Path: news.voyager.net!clmx65.dial.voyager.net!user
From: jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: CENSORSHIP OR EQUALITY?
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 20:30:06 -0500
Organization: Absence Software
Lines: 109
Message-ID: 
References: <4h37cn$btm@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vixa.voyager.net

I have posted a short thread of articles asking the representatives of
the Committee for Open Debate On the Holocaust their opinion of Ernst
Zuendel's calls for censorship.

Ingrid Rimland, the maintainer of Mr. Zuendel's website, has responded
to me in her semipublic mailing list, the "Zgram" list.

I thank her for sharing her opinion, but I would like to point out that
I was not asking her.  I was asking CODOH, whose representatives
(excepting Richard Widmann) still have not responded.

Here is what Ms. Rimland had to say.  Note that she is essentially
just repeating the argument of Mr. Widmann, which I have already
debunked here in alt.revisionism:

   Meanwhile, I understand [Nizkor representatives] are afflicting
   other people with prompts as to the treatment of their Web sites -
   CODOH, for instance, a Web site dedicated to exposing thought
   crimes.
   
   The Nizkor strategy now seems to be to make the CODOH people state
   that Zundel is a rabid censor maniac, since several years ago, to
   test the repugnant Canadian Hate Laws, he asked that, given that
   they were in force, they be applied to everybody, since he, too,
   felt defamed - by Schindler's List, for instance - which he asked to
   be banned as being a disgracefully defamatory piece of
   anti-Germanism.
   
   He did this on the principle that nobody has a stronger obligation
   to obey the law than those who make the law.  Does that make him a
   "censor"?  Or does it not make Zundel, rather, a conscientious
   objector to unfair censorship?

I won't even get into her implication that Steven Spielberg is a
lawmaker -- symptomatic of the conspiratorial world-view that
International Jewry all thinks and acts as one.

Nor will I comment on her assumption that she knows my "strategy" to be
trying to "make the CODOH people state" lots of negative adjectives.

Nor will I stoop to responding to the other falsehoods that she told
about the Nizkor Project and about me personally (not quoted here).

I will simply ask of Ms. Rimland the same thing I asked of Mr. Widmann:
will she please present evidence to back up her claim?

Assuming she has something stronger than "because Ernst Zuendel says
so," that is.

Nizkor has several thousand words' worth of Mr. Zuendel explaining, in
print, why "Schindler's List" and the "Holocaust" miniseries were evil
self-serving lies, tyrannical, slanderous, etc., followed by calls to
ban them.  We have digital image copies of the original pamphlets.

And the call to ban "Schindler's List" was explicitly stated to be
worldwide, which neatly eliminates the argument that Zuendel's target
was Canadian anti-hate laws.

The movie was indeed banned in Malaysia and the Philippines, and
effectively banned in Lebanon and Jordan.  (Skeptic magazine, vol. 2,
no. 4, p. 67.)  Zuendel noted the Philippines ban with a euphemism:

   The film contains brutal murders of women and children, savage
   beatings of women, profane language, use of women as sex objects,
   and nudity.  (It is not seen in the Philippines because of the
   nudity.)  Young people are shocked, emotionally traumatized, and
   have nightmares.

Is that evidence of how much Zuendel hated censorship?  That he could
not even bring himself to use the word?  "It is not seen," indeed!

As he went on, it becomes crystal-clear that he supported such bans:

   The movie generates hatred against Germans, and it should be
   possible to ban it under "hate laws" in Canada, Germany, and
   other countries.  Photocopy and distribute this, and join the
   worldwide campaign to BAN SCHINDLER'S LIST!
   ^^^^^^^^^

Mr. Zuendel nowhere in either pamphlet mentioned that they were "tests."
Nowhere did Mr. Zuendel mention that he was "a conscientious objector to
unfair censorship."  Nowhere did he say that the anti-hate laws are
"repugnant."

Words like "repugnant" were reserved for the movies of Gerald Green and
Steven Spielberg.  To be precise, he described them as "slander,"
"lies," "[supporting] genocide," "tyranny," "terror," "swindle," "evil,"
"prejudice[d]," "outright lies," "hymn of hate," "notorious,"
"self-serving," "lies and hate," and on and on.

So, the question again:  what evidence does Ms. Rimland have that
Zuendel's cause was not really Schindler, but censorship?

If she can come up with any, Nizkor will be happy to archive it or
include pointers to it, whichever she prefers, so that our readers can
make the most informed decision possible.

http://www.almanac.bc.ca/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/censorship/holocaust-miniseries.html
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/hweb/people/z/zundel-ernst/censorship/ban-schindler.html
http://www.webcom.com/~ezundel/english/
http://www.valleynet.com/~brsmith/

Posted to alt.revisionism.  Emailed to Zuendel/Rimland;  Cc'd to CODOH
and Richard Widmann.
-- 
 Jamie McCarthy          http://www.absence.prismatix.com/jamie/
 jamie@voyager.net     Co-Webmaster of http://www.almanac.bc.ca/
 Unless you specify otherwise, I assume pro-"revisionism" email
 to be in the public domain.            I speak only for myself.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor