r inland applications only. To provide an effective, alternative means of reviewing and solving disputes regarding overseas decisions. To ensure a fast and fair inland system for considering applications on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Business Immigration What we are doing: Establishing objective criteria to assess business experience for both the investor and entrepreneur programs. Creating a new net worth requirement for entrepreneurs. Why we are doing it: To strengthen the integrity of the business immigration program. Objective Criteria for Permanent Residence What we are doing: Introducing a clear physical residency requirement. To retain permanent residence status, a person must be physically present in Canada for a cumulative period of 2 years for every 5 working years. People who spend time overseas for specific reasons (to accompany a Canadian citizen, to work for a Canadian company, or for humanitarian reasons) will retain their status. Developing a fraud-resistant permanent resident card. Ensuring an oral appeal to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) for all loss of status cases. Ensuring that permanent residents without a valid card have the right to enter if they have been outside Canada for less than one year. Why we are doing it: To implement a clear objective standard that is easier to administer. To replace a document that is easy to forge with one that has state-of-the-art security features. And Refugees Strengthening Refugee Protection: Overseas Resettlement What we are doing: Amending the criteria for "ability to establish in Canada" to include social as well as economic factors. Pursuing agreements with NGOs to locate, identify, refer and pre-screen refugee applications in areas where refugees are most in need of protection. Ensuring that people in urgent need of protection are brought to Canada within days. Why we are doing it: To ensure that the need for protection is the overriding objective in resettlement from abroad. To focus existing resources on areas where refugees are most in need of protection. Facilitating Family Reunification of Refugees What we are doing: Processing overseas families as a unit, including extended family members of refugees whenever possible. Allowing dependants of refugees, selected inland or abroad, to be processed as part of the same application for a period of one year after a refugee has acquired permanent resident status. Exempting refugees, their spouses, partners and dependants from the admission bar with regard to excessive demand on health or social services. Why we are doing it: To facilitate the reunification of refugees with their family members as soon as reasonably practicable. Faster and Fair Refugee Processing Inland What we are doing: Referral to the IRB to be made within three working days. Consolidating protection decisions at the IRB to examine all risk grounds at a single hearing. Grounds will include the Geneva Convention, the Convention against Torture, and the risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment. The use of single-member panels as the norm, supported by the establishment of a paper appeal on merit. Reducing the waiting period from 5 to 3 years for the landing in Canada of undocumented refugees who are unable to obtain documents from their listed country of origin because there is no central authority in that country to issue documents. Why we are doing it: To allow genuine refugees to be processed faster so that their lives are not put in limbo while they wait for decisions crucial to their future. To provide a fair opportunity to correct errors in law or fact in the first instance, and to increase the integrity of the decision-making process. Front-end Security Screening What it is: A security check initiated when a person makes a refugee claim. Why we are doing it: To catch criminals and people who present security risks at the start of the process and speed genuine refugees through the system. Currently, a security screening is carried out only once a person is granted refugee status by the IRB. Admissibility Hearing What it is: A hearing before an independent adjudicator to decide whether a person is admissible to Canada. Why we are doing it: To make fair but fast decisions on security cases. Pre-removal Risk Assessment What we are doing: Legislating a procedure to fairly assess the risk of return prior to removal. There will be flexibility for an oral hearing should the complexity of the case require it. Repeat claimants, failed refugee claimants, and refugees who have withdrawn or abandoned their claims will be assessed on the grounds of the Geneva Convention, the United Nations Convention against Torture, and the risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment. People found to be inadmissible to Canada for reasons of serious criminality, security, organized crime or violations of human rights will be assessed on the grounds of the United Nations Convention against Torture and the risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment. Why we are doing it: To ensure that there is a fair and effective procedure for assessing the risk of return for individuals being removed from Canada. Strengthening Enforcement Penalties What we are doing: Increasing penalties for existing offences. Creating a new offence for human trafficking. Extending Criminal Code counterfeiting provisions (which currently apply only to passports) to cover any immigration document or travel document (with an exemption for refugees). Allowing for the seizure of assets in cases of migrant smuggling and trafficking. Providing new authority to seize citizenship documents to prevent fraud. Creating a new offence for people who counsel a person to misrepresent himself or herself or to commit an offence under the Act. Creating a new offence for the possession and laundering of proceeds from immigration offences. Raising the penalty to life in prison for migrant smuggling and trafficking. Why we are doing it: To ensure that we have the tools we need to combat organized crime and human trafficking. Exclusion from the Refugee Determination System What we are doing: Barring access to serious criminals, people who present security risks, organizers of criminal operations, or violators of human rights. A "serious criminal" is defined as someone who was convicted of an offence punishable by 10 years or more and who has received a sentence of 2 years or more in Canada. People convicted of an offence punishable by 10 years or more outside Canada will only be excluded if the Minister finds them to be a danger to the public. Why we are doing it: To prevent abuse of the refugee protection system. Eliminating Appeals What we are doing: Eliminating appeals to the Immigration Appeal Division for serious criminals, people who present security risks, members of criminal organizations and war criminals. There will remain recourse to judicial review with leave by the Federal Court. Why we are doing it: To ensure that we can remove serious criminals and people who pose a security threat to Canada without delay. Suspension of a Refugee Claim What it is: The ability to suspend a person's application for protection before the IRB if he or she has been charged with a crime. The claim would be suspended until the courts have rendered a decision on the case. Why we are doing it: To prevent abuse of the system by people who come to Canada not because they need protection but because they intend to engage in crime. Repeat Claims What we are doing: Extending the period after which a new claim can be made from 90 days to six months. Why we are doing it: To avoid "revolving door" situations where failed refugee claimants return to Canada and make multiple claims. Detention and Day Parole What we are doing: Excluding incarcerated foreign criminals under removal order from day parole. Why we are doing it: It is inconsistent to integrate individuals into Canadian society who are to be deported on completion of their sentence. Streamlined Security Certificate Process What we are doing: Applying to permanent residents the security certificate process that currently applies only to non-permanent residents. The process requires the signatures of two ministers to the effect that the person is inadmissible on grounds of security, and a review of the certificate by a Federal Court judge. Why we are doing it: To make it easier to remove permanent residents who pose a serious threat to national security. New Inadmissibility Classes What they are: Two new classes of people who will be inadmissible to Canada: (1) people subject to travel sanctions imposed by Canada as a member of an international organization such as the United Nations; (2) people who committed fraud or misrepresentation on an immigration application will be inadmissible for 2 years. Why we are doing it: To strengthen our ability to enforce international sanctions. To prevent immigration to Canada through fraudulent means. Backgrounder # 3 Milestones On the Road to New Legislation Since 1996, the Government of Canada has been reviewing immigration and refugee policy and legislation with a view to fundamental policy reform and the introduction of new legislation. The comprehensive review process that has been under way since has involved a significant number of consultations with many different groups and interests as well as with individual Canadians. Ministers have been discussing immigration reform with Canadians for more than four years. This process has included: The appointment of a Legislative Review Advisory Group (LRAG) in 1996 commenced a major consultation process both by LRAG and by the government on their report, Not Just Numbers, in 1998. A Red Book commitment in 1997 and 2000 to streamline and update the immigration/refugee system, which promised to implement changes to make Canada's immigration system simpler, more effective, and more easily understood. The release of the White Paper, Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century: New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy and Legislation in January 1999; Consultations on the White Paper with Canadians, provinces and territories, non-government organizations, the legal community, special interest groups, and the business sector throughout 1999; Immigration commitments in the 1999 Throne Speech, Budget 2000 and 2001 Throne Speech; including the 2001 Throne Speech commitment to re-introduce legislation to streamline and improve the immigration system. Consultations leading up to the Standing Committee Report of March 22, 2000 entitled Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance; and The introduction of the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Bill C-31 & Bill C- ) in 2000 and 2001. General agreement on fundamentals There is general agreement that Canada needs a new Act that is simpler, more effective, and more easily understood. Canadians want to stop abuse of our immigration and refugee system and protect Canada's borders. They want a system that is fair, effective, and respectful of Canada's humanitarian traditions and international commitments in a world of increasing migration pressures. They also agree that Canada needs immigrants to contribute to Canada's economic growth and prosperity. The business community needs access to the highly skilled global workforce. Canadians recognize that immigration is largely responsible for Canada's rich and diverse culture, and is a key advantage in the global economy. Canadians want a system that reflects our traditions of family reunification and family values, honours our history of compassion for refugees needing a safe haven, and contains selection criteria for immigrants that will ensure that newcomers contribute Canada's economic and social fabric. Immigration has proved to be a successful economic, social and cultural strategy for Canada in the past and will continue to be so in the future. 2001-03 Backgrounder # 4 Detention Provisions Clarified Detention is one of the most serious measures a liberal society can impose on individuals. It must be limited to cases where it is clearly warranted and does not contravene Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, Canadians want to ensure that their safety and security is protected and that that their borders remain safe. Current grounds for detention remain unchanged Under the current legislation, there are three main commonly used grounds for detention: 1.Failure to establish identity; 2.Danger to the public; and 3.Unlikely to appear for future immigration proceedings or removal. Detention process will be more effective and transparent The criteria for detention decisions will be established in the new Regulations. There will be a requirement to review detention decisions after 48 hours, with further reviews scheduled after 7 days and each subsequent 30-day period. Foreign criminals facing deportation orders will not be eligible for day parole, as they are unlikely to respect conditions set out in temporary release programs. Priority hearings for those in detention To balance increased detention measures, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) will give priority to hearings for those being held in detention. This streamlining should prevent refugee claimants from remaining in detention for long periods of time. Every step in the process from the irregular arrival of a foreign national in Canada to his or her removal following a negative decision will be fair and faster. Protection of unaccompanied minors While the legislative package honours Canada's international commitments to protect the best interests of the child, the security and safety of unprotected minors arriving as part of a criminally organized smuggling or trafficking operation is a major concern. These children are vulnerable to exploitation and coercion by the traffickers; in these cases, detention is truly a last resort and this is stipulated in the Act. The Government of Canada will make every effort to make arrangements with provincial social services to protect these children effectively, while seeking to ensure that they are not deprived of education and other basic needs. 2001-03 Backgrounder # 5 A Fair, Faster, More Effective Refugee Determination Process Front-end security screening of all refugee claimants In the current system, security and background checks are initiated only once an individual has had a refugee claim accepted and has applied for permanent resident status. In the new system, security screening will be initiated for all claimants at the time the claim is submitted. Greater coordination between domestic and international agencies will improve the timeliness of security information. Faster referrals to the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) The legislation will speed up this process by clarifying grounds of eligibility and automatically referring all eligible claims to the IRB within 3 working days. Consolidated assessment of protection grounds at the IRB Currently, assessment of the grounds for protection is handled in several stages, one at the IRB and the others at Citizenship and Immigration (CIC). The new system will consolidate these grounds in one risk assessment during a single hearing process at the IRB. The grounds for assessment of risk are: Geneva Convention on Refugees, risk of torture (Convention Against Torture), and risk to life and/or cruel and unusual punishment. These grounds are not new; they are merely being brought together from several current steps into one. Use of single-member panels as the norm at the IRB Currently, two-member panels hear refugee cases at the IRB, and in the majority of cases the decisions are unanimous. The process will be made more efficient by the use of single-member panels as the norm. Greater use of Ministerial interventions The Minister (by delegated authority to her officials) will have the right to intervene at IRB hearings to present security information or other data pertinent to the case. Greater coordination between domestic and international agencies will improve the timeliness and accuracy of information. Paper review on merit to be introduced To ensure consistency in decision-making and fairness to all refugee claimants, a paper review on merit may be conducted by a division of the IRB. This step is intended to ensure fairness and reduce the number of protracted applications for leave for judicial review by the Federal Court. Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) In keeping with Canada's international commitment not to repatriate people who would face risk upon return, the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) will be provided on the same consolidated protection grounds, and coordinated with CIC removal priorities. Pursuant to the Geneva Convention, serious criminals, security risks, and members of organized crime groups will be excluded from consideration of refugee protection grounds. Their PRRA will be limited to risk of torture and cruel and unusual punishment. Linking the PRRA and the removal process will allow for expeditious -- yet fair -- treatment of all removal cases. This will ensure that no one will be sent to a situation of risk to life or cruel and unusual punishment in their country of nationality. Six month bar on repeat claims If a person returns to Canada after removal, they will not be allowed to reapply for refugee status for six months following removal. Prior to the six months, previously refused claimants would continue to have the option of seeking protection at any Canadian mission abroad. Persons who return to Canada after six months may apply for a pre-removal risk assessment but they are not able to re-access the refugee protection system of the IRB. Criminals will be barred from the Refugee Protection System The new Legislation clarifies inadmissibility criteria to ensure that serious criminals, terrorists, human rights violators and security risks will be barred from access to the refugee determination system and promptly removed from Canada. Campaign Against Fraudulent Medical Research P.O. Box 234 Lawson, New South Wales 2783 Australia Phone: +61 (0)2-4758-6822 URL: www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr Although the above materials are highly recommended by CAFMR, we do not necessarily share all the views expressed by the authors. Note about copyright: Any of the above information may be downloaded, copied, printed or otherwise distributed without seeking permission from CAFMR. However, printed acknowledgement is required when this is done. Bradley R. Smith Revisionism by: CODOH, POB 439016, San Diego, CA 92143 The Revisionist & Campus Project David Irving's Reply to Jeffrey Shallit's "Lies of Our Times" London, [ ] Dear Professor Shallit, I am not a subscriber to the Internet, but over the last few months I have heard repeatedly about scurrilous materials which you have been posting on that medium; at least you have had the courage to put your name to them as author, although this lays you open to the kind of lawsuit which I have started conducting--and winning--here in the British courts. I have so far seen versions of your Shallit's Report, and of your "Lies of Our Times." You appear to be interested in the Truth, and that being so I am making these comments to assist you in the search for that elusive quantitŁ. It appears that your primary source is a handout or handouts of the Wiener Library (Dr David Cesarini) and of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who have furnished the League of Human Rights of the B'nai Brith Canada with two lengthy secret reports which are the subject of dispute between me and the Board under both the Data Protection Act 1984 (the Board at first denied having any data on me), and the Defamation Act 1952 (the Board's solicitor is negotiating with me for permission to withdraw the reports in toto, in return for an undertaking by me not to pursue the matter in the courts). First, your "article" Lies of Our Times (forgive the quotation marks, but as you call me an "historian" it seems justified). David Irving David John Cawdell Irving is a British "historian", born in 1938. * Correct. According to David Cesarani of the Wiener Library in London, England, he attended Imperial College at the University of London, but never graduated. He holds no academic degree and no academic position at any university or college. * Correct. The same can be said for Winston S. Churchill, Thomas Babington Macaulay (The History of England), and the Gibbon who wrote The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, etc. Would you denigrate them as "historians" too? He calls himself a "moderate fascist", * Incorrect. Please produce the source of this spurious and libellous allegation. and claims, among other things that the gas chambers at Auschwitz (in which an estimated 2-3 million people died) were "built by the Poles after the war as a tourist attraction." * Not quite correct. I stated (on April 21, 1990 and other occasions): "The gas chamber which is shown to the tourists in Auschwitz is a dummy (Atrappe) built after the war by the Polish communists as a tourist attraction." In 1990, Dr Franciszek Piper, the then director of the Auschwitz State Museum & Archives, confirmed that this is true. As recently as 1995 the present directors confirmed in an interview with Eric Conan, of the well-known liberal French weekly L'Express, that the gas chamber shown to the tourists was constructed on the orders of the Polish communist government in 1948. "Tout y est faux," reported Conan, and the deputy chief of the site stated: "Pour l'instant, on la laisse en l'Łtat et on ne prŁcise rien au visiteur. C'est trop compliquŁ. On verra plus tard" (L'Express, January 26, 1995). (For this remark, he was fined DM 10,000 by a Munich court in May 1992. * Correct. On January 13, 1993 the fine was increased to DM30,000 in view of my refusal to retract the statement. (Why should I? It was true). In addition, on July 1, 1993 I was permanently banned from setting foot in the German Federal Archives, which had benefited over the years from my donations of half a ton of archival material including the diaries of Canaris, Himmler, Rommel, etc., which I had located, and which they have now had to relinquish to me; and on November 13, 1993 I was permanently banned from Germany. How's that for freedom of speech! The judge was quoted as saying that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were "an historically certain fact.") * Correct. The word used is offenkundig, and is used in German law to deny defence lawyers the introduction of any defence exhibits or witnesses, e.g. the aforementioned Dr Franciszek Piper whom we were prepared to call. There has been an outcry in the German legal profession against these methods, and Germany is to face a rebuke from the United Nations for her repression of freedom of opinion by such means. Of course, if you believe they are correct to adopt such tactics, such is your right. Irving denies being a "Holocaust denier" or "Hitler apologist", and seems willing to resort to legal action if necessary. * Correct. Last year one of Britain's biggest Sunday newspapers was forced to pay me substantial damages after they printed such a libel. I issued a Libel Writ in the High Court. (For legal reasons, namely the settlement agreed, I am not permitted to identify the newspaper or the amount, except off the record). I am currently pursuing Libel action in the British courts against The Observer, Deborah Lipstadt, (whose odious little tract has been foolishly published here, i.e. within the jurisdiction, by Penguin UK Ltd) and Svenska Dagbladet. You have been warned! In a recent fax printed in the K-W Record, he is reported as saying, "I have warned 22 British newspapers that I shall not hesitate to commence libel action if they use smear phrases such like 'Hitler apologist' or 'Holocaust denier' to embellish their writings." But Bernard Levin, writing in The Times of London in May of this year, quoted Irving as saying, "I hope the court will fight a battle for the German people and put an end to the blood lie of the Holocaust which has been told against this country for 50 years." Irving first entered the headlines in 1970. * Incorrect. Ever since 1963 my books have been the subject of wide comment and much praise in the British media. In July of that year, he was forced to apologize in the High Court of London for "making a wholly untrue and highly damaging statement about a woman writer."--not an auspicious start for someone who claims to be in pursuit of the truth. * Correct. A Sunday Express journalist, Jill -----, stated that Rolf Hochhuth, the German playwright and one of my closest friends had granted her an exclusive interview. Hochhuth assured me he had not even spoken to her. I mentioned this in a letter to the newspaper's editor. She sued. As I was fighting the hideously costly PQ.17 Libel Action at the time, I had no alternative but to settle out of court-- "shortening the front," is what military commanders call such action. Make of that what you will. Nothing has been heard of that "journalist" since. Later that year, Irving was back in the headlines, concerning publication of his book, "The Destruction of Convoy PQ17". Ostensibly an expose of an ill-fated 1942 Arctic convoy headed for the Soviet Union during World War II, it eventually resulted in Irving being fined 40,000 British pounds for libel. * Incorrect. In actions for Libel--a tort--the defendant is not fined, but can be required to pay damages. The book was published by Simon & Schuster and other leading pubishers around the world. Not bad for an "historian", eh? Irving's book faulted Captain John Broome, commander of the convoy at the time, saying he was guilty of "downright disobedience" and "downright desertion of the convoy." * Incorrect. No such allegations or quotations are contained within the book. Broome brought suit against Irving for false statements, and won a judgment in August of 1970. Irving's lawyers appealed, and lost in March, 1971. * Correct. We then appealed to the House of Lords, twice, and lost 4-to-3,which is a pretty close call. Needless to say the insurers of Cassell & Co Ltd, the British publishers, would not have authorised such defence actions had their counsel not studied all the documents available and concluded that we had a powerful defence, based on the Admiralty records; this they in fact did, and wrote Opinions to that effect. Libel actions in Britain are tried by jury. Make of that what you will. The case is revealing because of what it says about Irving's abilities as a historian and his motives as an author. According to The Times of London, Irving showed a copy of the manuscript to Broome before publication. * Correct. I showed the late Captain Broome the mansucript in 1966, and he agreed to read it and make comment (as did a score of other officers involved); breaking his undertaking, he alone decided not to co-operate, but to wait for publication and then sue for profit. So be it. Broome objected to the accuracy of some thirty passages in the book, and threatened to sue for libel if Irving did not make changes. * Incorrect. He objected in reality to six words ("Captain Broome was a broken man"), and after these words were expunged, years later, his lawyers permitted the book's republication by William Kimber Ltd. At that point, William Kimbers Ltd., Irving's publisher, notified him that they would not publish the book as it was then written. * Incorrect. I was in dispute with William Kimber after they paid me only £67 instead of the agreed fee of £200 for translating the book, The Memoirs or Field-Marshal Wilhelm Keitel. This being so, I removed the PQ17 manuscript physically from their offices; Kimber's secretary came running down the street after me, pleading for me to return it. I keep a very detailed diary of events. In court, Kimber, already probably suffering from the Parkinsonism from which he later died, gave a totally different version, namely yours; he later apologised to me, which did not assist me much of course. Unfortunately, our counsel elected to call no witnesses in the case but to rest securely on the Admiralty documents. Later, Irving published the book with another publisher. The court found that Irving "was warned from most responsible quarters that his book contained libels on Captain Broome ... To make [the book] a success he was ready to risk libel actions ... Documentary evidence .... showed that [Irving] had deliberately set out to attack Captain Broome and in spite of the most explicit warnings persisted in his attack because it would help sell the book." The court labeled Irving's conduct as "outrageous and shocking." Irving's misrepresentations did not end with the publication of his book. According to Cesarani, in 1979 a German publisher had to pay compensation to the father of Anne Frank after printing the German edition of Irving's book, Hitler's War. Irving had claimed that Anne Frank's diary was a forgery. * Correct as written. Without consulting me, the Ullstein Verlag publishing firm, part of the pro-Israeli Axel Springer Group) made some unspecified payment to Otto Frank at his demand. I had already halted production and publication of the book for other reasons (tampering by Ullstein with my text). The German Bundeskriminalamt found that parts of the diary had been written in (post-war) ballpoint ink-paste, which made its authenticity problematic. My opinion on it now is ambivalent: it is unimportant, not a historical document of any value. Irving claims that according to his "research", the Holocaust is greatly exaggerated. * Correct. I think the figures have been magnified by an Order of Magnitude. Events in Auschwitz alone suggest that I am right:: here the figure has been effortlessly brought down from 4 million to 1 million, and now to even less. (He was recently quoted in the K-W Record as saying that the number of Jews who died in concentration camps was "of the order of 100,000 or more.") * Incorrect. Do you really believe all the newspapers say? I may have said "killed", not "died". But during the 1988 trial of pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel, he was forced to admit under cross-examination that he hadn't even read all of Eichmann's 1960 trial testimony. (In this testimony, Eichmann admitted that Nazi leaders discussed the so-called "Final Solution to the Jewish problem"--extermination, in 1942.) * Incorrect. I have Eichmann's manuscript memoirs, given to me in Buenos Aires in November 1991. He states that to him Final Solution always meant the Madagascar Solution. Anyway, do you really want to base your case on the utterances of a Nazi war criminal? In November 1991, a reporter from The Independent showed that Irving omitted crucial lines from a translation of Goebbels' diaries--lines that would have contradicted his theory that Hitler knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews. * Incorrect. Which "crucial lines" am I supposed to have omitted? Irving's record is clear: he is not an historian, and he has made false statements and been forced to apologize for them. As Andrew Cohen, reporter for the Financial Post, has said, "David Irving should be denied credibility." * Well, that really wants to make me hang up my shingle: namely, that a shyster from a money-rag doesn't believe me. What a waste of kilobytes, when there are megabytes of reputable historians saying precisely the opposite about me. Yours sincerely, David Irving Focal Point Publications Professor Jeffrey Shallit Associate Professor Computer Science Department University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario Canada The following is the full text of the article by Mr. Shallit that Mr. Irving quotes in the preceding letter. LIES OF OUR TIMES by Jeffrey Shallit How the Words of the Holocaust Deniers and Their Allies Show Them For What They Are 1. Background Canada has a long tradition of tolerance and multiculturalism. That's why many residents of the K-W area were shocked and saddened to learn that a stereo store on King Street in Kitchener was displaying posters advertising a talk by David Irving, a self-described historian who says that the estimates of six million Jews killed by the Nazis during World War II are greatly exaggerated. Inside the store, according to the K-W Record, one can find for sale a book by Fred Leuchter that claims that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were never used for mass killing. After local protests, the store owner retaliated by putting up posters about the banking system based on the writings of anti-Semite Eustace Mullins. Subsequently, these posters were taken down by the store owner, but one explicitly anti-Semitic flyer still remains. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record recently carried a letter to the editor by Paul Fromm, director of "Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc.". This letter defended neo-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel, saying, "Zundel was dragged through the courts for nine years ... MERELY for his UNPOPULAR views." [emphasis mine] Who are Michael Rothe, David Irving, Fred Leuchter, Eustace Mullins, and Paul Fromm, and what do they stand for? 2. Michael Rothe Michael Rothe is the owner of European Sound Imports, at 109 King Street W. in Kitchener. According to the K-W Record, he is a native of southern Germany, who came to Canada eight years ago. His stereo store might appear harmless on the outside, but on the inside, one can obtain anti-Semitic propaganda from a variety of sources. According to the Record, in addition to the book by Fred Leuchter mentioned above, one can also purchase a booklet on the court battles of pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel. Rothe also believes that the Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated, and that there is a world-wide Jewish conspiracy behind it. "They want money. When they have money they have power," he has been quoted as saying. Although Rothe has claimed, "I have not seen a neo-Nazi before," according to the Record, he attended a recent "victory party" for Ernst Zundel, and Zundel was recently sighted at his store. When I asked Rothe if he knew what Irving would speak on, he claimed, "Irving comes to speak on Germany ... only Germany." When I pointed out that this was false, that Irving actually spends a significant portion of his speeches discussing how the Holocaust is a hoax, he repeated, "No, that is wrong -- Irving only speaks about Germany." However, the posters Rothe himself has put up belie this claim--they list the Holocaust as a topic of Irving's speech. 3. David Irving David John Cawdell Irving is a British "historian", born in 1938. According to David Cesarani of the Wiener Library in London, England, he attended Imperial College at the University of London, but never graduated. He holds no academic degree and no academic position at any university or college. He calls himself a "moderate fascist", and claims, among other things that the gas chambers at Auschwitz (in which an estimated 2-3 million people died) were "built by the Poles after the war as a tourist attraction." (For this remark, he was fined DM 10,000 by a Munich court in May 1992. The judge was quoted as saying that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were "an historically certain fact.") Irving denies being a "Holocaust denier" or "Hitler apologist", and seems willing to resort to legal action if necessary. In a recent fax printed in the K-W Record, he is reported as saying, "I have warned 22 British newspapers that I shall not hesitate to commence libel action if they use smear phrases such like 'Hitler apologist' or 'Holocaust denier' to embellish their writings." But Bernard Levin, writing in The Times of London in May of this year, quoted Irving as saying, "I hope the court will fight a battle for the German people and put an end to the blood lie of the Holocaust which has been told against this country for 50 years." Irving first entered the headlines in 1970. In July of that year, he was forced to apologize in the High Court of London for "making a wholly untrue and highly damaging statement about a woman writer."--not an auspicious start for someone who claims to be in pursuit of the truth. Later that year, Irving was back in the headlines, concerning publication of his book, "The Destruction of Convoy PQ17". Ostensibly an expose of an ill-fated 1942 Arctic convoy headed for the Soviet Union during World War II, it eventually resulted in Irving being fined 40,000 British pounds for libel. Irving's book faulted Captain John Broome, commander of the convoy at the time, saying he was guilty of "downright disobedience" and "downright desertion of the convoy." Broome brought suit against Irving f