Reply #22: To illustrate your unfairness. This is posted on Rense.com [View All]

snip

Zundel is a repellent figure, one who represents a horrifying combination of racism and historical blindness. But the way the government has conducted its case against him is flawed. Civil liberties have been compromised and procedural justice ignored. Never hearing from Zundel again may be an appealing prospect, but achieving that goal through the use of draconian legal measures is too high a price to pay.

The most disturbing aspect of the government's case is its use of a national security certificate. Security certificates, which can be used against any non-citizen in Canada, even permanent residents, allow the state to proclaim someone a security threat - and so deportable - after a trial that is extraordinary in two ways: Not only is secret evidence allowed, but that evidence can never be challenged.

Perhaps there are rare instances where the government needs to invoke evidence it can't reveal for reasons of national security. But the very idea of unchallenged evidence is frightening. The foundation of Canada's legal system is its adversarial nature, according to which the defense has a fundamental right to critically examine and rebut the government's case. Take away that right, and the result is not a legal trial, but an Orwellian exercise in which a judge must decide whether or not to accept the Crown's case on faith.

There are five other people besides Zundel being held on security certificates in Canada, all Arab or Muslim men accused of terrorist connections. (Mohamed Harkat, of Ottawa, may be the most well-known). Any anti-racists who delight in seeing Zundel subjected to a star chamber proceeding have to ask themselves how they would feel if the same tool were employed against an innocent immigrant. Even if some of the other suspects held on security certificates turn out to be connected to terrorism - a far from foregone conclusion - they deserve to have a lawyer with a security clearance challenge the evidence against them during the secret portion of their trial, as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association advocates.

snip

http://www.rense.com/general60/antiz.htm