In Defense of Free Speech

The Martyring of a Nazi Sympathizer

by Kim Petersen

Ernst Zündel is not a man that I want to defend. I certainly do not share his strident anti-communist views, attitude on race, or sympathy for Adolf Hitler.
Where I do share a view with Zündel is on everyone’s right to free speech. Zündel exercised this right and has been persecuted for it. Progressives have mainly remained silent on this assault against free speech.



The German media calls Zündel a World War II Holocaust liar. If Zündel is lying, then his lies have killed no one; nonetheless, he is sentenced to five years imprisonment on 14 counts of sedition. On the other hand, George W. Bush and Tony Blair, who clearly lied to carry out genocide (what else would one term 655,000 plus excess killings?) in Iraq, escape punishment and carry the blessings of sizeable segments of their country’s electorate. Is this justice?



What particularly inflamed the anti-free speech crowd is that during the heavy media coverage of the early Zündel Trials in Canada, Zündel’s lawyer Doug Christie threw much of the imposed WWII Holocaust history into serious doubt. [1]



The trial generated serious skepticism for claims of an order from Hitler for the extermination of Jews, for the six million fatalities usually cited, and for the use of gas chambers. This was embarrassing for people who seek to maintain an unchallengeable view of the WWII Holocaust that conforms to the Holocaust Industry’s extortion racket. [2]



Presiding judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen declared Zündel had “endangered the public peace.” In other words, the German “justice” system determined that free speech is a danger to public peace. [3]



Zündel’s demonized lawyer [4], Ludwig Bock, was astounded: “What is notable is the iron-hard refusal of the court to allow consideration of new scientific findings or expert opinions.” [5]



Indeed. In his closing statement, Zündel challenged the district court to initiate an investigate of the WWII Holocaust by an independent, international committee of experts. He offered to publicly apologize in a press conference to Jews, Israelis and the world if the committee disproved his claims.



Imprisonment for speaking controversially is a travesty for justice and human rights. A public apology seems a much fairer punishment for speaking falsely.



Yet, a burning question remains: why will the authorities not accept a forensic challenge that should silence WWII Holocaust skeptics? Refusal to do so only deepens suspicion of the imposed verisimilitude.



Meanwhile, the injustice is turning Zündel into a free speech martyr.



Kim Petersen, Co-Editor of Dissident Voice, lives in southern Korea.


ENDNOTES

[1] “CBC Zundel Trial (#1), (#2), (#3),” YouTube.

[2] See Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (Verso, 2000).

[3] AP, “Rechtsextremismus: Höchststrafe für Holocaust-Leugner,” FAZ.net, 15 February 2007.

[4] Thomas Seythal, “Holocaust Denier Sentenced to 5 Years,” Guardian, 16 February 2007.

[5] Klaus-Peter Klingelschmitt, “Aufmarsch der rechtsextremen Advokaten,” die tagezeitung, 16 February 2007.


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/