canada, accentuated by the notoriety garnered by his release. It is the Ministers’ position that no strict conditions or amount of money or surety would be sufficient to alleviate the Ministers’ concerns that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Zundel is inadmissible on grounds of society.
Ernst Zundel CSIS Refugee hearing
Hate messages - Zundel v. Canada
Canadian human Rights Act
(excerpted from Michael Geist, Internet Law in Canada: Captus Press (2000) pp 141 146)
• 13.  It is a discriminatory practices for a person or group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
•  Subsection  does not apply in respect of any matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of the broadcasting undertaking.
•  For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection  by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons with transmission of that matter.
Zundel v. Canada [Attorney-General] (F.T.C.T.D., 1999) 67 C.R.R. (2d) 54.)
The complainants alleged that Mr. Zundel was violating s. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. H-6 by causing hate messages to be communicated through computer website known as the "Zundelsite", which can be readily accessed through the Internet. The server for the website, and the person who manages it and posts material on it are located in California. The complainants took objection to material on the "Zundelsite" claiming that the scale of the Holocaust had been greatly exaggerated; they alleged that this material was likely to expose persons of the Jewish faith or ethnicity into a tree or contempt.
In this application for judicial review Mr. Zundel challenges on five grounds the commission's decision to request the appointment of a tribunal, and the jurisdiction of the tribunal to inquire into the complaints. First, the commission's decision to request the appointment of a tribunal is vitiated by bias as a result of statements made by the Deputy Chief Commissioner prior to the filing of the complaints and to her subsequent participation in the commission's decision to refer them for adjudication. Second, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to inquire into these complaints because material posted on the website in the form of text and graphics is not communicated "telephonically" as required by section 13. Third, a tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear and determine these complaints because the server for the website is located outside Canada, as is the person responsible for selecting what is posted on it, who is the only person able to enter the material.
The issues raised by Mr. Zundel challenge the legal authority of the commission and the tribunal to regulate material available on the Internet, which is fast becoming one of the most powerful media of mass communication. The benefits to be obtained from awaiting the tribunal's considered determination of questions of this complexity, novelty and importance clearly outweigh the costs to Mr. Zundel, and to the public purse, of permitting the administration process to run its course before the matter is fully reviewed by the court.
[i] " Communicate Telephonically"
It is a discriminatory practice under section 13  for a person or group of persons to "communicate telephonically or to be caused to be for communicated. . . By means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament" material commonly known as hate messages.
Counsel for Mr. Zundel submitted that material was only "communicated telephonically", and so capable of falling within the scope of Section 13 , if the communication involved the transmission of the human voice through the medium of the telephone and telephone wires. He relied heavily on dictionary definitions of "telephone" and "a telephonic" to support this interpretation. While sounds can be transmitted between computers, it was agreed that only text and graphics were available on the "Zundelsite".
Furthermore, it was argued, an interpretation of Section 13(1) that includes messages heard on the telephone, but not material obtained by computer from a web site, is also supported by a policy considerations. In particular, those who access the "Zundelsite" have available to them there material that challenges the "revisionists" view of the Holocaust advanced by Mr. Zundel. In other words, "the Zundelsite" is a less powerful medium of communication than a pre-recorded message on a telephone answering machine because it allows those interested to enter into an active exchange of views, and to gain access to a range of opinions.
Counsel from Ms. Citron, on the hand, submitted that the adverb "telephonically" should be interpreted broadly so as to include the Internet, on the ground that most users given access to by dialling up and using a modem that is plugged into a telephone line outlet, and that information passes in digital form along telephone wires from the "Zudelsite" server to the computer of the person accessing it. The fact that sound, indicating the human voice, is not being transmitted should not be conclusive.
In support of for her position counsel relied on a broader definition of the word "tell telephonically" contained in Newton's Telecom Dictionary, a not particularly authoritative source. In addition, counsel pointed out that if "telephonically" were given the meeting for which the respondent contended, its presence in the Act would still serve a purpose because it would, for example, exclude communication by satellite.
More importantly, counsel relied on the principle that human rights legislation, been quasi-constitutional in nature, should be given a broad and liberal interpretation. Accordingly, in order to tackle the mischief at which Section 13 is aimed, namely the dissemination of hate messages, Section 3(1) should be interpreted in a manner that accomplishes this goal by including this powerful new medium which relies in part on the telephone system. Section 13(2) specifically exempts from Section 13(1) material that is communicated by the facilities of the broadcasting undertaking this is because broadcasting is regulated by another federal agency the CRTC.
There is little doubt that when section 13 was first enacted in 1977 Parliament almost certainly did not intend the adverb "telephonically" to include communication via the Internet because it was not then a widely available medium. However, on a progressive, as opposed to a static interpretation of the Act, a court could conclude that "telephonically" should be construed in light of both the overall purpose of the legislation as set out in Section 2, and technological developments.
In Canada (Attorney-General) v. Mossop (1993), it is true, the court refused to interpret "family status" as including same-sex couples, largely because a contemporaneous amendment to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination had been defeated in the House of Commons. However, there is no evidence that Parliament consider the application of Section 13 to the Internet, and rejected it.
Dictionaries, no doubt, still have their place in assisting in the interpretation of statutory language, particularly in identifying the range of meanings that words are capable of bearing in the ordinary use of the English-language. However, it is a place of diminishing importance, as courts have increasingly sought to attribute meaning to the text of legislation by placing more weight on the statutory context in which the words are used, and the purposes underlying the legislative scheme.
Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada has regularly endorsed a broad and positive approach to the interpretation of human rights legislation in recognition of its quasi-constitutional status. This is another important reason for no longer regarding Bell v. Ontario, (Human Rights Commission), supra, as reliable president; in 1970 the court attached at least as much weight to the respondents proprietary rights as to the complainants right not to be the subject of discrimination, which at that time had no quasi-constitutional status.
Therefore, on a consideration of the language of the Act, the evidence and the interpretive approach to be taken to human rights legislation, it cannot be said that the position adopted by the commission on the interpretation of the word "telephonically" lacks a rational basis. Whether it is correct in law is not for me to decide in this proceeding; that will be fore the court before which any application for judicial review of the tribunal's decision is brought. Meanwhile, the tribunal must be permitted to make findings of fact about technical aspects of internet communication on the evidence before it, and to give its considered interpretation of Section 13 in light of the arguments of counsel and its own understanding of the purposes of the Act.
[ii] The Extraterritorial Issue
Counsel for Mr. Zundel submitted that section 13 does not permit the commission and the tribunal to regulate material posted on websites that are located beyond Parliament's to geographic reach, when the person in control of the section and posting of the material is also outside Canada. The fact that interested individuals may access the "Zundelsite" from within Canada was, he submitted, insufficient to justify the extraterritorial reach that the commission was purporting to give to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The position of the respondents and of the commission on this issue was simple. They submitted that Section 13 (1) prohibits people in Canada from communicating hate messages are causing them to be communicated. Mr. Zundel is present in Canada, and the commission maintains that, while he may not have posted material on the "Zundelsite" himself, and indeed, may be incapable tactically of doing so, in fact he controlled the selection of the material that was posted, including many of his own writings, some of which had originally appeared in printed form.
Evidence was tended to show that the "Zundelsite" was under the supervision of Dr. Ingrid Rimland, "the webmaster", who not only shared Mr. Zundel's views of the Holocaust, but also was paid for her services. The commission argued that it could be inferred from the communications between Mr. Zundel and Dr. Rimland, from the nature of the relationship between them, and from Mr. Zundel's references to "our 'Zundelsite'", "my webmaster", that Mr. Zundel in fact exercised such a substantial degree of control over what Dr. Rimland posted on the "ZUndelsite" that he could be said to be causing the material on the "Zundelsite" to be communicated.
I agree with the proposition that a person in Canada causes material to be communicated for the purpose of Section 13 if that person effectively controls the content of material posted on a website that is maintained from on-site Canada.
Whether Mr. Zundel exersized the requisite degree of control over the content of the "Zundelsite" to bring him within Section 13 is a question with a very significant factual component. There was sufficient evidence before the commission on this issue to enable it to conclude that an inquiry into the complaints by a Human Rights Tribunal was warranted. It should be left to the tribunal to decide whether the evidence adduced at the hearing by the parties is sufficient to establish that Mr. Zundel was causing the material to be communicated for the proposal Section 13.
[iii] " Cause to be communicated"
Counsel argued on behalf of Mr. Zundel that he could not be found to be in violation of Section 13  by reason of having caused the communication of material on the website to which the complaints related. His argument was that those who accessed the "Zundelsite" from their computers and called up the material that they wished to see caused it to be communicated; until then it was simply stored in electronic files.
This is the merest sophistry and provides no basis for the court to intervene in the proceedings now before the tribunal. It would follow from the counsels submission that the person who opens the morning's newspaper causes its content to be communicate to her, rather than the journalists who wrote the items that are published and printed in the newspaper.
Canada [Human Rights Commission] v. Canadian Liberty Net  1 S. C. R. 626
In December 1991, the Canadian Rights Commission (the "Commission") received five complaints regarding telephone messages made available by an organization advertising itself as "Canadian Liberty Net". Callers to the Liberty Net phone number were offered a menu of telephone messages to choose from, by subject area. These the messages included denials of the existence or extent of the Holocaust; assertions that non-white "aliens " are importing crime and problems into Canada, and the implicit suggestion that violence could be helpful to "set matters straight"; criticism of an alleged "Kosher tax" on some foods to ensure that some percentage could can be certified as Kosher; complaints about the alleged domination of the entertainment industry by Jews; and number of messages decrying the alleged persecution of well known leaders of the white supremacist movement. After having investigated the content of the messages, the Commission requested on January 20th, 1992 that a Human Rights Tribunal [the "Tribunal"] be empanelled to decide whether these messages were in violation of Section 13  of the Human Rights Act, which makes it a "discriminatory practice... to communicate telephonically... any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt... on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination". Section 3 of the Act includes race, national or ethnic origin, colour, and religion as prohibited grounds of discrimination.
On January 27, 1992, one week after the request to the Tribunal, the Commission filed an originating notice of motion before the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, seeking an injunction, enjoining Liberty Net, including Tony McAleer and any other associates in the Liberty Net organization from making available any phone messages "that are likely to expose presses to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that those persons are identifiable on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour or religion", until a final order of the Tribunal is rendered. On the February fifth and sixth, the motion was argued, and on March 3rd, 1992, Muldoon J. granted the injunction sought. Upon further submissions of the parties, Muldoon J. varied the content of his order slightly, although those charges are not germane to any controversy in this appeal.
A Tribunal was empanelled in response to the Commission's request and held hearings for a total of five days in May and August 1992. The panel reserved its decision for more than a year, finally rendering a decision on September 9th, 1993. Thus, the injunction order of Muldoon J. was in effect for almost 18 months, from March 3rd, 1992 until September 9th, 1993.
On June 5th, 1992, the Commission investigator telephoned the Liberty Net phone number and heard a message referring callers to a new number of the Canadian Liberty Net "in exile" where they could "say exactly what we want without officious criticism and sanction". This new number was rented from a telephone company in the state of Washington, in the United States. Callers to that number then had access to a similar menu of messages as had been available prior to the issuance of Muldoon J. order of March 3rd. Indeed, Liberty Net admitted before the Court of Appeal that some of those messages where specifically covered by the injunction, but they contended that the messages were not in breach of the order because they emanated from a source outside Canada, and thus outside of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
. . . .
The appellants second ground of attack is that the contempt order is inapplicable because it seeks to restrain conduct taking place outside Canada, and, therefore, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada. This argument is misguided. The violation being impugned here is not the existence of the phone number in the United States without more, but rather the combined effect of that American phone number with the offending messages, and the referral message to that phone number on Liberty Net's old line. The gravamen of the violation of the order is the communication of the offending messages; that communication takes place by virtue of the advertisement on the Canadian phone line and the broadcast of the message on the American phone line. The former element took place "by means of the facilities of a telephone communication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament", as provided for under Section 13 of the Human Rights Act. As long as at least part of an offense has taken place in Canada, Canadian courts are competent to exert jurisdiction.
Ernst Zundel's last attempted abuse of the Canadian legal system has failed. The Federal Court has granted a government motion to strike Zundel's buffoonish $10 million lawsuit against the federal government claiming his rights were violated during the National Security certificate proceedings under which this Holocaust-denying German citizen was detained and ultimately shipped back to Germany. The government was also awarded costs against Zundel. In his decision on 24 February 2005, Justice Blais upheld the reasonableness of the government having designated Zundel as a security threat.
Ernst Zundel charged with incitement in Germany Associated Press Tuesday, July 19, 2005 BERLIN - German prosecutors said Tuesday they have charged white supremacist Ernst Zundel with inciting racial hatred, four months after he was deported from Canada. German authorities accuse Zundel of decades of anti-Semitic activities, including repeated denials of the Holocaust -- a crime in Germany -- in documents and on the Internet.