Toronto, Ontario
‑‑- Upon resuming on Tuesday, December 8, 1998
at 10:00 a.m.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.
MR. ROSEN: I am ready to proceed with cross-examination, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHRISTIE: I have a few more questions.
You asked me to clarify what the Court was going to do in Vancouver in Bersheid. My secretary finally got through to the Trial Court in Vancouver, and she advised that the Court had set June 14 to 30 and July 1 to 7 for Bersheid. That makes available April 6 to 9, 13 to 23, the whole month of May, June 1 to 4, June 10 to 11.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It makes available all the dates that we discussed yesterday with the exception of the ones that the Tribunal has a reservation of rights on. We will deal with that shortly.
Mr. Rosen, please.
MR. ROSEN: I just want to point out that April 9 and 10, I believe, are Passover, so the 9th is out. In addition to that, April 15 and 16 are, I believe, the last two days of Passover.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So what are we saying in terms of dates on which you suggest we can't sit, the 9th...?
MR. ROSEN: The 9th and 15th and 16th.
MEMBER DEVINS: Is it the 10th as well?
MR. ROSEN: The 10th, I think, is a Saturday.
THE CHAIRPERSON: The Tribunal will come up with a fresh schedule today and we will submit it to all.
MEMBER DEVINS: Thank you very much for getting those dates.
MR. CHRISTIE: I have obtained the transcript of Mr. Weber's qualification process in the District Court, and I have copies of that, together with the Ruling which I would like to introduce on the voir dire only as evidence of what took place in that proceeding and the ruling that was made.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess the question will be that, if we look at this, whether there are parallels to be followed in terms of the kind of evidence that was adduced in that hearing and what the implications of it are. Perhaps we can deal with that in argument and then, if we decide to look at that, we will do that.
RESUMED: MARK WEBER
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF, Continued
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Mr. Weber, when you testified 10 years ago in the Zundel trial, what was the subject matter that you were analyzing and upon which you were asked to express your opinion?
A. Primarily I did a line-by-line analysis of the booklet, "Did Six Million Really Die?"
Q. During the last 10 years have you been involved in carrying out any historical research or study in relation to the area of the Second World War and the Holocaust and the issues of the alleged extermination policy of the German government?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. How often and by what means?
A. On a regular basis during the past 10 years, especially in connection with my work at the Institute for Historical Review, I regularly carry out research and study on these questions.
Q. Are you a full-time employee at that institute?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is your position there?
A. I am Director of IHR and Editor of the Journal of Historical Review.
Q. How often is the Journal of Historical Review published?
A. Six times a year.
Q. What are the subjects that it publishes on?
A. The biggest concentration has to do with the Holocaust, Jewish-non-Jewish relations, Second World War, but the journal does deal with other issues, especially 20th century history in the United States and Europe.
Q. In these proceedings there is a pamphlet introduced called "Jewish Soap." Do you have any personal knowledge of that pamphlet?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Why?
A. I am the author of it.
Q. You have listed in your CV articles that you have published in the Journal of Historical Review; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. How often do you attend at the Institute for Historical Review and carry out research in the course of a normal month?
A. I go to the office five or six times a week. Even when I am not at the office I almost daily do reading and study on these historical questions.
Q. Have you taken part in any academic debates about the subject of the Holocaust?
A. Yes. The most significant one in this regard was in July 1995. I engaged in a two-hour debate with a professor at Occidental College in California on the Holocaust question. This was with Dr. Michael Shermer. He is a professor there of the History of Science and also editor of Skeptic Magazine which is a fairly well-read magazine in the United States.
MR. CHRISTIE: Those are my questions.
I was asked to specify the area of expertise in which I propose to call the witness. I am prepared to do that now.
Mark Weber is tendered as an expert on Holocaust history, Holocaust revisionism and the historical relations between Jews and non-Jews in modern times. He will be tendered to provide expert testimony on the social and historiographic context of Holocaust revisionism as identified ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Say that again, please.
MR. CHRISTIE: The social and historiographic context of Holocaust revisionism, including as expressed on what has been referred to here as the Zundelsite.
Mr. Weber will contest the opinions of Dr. Schweitzer about the allegedly hateful content of the Zundelsite, explaining its importance in the context of an ongoing historical debate.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Will you give me what you said again preceding the one about social and historiographic context?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mark Weber is an expert on Holocaust history, Holocaust revisionism and the relations between Jews and non-Jews in modern history and will provide expert testimony on the social and historiographic context of Holocaust revisionism, including as expressed on the Zundelsite.
Mr. Weber will contest opinions of Dr. Schweitzer about the allegedly hateful content of the Zundelsite, explaining its import in the context of an ongoing historical debate.
As an expert, Mr. Weber will testify that Zundelsite postings can and should be seen as part of a vital, global, historical debate on the nature and scope of the wartime fate of Europe's Jews. He will explain the revisionist side in this debate and indicate that it does not expose Jews to hatred or contempt but is, rather, a salutary correction of a dogmatically one-sided, anti-German, non-scholarly portrayal of the past.
He will allege the existence of a Holocaust industry which, in the context of this debate, is bad for Jews and causes hatred.
MR. KURZ: I don't think it is necessary for Mr. Christie to give us a précis of his anticipated evidence. When I stood up, I just wanted to know what he is being tendered as an expert in, not what he is going to testify on. I don't think it is necessary for Mr. Christie to read in the evidence.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You have covered the area in which his propositions will fall.
MR. CHRISTIE: I am anticipating the objections to be either in the realm of competence or in the realm of relevance. In order to deal in some practical way with any allegations about relevance, one has to identify what the areas of tendered evidence will be, and I intend to do that in order to show the relevance. If I cannot demonstrate or indicate what the intended evidence is, there is no way that I could address issues of relevance.
If you wish me to indicate that ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have more to say in that area?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, I did, but I understand the objection.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Weber can testify as to the effect and historical validity of Zundelsite postings in the context of the ongoing historical debate.
Mr. Weber will testify that revisionism brings a humanizing and rational perspective to Holocaust history by offsetting the virtually religious dogmatism that now prevails. Revisionist scholarship helps the public to see Jews, as well as non-Jews, as human beings caught up in a tragic but explicable chapter of history.
He will suggest that some professional Holocaust dogmatics seek to stifle the debate by baseless allegations of hurt feelings such as antisemitism to prevent the discussion of this debate. He will identify that process in the nature of this complaint. I will repeat that.
He will suggest that some professional Holocaust dogmatics seek to stifle debate by baseless allegations of hurt feelings or antisemitism as is the nature of the complaint in this case.
That is the intended scope and purpose of the evidence of Mr. Weber.
I have the examination-in-chief and cross-examination on the qualifications of Mr. Weber which I have photocopied, along with the ruling of His Honour Judge Thomas as he then was. If it is not of any use at the moment, I am prepared to wait.
THE CHAIRPERSON: My colleague and I will decide whether we are going to look at that after full argument.
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.
MR. FREIMAN: In line with the Tribunal's direction to save time and to avoid repetition, Mr. Rosen will take the lead in cross-examination. Ms Zayid or I may have one or two questions at the end of the day.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Rosen, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Mr. Weber, I understand, sir, that you were born in Portland, Oregon in October 1951. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So that would make you, what, 47 years old?
A. Yes.
Q. Am I correct, sir, that you were raised in the Portland, Oregon area?
A. That's correct.
Q. You went to the Jesuit high school there?
A. That's correct.
Q. You graduated from high school, did you?
A. Yes.
Q. In 1969?
A. That's correct.
Q. That would make you about 17 or 18 years old?
A. I was 17.
Q. Then, I understand, sir, you travelled a bit. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. After travelling, you returned to the United States and went to university. Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You studied for a year at the University of Illinois at Chicago?
A. That's correct.
Q. You then studied for a year at the University of Munich in Germany. Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You called it two semesters. It would be the equivalent of an academic year?
A. Right.
Q. It may have taken you longer to do the two years because you were there for quite a while. Right?
A. I was there a year and a half altogether.
Q. That's right. Then you ultimately at some point in time returned to Portland State University where you got your Bachelor's Degree in history. Is that right?
A. To be more precise, I went to Portland State University and then the University of Illinois and then the University of Munich and then went back to Portland State.
Q. That is not clear in your CV. I take it that you were not at the University of Illinois on an exchange program with Portland.
A. No.
Q. And you were not at the University of Munich under the auspices of Portland State University, were you?
A. No.
Q. In fact, you did not complete your year at Portland State University in the first year before you went off to Illinois and Munich, did you?
A. The question is unclear. I completed a year at Portland.
Q. You spent the time there, but you didn't get full credit for a year of university, did you?
A. At Portland State University?
Q. That's right. You took less than a year's worth of credit, didn't you?
A. I think I did do a year's worth of credits, but I don't remember exactly.
Q. In any event, what year did you ultimately get your Bachelor's Degree in history?
A. I think it is on the CV.
Q. It isn't, actually.
A. I think it was 1976 or 1975.
Q. So, really, it took you from 1969 to 1975 or 1976 to complete four years of university.
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. To get a Bachelor's Degree.
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. You didn't get a degree before 1975 or 1976, did you?
A. No ‑‑ but that is misleading. I didn't start university in 1969 after I left high school.
Q. I understand. What I am saying, sir, is that from 1969 to 1975 or 1976 you did a number of things, going to these schools and travelling around. Right?
A. And working.
Q. And working, of course. Then at some point you spent about a year and a half getting a Master's Degree in European history in 1977 from Indiana University in Bloomington. Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So that we are clear, sir, in your university years and your undergraduate years, you did not study Holocaust studies as part of your course work, did you?
A. I did some studies in graduate school, but not primarily.
Q. That was not my question. My question was: In undergraduate school you didn't do any, did you?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Then in your Master of Arts Degree in European history the topic of your study or the main part of your study was on Hapsburg Europe, wasn't it?
A. That is correct, and 20th century Austro-Hungarian history, yes.
Q. Of course, the Hapsburgs went into the 20th century, up until World War I, didn't they?
A. Of course.
Q. And it was not a Master of Arts Degree in European history focused on a study of the Holocaust, was it?
A. No.
Q. Since you got your Master's Degree in European history in 1977, you have not gotten any other post-graduate degree, have you?
A. No.
Q. You say in your CV that you travelled widely in Europe and northwestern Africa. Right? That is what it says?
A. Yes.
Q. You lived and worked for two and a half years in Germany, Bonn and Munich. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And for a time in Ghana in west Africa where you taught English, history and geography, you say, at a secondary school level. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Was that just sort of on an ad hoc basis? You are saying "yes"?
A. I am waiting for the question.
Q. Was that teaching on an ad hoc basis or was that under the auspices of a particular program?
A. I don't know what you mean by "ad hoc" in this context. It wasn't as part of a program, no.
Q. You weren't with the Peace Corps.
A. No, I wasn't.
Q. And you weren't with any other government aid program, were you?
A. No.
Q. You were essentially either in school or travelling around for the period 1969 to 1977. Right ‑‑ about eight years?
A. I travelled. I lived in different countries. I went to school in different places, and I worked, yes.
Q. Through all that period of time you were able to avoid your conscription duty to the U.S. Services; isn't that right?
A. Are you implying that this was a way to avoid conscription or that I just wasn't conscripted?
Q. You didn't go, did you?
A. I was exempted because of a lottery.
Q. Because of what?
A. Because of a lottery. There was a lottery system at the time.
Q. You were exempted because of the lottery system, not because you were out of the country or not because you just made sure you were in one school or another to avoid your duty as an American citizen.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Of course, while you were doing this, you were gaining an insight into racism as a credo; isn't that right?
A. No, that is not right.
Q. White supremacy became your credo, didn't it?
A. No.
Q. You believe in the separation of the races, don't you?
A. I don't understand the question. Is this a question relating to then or now?
Q. You believe in the separation of the races, don't you?
A. I don't even know what the question means. Do I believe that the races are separated or should be separated?
Q. Mr. Weber, you know exactly what I mean. Let's not fool around. You personally believe that the white race should stay white, the black race should stay black, the yellow yellow, and so forth. Isn't that right?
A. I believe that each race should decide for itself what it wants to do.
Q. And you are a member of the white race, aren't you?
MR. CHRISTIE: Is that really relevant?
THE WITNESS: I think it is an insulting question. I am not a member of the white race; my race is white.
MR. ROSEN:
Q. And you consider yourself a member of the white race as opposed to some other race, don't you?
A. My race is white, yes.
Q. And you don't believe that you or any other person who is white should dilute that white race to something else, do you?
A. That's a ridiculous question.
Q. Is it?
A. Yes. It's an insulting question.
Q. Let's see what you did for the period that you were on the road from high school onward.
At some point in time after you did your travelling, you went to work and live in Washington, D.C. Is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. While you were there, you went to work for a publication called the National Vanguard; is that right?
A. That is not quite correct. I was never employed by that publication. For about a year I was a member of the National Alliance which publishes a paper called the National Vanguard and I contributed to the paper.
Q. You told the Court in 1988, the Ontario District Court of Ontario as it was then, in the case of Her Majesty the Queen v. Ernst Zundel ‑‑ that is the one you testified at. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You testified there in March 1988. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You told the Court that you were the News Editor of the National Vanguard. Correct?
A. That's correct ‑‑ for a period of time.
Q. For a period of time, that's right. While you were the News Editor of the National Vanguard, there appeared a May 1978 edition of the Vanguard with a portion that you wrote. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes, I assume. I don't recall exactly, but I had articles in a number of issues about that time.
Q. You don't remember your discussion with Mr. John Pearson, the prosecutor at the time, that went on for 50 or 60 pages of transcript?
A. Oh, yes, I remember. I just don't remember specifically the date of the issue that you are referring to.
Q. Let me see if I can assist your memory.
Sir, I have produced for you part of your cross-examination in Volume XXV of the trial before Mr. Justice Thomas. Do you see that on the first page?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. At page 6524 Mr. Pearson asked you at about line 20:
"Q. You told us on Friday that you are or you were the news editor of the National Vanguard; is that right?
A. For ‑‑ well...
Q. Were you the news editor?
A. For a period of time. Eight years ago. More than eight years ago, I was affiliated with the paper.
Q. Right, and this is an article that appeared in the May 1978 edition of the National Vanguard, isn't it?"
He produces it for you, and on the next page you say:
"That's correct. I haven't seen this article in quite a few years."
Does that help you to refresh your memory, sir, that it was May 1978?
A. Yes.
Q. In May 1978 ‑‑ you told us that you got your Master's Degree in European history in December 1977. Correct?
A. I don't recall specifically, but I may have.
Q. And by May of 1978 here you are in Washington, D.C. the editor of the National Vanguard and writing almost one of your first articles for that publication. Right?
A. Well, it was almost one of my last, to be more accurate.
Q. The point is that you are writing about yourself.
A. It is the only article I wrote about myself, yes.
Q. The article that you wrote about yourself has a summary at the top of it in bold letters, which is set out at page 6526. Search as I did, I could not find a copy of the original, so we will go with the transcript:
"The best way to judge an organization or a movement is to look closely at the people who make it up. Decide whether or not they are people of character and intelligence who really understand the principles they are promoting and are deeply committed to them. Ask yourself whether they are the sort of people you want to become involved with; the sort of people in whom you can have confidence."
Do you see that? That little summary appeared at the top of the article before your words begin, didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Then it goes on with your little history of yourself. Is that right, Mr. Weber?
A. That is one way to put it.
Q. Let's see what your history was. Starting at about line 23 at page 6526:
"My first interest in politics..."
Then there is an objection by Mr. Christie, and we will start again. If you go to page 6528 ‑‑ by the way, so we are clear, you are the one who is reading this to the Court at that time, aren't you?
A. That's correct.
Q."My first interest in politics began during the Kennedy-Johnson years of unrestrained liberal optimism."
Are those your words?
A. As I recall, yes.
Q. Of course, "unrestrained liberal optimism" is your way of saying that those were the times that people got sucked into thinking the wrong way. Isn't that right?
A. No.
Q."Kennedy announced the Peace Corps and the alliance for Progress. Johnson proclaimed that his War on Poverty and other programs would begin a new age of abundance and equality for all."
Right? That is what you wrote?
A. I wrote that, yes.
Q. Then you have:
"'Freedom marches' and civil rights laws were dismantling the last barriers to 'racial equality', we were told."
Is that what you wrote?
A. Yes.
Q. The reason you put "Freedom marches" in quotes ‑‑ of course, you were referring to the marches of the sixties by black civil rights workers trying to break down the laws of discrimination and segregation in the south, weren't you?
A. As much as by others, yes.
Q."Films such as 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner' suggested a happy mulatto future for America."
Is that what you wrote?
A. Yes.
Q. Of course, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" was the movie with Sidney Poitier who plays a black fiancé of a white girl?
A. That's correct.
Q. And is invited to meet her folks for the first time, and the reaction of the family to his arrival.
A. That's correct.
Q."I shared the national mood of childlike confidence."
Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you saw the national mood of the people of the United States at that time as not only one of confidence but of childlike confidence, being led down the garden path. Is that right, sir?
A. You are ascribing me words I didn't say.
Q. I know, but I am ascribing to you, sir, meanings. That is why you used the words "childlike confidence," isn't it?
A. You added more than just that.
Q. There was a reason for you to use "childlike", wasn't there?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever been to a church revival?
A. Yes.
Q. You know how somebody who has seen the light stands up in front of the congregation and begins by confessing their sins. Right?
A. I haven't seen that, but I have seen it on television.
Q. They confess their sins. Then, when they confess their sins, they tell their audience how they found the light to truth. Isn't that right?
A. I don't know. I have seen some movies and I have seen some television portrayals that portray something like that. I don't know quite what you are asking. Have I seen such a thing myself? No, I haven't.
Q. This is exactly what you are doing here in this little message, isn't it? You are confessing your sins, how you were led astray and down the garden path with the rest of America until you saw the light. Isn't that right, Mr. Weber?
A. Completely wrong.
Q. Let's see if I am wrong.
"I shared the national mood of childlike confidence. The President and the press claimed that the Great Society would usher in the liberal millennium."
Those are your words, aren't they?
A. That's correct.
Q."I took the politicians and the media masters at their word."
That is what you said?
A. Not exactly.
Q. Did you say:
"I took the politicians and the media masters at their word?"
A. Not exactly.
Q. You mean you misread that part of the pamphlet?
A. No, you misread what I wrote.
Q. Do you have the original?
A. No.
Q. Where have I ‑‑
A. You added the word "the", and it is not there.
Q. Oh, excuse me.
"I took the politicians and media masters at their word."
Is that right, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. We want it right. Media masters ‑‑ that is the same media masters that manipulate the press today when it comes to the Holocaust. Is that right?
A. I don't know if I would use the word "manipulate," and they are not the same necessarily at all. The answer, I suppose, would be "no," but anyway ‑‑
Q. What were you going to say? Go ahead and finish your answer.
A. We are talking about a ‑‑ I don't understand your question.
Q. You seemed to because you were going to give me an answer and then you cut yourself off. Go ahead and finish your answer.
A. Would you repeat the question, please.
Q. Media masters, sir, that is what we are talking about. Those are the same media masters who manipulate and control the press when it comes to Holocaust revisionism; isn't that right?
A. Nowadays?
Q. And back then.
A. Well, no. I mean, at that time there wasn't anything like what we call a Holocaust campaign in the media then. There is now. The media masters, presumably, are different; the politicians are different. There is a period of about 20 or 30 years' difference.
Q. And in the 20 or 30 years what has happened, of course, is that the likes of you have come on the scene. Right?
A. That is a pretty insulting way to put things, sir.
Q. Sir, let's see what else you said:
"I earnestly believed in the social perfectibility of man, and in my all-White high school, I vigorously defended the notion that all races were created equal."
Is that what you wrote?
A. That's correct.
Q. You don't believe that today, though, do you?
A. It's a compound sentence. I could identify each part of it if you wish.
Q."I vigorously defended the notion that all races were created equal."
Do you see that part?
A. Yes.
Q."‑‑ the notion that all races were created equal."
Those are your words.
A. Correct.
Q. That all races were created equal is an idea that you are speaking of there, isn't it?
A. That is part of the sentence.
Q. Do you still believe today that all races were created equal?
A. I believe that races differ in many different ways.
Q. So that races are not created equal, just different. Is that right?
A. Correct, yes.
Q."During the summer, I volunteered time to help tutor young Blacks."
Is that one of the sins of your past?
A. No, it's not.
Q."There were no Negroes in the Portland, Oregon neighbourhood where I grew up. Race was never discussed at home, and my parents actively supported liberal Democrats at election time."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I think so.
Q. Was that true?
A. Is that statement true? Yes, it is.
Q."Like many Americans in the North during the 1960's, I uncritically accepted the notion that inferior Negro social performance was the result of White racism and an environment of deprivation."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I think so.
Q. That is what you wrote?
A. That's correct.
Q. When you were in high school, according to this, that is what you believed. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Before you started your world travels. Is that correct, sir?
A. Yes.
Q."Like many Oregonians, I assumed that we would avoid racial problems by showing tolerance and understanding. We would be different from those racist Whites in the East and South, I thought."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I believe so.
Q. That is what you thought at the time?
A. That's correct.
Q. It turned out that you were wrong. Is that right? It turned out that those thoughts were wrong?
A. Well, I think that's ‑‑ you know.
Q."But if social and racial equality were realistic goals, why had they not been achieved long before?"
You ask; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is this a question you asked yourself in high school?
A. That's right.
Q. So away back in high school you were starting to dwell upon this concept of racial and social equality among the races. Is that right?
A. That is part of it. I was very, very interested in high school in this whole question of racial relations.
Q. You were?
A. Yes.
Q."‑‑ why had they not been achieved long before?"
Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You go on to say:
"Dissatisfied with both liberal and conservative explanations, I turned to Marxism for answers."
That is what you wrote?
A. That's correct.
Q. Liberal explanations, of course, would include the notion that inferior Negro social performance was the result of White racism and an environment of deprivation. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. What would conservative explanations be?
A. For many conservatives the same thing, I suppose.
Q. You suppose.
A. Yes. There is some split among many conservatives on that very point.
What I was meaning here was with regard to specifically the question I had raised just before that, not the sentence several lines before.
Q. But we are talking about notions, and this is your dissatisfaction with both liberal explanations that your parents held ‑‑ right?
A. Yes.
Q. And conservative explanations which you have not set out in this.
Would you agree with me that liberal and conservative explanations represent the mainstream of societal thought?
A. Certainly.
Q. Marxism or communism is one fringe on the left on the political spectrum.
A. I suppose, yes. I won't argue with that.
Q. And White racism and extremism and Naziism or neo-Naziism is the fringe on the right, isn't it?
A. I wouldn't combine all those things like that at all.
Q. That is the political spectrum in the United States, isn't it?
A. No, I wouldn't put it that way. I don't agree with that characterization.
Q. There are Marxists on the left, liberals, conservatives and White supremacists right across the political spectrum.
A. No, I think that is a silly characterization. Some of what you call White supremacists may agree with Marxists in economic terms. You are combining or convoluting a schema that can apply in social and economic ways with views on race, which may not apply or may not be applicable.
Q. Let's stick to race: Marxism, liberalism, conservatism, White racism. That is the spectrum, isn't it?
A. No, I don't agree with that characterization.
Q. In any event, away back when in your early days, you chose to go to the left. According to you, "I turned to Marxism for answers." Is that right?
A. That is with regard to this specific question that I raised just before that: If social and racial equality were realistic goals, why had they not been achieved long before? I wrote: "Dissatisfied with liberal and conservative explanations ‑‑" that is, of that question ‑‑ "I turned to Marxism for answers."
Q. Yes, exactly. You went to the left first.
A. I turned to Marxism for answers.
Q. You go on:
"I attended meetings of various Marxist groups in Portland and was surprised by the reasonableness of their viewpoint."
A. Right, in that regard.
Q."Like millions of other young Americans, I became infatuated with the New Left. The Vietnam war starkly revealed to us the boundless hypocrisy of the system. Only a fool could believe a President who told the world that Americans were destroying Vietnam for the good of the Vietnamese themselves."
That is what you wrote?
A. Not exactly.
Q. Which word did I leave out this time?
A. You convoluted several words.
Q. Let's go back:
"Like millions of other young Americans, I became infatuated with the New Left."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes, you have.
Q."The Vietnam war starkly revealed to us the boundless hypocrisy of the system."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes.
Q."Only a fool could believe a President who told the world that Americans were destroying Vietnam for the good of the Vietnamese themselves."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes.
Q."And widespread Black uprisings exposed the futility and bankruptcy of Great Society 'equality' schemes."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I believe so.
Q. So there you are with the New Left, and you have come to this realization as you have expressed it, at that time in your life. Right?
A. I said I was infatuated with the New Left.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes. You ‑‑
Q."I had already rejected ‑‑"
MR. CHRISTIE: If my learned friend would be so kind, I think it is appropriate not to cut the witness off.
MR. ROSEN: I haven't been cutting him off; he has been cutting himself off and then not giving me the answer.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Continue.
MR. ROSEN:
Q."I had already rejected rightwing conservatism as pathetically moribund and utterly without principle."
Is that what you wrote, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q."I had seen conservatives eventually give in to the liberals on every important issue."
Is that what you wrote, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And those statements are true, as far as you know, in terms of what you saw and believed?
A. At that time, yes.
Q."The conservative position of the moment was the liberal position of ten years ago. The left, on the other hand, seemed dynamic, alive, progressive, and young."
Correct, in terms of how I have read it?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that is what you believed at the time?
A. Yes. That is how I saw things.
Q. Yes, initially, around the time you were leaving high school.
A. That is how I saw things at the time, yes.
Q."We were not really revolutionaries, we millions of young leftists who joined the demonstrations behind New Left banners."
Is that what you wrote, sir?
A. That's right.
Q. You didn't get to Chicago until 1973 or 1974?
A. That's correct. I wasn't there in 1968.
Q. You weren't there in 1968, no.
A. I wasn't there. I was in ‑‑
Q. You were still in high school.
A. That's right.
Q. You never literally joined the millions who demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, did you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You never joined the millions who went south in the United States in the Freedom Marches, who fought segregation, who worked for voter registration. You never did that, did you?
A. No.
Q."We demanded only the fulfillment of those liberal promises of world peace, racial equality, and economic redistribution which the politicians, the writers, and our teachers had made for many decades."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I believe so.
Q."We wanted action, not more high-sounding but empty rhetoric."
Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q."We demanded no new goals, but only the realization of those which we had been taught were desirable."
Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time you were leaving high school, that, according to you, is what you believed, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q."In my last year of high school, 1969, and during the following summer, I worked in the campaign to raise money for starving, war-ravaged Biafrans, and I enthusiastically supported the Biafran struggle for independence from Nigeria. That war for 'national liberation' seemed infinitely more vital and noble than the wretched shop-politics of the West."
Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. Of course, the war in Biafra was a small tribe of Ibos being persecuted by the larger population of Nigeria, and that is what led to the war. Right?
A. It's a little more complicated than that, but that is not an unfair characterization of the struggle.
Q. In fact, it was the beginning of one of the genocides in Africa, wasn't it?
A. It is probably correct to call it genocidal, yes.
Q. Of course, the reason you wrote this in 1978 was to show your readers of the National Alliance that you are just not such a bad guy after all. Right? You tried on that left hat and you worked for black people, you taught black kids and you got money for Biafrans, so you're not such a bad guy after all. Isn't that right, Mr. Weber?
A. That's a silly characterization.
Q. You go on to say:
"During the Biafra campaign I was both amazed and dismayed by the ignorance of the issues involved which was displayed by the wealthy liberals, church group representatives, politicians, and many ordinary White Americans who contributed money or time."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q."More disgusting yet were the expressions of guilt, opportunism, and inadequacy which characterized many of the most eager Biafra relief campaign supporters."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. What you are saying there is that the people that you worked with in Portland, Oregon to raise money for Biafra, among others, were the wealthy liberals, church group representatives, politicians, and many ordinary White Americans who contributed money and time. Right?
A. Well, not quite. I was involved in the Biafra campaign not just in Portland, Oregon but in other places as well. Part of this is based upon personal experience; part of it is based upon my reading and conversations with others about this whole phenomenon. I was deeply involved in the Biafra campaign, so your characterization is a bit inaccurate.
Q. What was concerning you was the ignorance of the issues displayed by wealthy liberals. Right?
A. Could you repeat the question.
Q. One of the things that was bothering you was the ignorance of the issues displayed by wealthy liberals.
A. That's correct.
Q. Is that a pseudonym for Jews?
A. No.
Q. It doesn't include Jews at all? Is that right? Does it?
A. It might.
Q. But you didn't have any Jewish experiences, did you?
A. What are Jewish experiences?
Q. You didn't have any experience with wealthy liberals who were Jews, did you?
A. I don't recall; I may have.
Q. You don't recall. Church group representatives, of course, would not include that. Politicians wouldn't include that, in your experience?
A. I don't recall any Jewish politicians.
Q. And "many ordinary White Americans" who contributed money or time ‑‑ you are not talking about Jewish Americans, are you?
A. Not particularly.
Q. Then you go on to say that the disgusting part was the expressions of guilt. What is this? Was this White people saying, "The reason we are chipping in here for the Biafrans is because we are White and we have to help these poor Black people?" Is that the expressions of guilt that you are referring to?
A. I was disgusted by what I felt were unfounded feelings of guilt by many White Americans at that time.
Q. Not only guilt, but expressions of guilt and expressions of opportunism. What do you mean by that, that White Americans felt badly that they had exploited the Blacks, so they were helping out here in the Biafra campaign?
A. I am not sure what I meant exactly.
Q. Something along those lines, though? Is that what you mean by "opportunism?"
A. I don't remember exactly.
Q. Certainly that is your word, "opportunism." Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And inadequacy. That is White inadequacy. That is what you are referring to?
A. I am not sure if I meant just White inadequacy or inadequacy by many of the people who were involved in the campaign. I don't believe I was referring to race.
Q. You were talking about ordinary White Americans who contributed money and time. Right?
A. Among other people.
Q. Then you say:
"After the Biafra summer campaign, I flew to Europe. During a year spent working in Bonn, Germany, I first began to doubt many of my liberal ideas."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. That you read correctly.
Q. Up until this point, of course, we haven't mentioned anything about Jews, have we?
A. No, we haven't.
Q."In elementary and high school, I had been very interested in modern European history. I devoured many history books, especially ones dealing with the intriguing Hitler years, and now I hoped to find out more about that puzzling era."
Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes, you have.
Q. Modern European history. So you had devoured history books in high school. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Especially the ones dealing with the "intriguing Hitler years." Is that right?
A. "Especially" may not be the best use of the word, but, yes, I read a lot on that subject.
Q. But that is what you wrote in 1978.
A. Yes.
Q. Just a shorter time after the period we are talking about than we are now, 20 years later.
A. That's right.
Q. The "intriguing Hitler years" ‑‑ it intrigued you, didn't it?
A. Yes, it did.
Q."‑‑ and now I hoped to find out more about that puzzling era."
Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you went over to Bonn, Germany for not just a little visit, but for an extended stay.
A. I was there for a year.
Q. And you wanted to find out what these intriguing Hitler years were really all about, didn't you?
A. That's not why I went to Bonn.
Q. How old were you when you went to Bonn?
A. Eighteen.
Q. Did you have family over there?
A. No.
Q. Did you have friends over there?
A. I knew people, friends or acquaintances, through the Biafra campaign.
Q. Had you met any neo-Nazis in Portland, Oregon up to that time?
A. No.
Q. White supremacists?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. People with connections to Germany?
A. People with connections to Germany?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I had met people with connections to Germany, I am sure.
Q. In fact, all through your high school years, in your White high school, race had been discussed by you and your friends. Isn't that right?
A. On occasion, yes.
Q. And it had intrigued you as much as the intriguing Hitler years, didn't it?
A. Questions of race intrigued me? Yes, that's correct.
Q. You go on and you say this:
"On the one hand, I had heard that Hitler and his small gang of henchmen had managed to deceptively take over and enslave the largest, most cultural and advanced nation in Europe and then madly tried to take over the world."
Have I read that correctly?
A. You read it correctly, but probably it is not correct. I probably meant "most cultured" rather than "most cultural."
Q. Most cultured or most cultural, but I read it correctly from the transcript?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Not much turns on whether it is "cultured" or "cultural." We understand the meaning, don't we?
A. I think so.
Q. What you were summarizing was what you perceived to be sort of the standard history line that you learned in high school about that period of time. Right?
A. No. As the paragraph goes on, one heard different things, which the second part is also what I heard.
Q. First of all, one thing you were taught, or at least you say you were taught, was that Hitler and his small gang of henchmen had managed to deceptively take over and enslave, basically, the German nation.
A. Right.
Q. You go on:
"On the other hand, I was also taught that the German people were traditionally militaristic, chauvinistic, power-hungry fanatics who eagerly supported Hitler's evil policies and were, therefore, also collectively 'guilty' of 'crimes against humanity'."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I believe so.
Q. That is what you say you were taught. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Toronto, Ontario
‑‑- Upon resuming on Tuesday, December 8, 1998
at 10:00 a.m.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.
MR. ROSEN: I am ready to proceed with cross-examination, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHRISTIE: I have a few more questions.
You asked me to clarify what the Court was going to do in Vancouver in Bersheid. My secretary finally got through to the Trial Court in Vancouver, and she advised that the Court had set June 14 to 30 and July 1 to 7 for Bersheid. That makes available April 6 to 9, 13 to 23, the whole month of May, June 1 to 4, June 10 to 11.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It makes available all the dates that we discussed yesterday with the exception of the ones that the Tribunal has a reservation of rights on. We will deal with that shortly.
Mr. Rosen, please.
MR. ROSEN: I just want to point out that April 9 and 10, I believe, are Passover, so the 9th is out. In addition to that, April 15 and 16 are, I believe, the last two days of Passover.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So what are we saying in terms of dates on which you suggest we can't sit, the 9th...?
MR. ROSEN: The 9th and 15th and 16th.
MEMBER DEVINS: Is it the 10th as well?
MR. ROSEN: The 10th, I think, is a Saturday.
THE CHAIRPERSON: The Tribunal will come up with a fresh schedule today and we will submit it to all.
MEMBER DEVINS: Thank you very much for getting those dates.
MR. CHRISTIE: I have obtained the transcript of Mr. Weber's qualification process in the District Court, and I have copies of that, together with the Ruling which I would like to introduce on the voir dire only as evidence of what took place in that proceeding and the ruling that was made.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I guess the question will be that, if we look at this, whether there are parallels to be followed in terms of the kind of evidence that was adduced in that hearing and what the implications of it are. Perhaps we can deal with that in argument and then, if we decide to look at that, we will do that.
RESUMED: MARK WEBER
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF, Continued
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Mr. Weber, when you testified 10 years ago in the Zundel trial, what was the subject matter that you were analyzing and upon which you were asked to express your opinion?
A. Primarily I did a line-by-line analysis of the booklet, "Did Six Million Really Die?"
Q. During the last 10 years have you been involved in carrying out any historical research or study in relation to the area of the Second World War and the Holocaust and the issues of the alleged extermination policy of the German government?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. How often and by what means?
A. On a regular basis during the past 10 years, especially in connection with my work at the Institute for Historical Review, I regularly carry out research and study on these questions.
Q. Are you a full-time employee at that institute?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What is your position there?
A. I am Director of IHR and Editor of the Journal of Historical Review.
Q. How often is the Journal of Historical Review published?
A. Six times a year.
Q. What are the subjects that it publishes on?
A. The biggest concentration has to do with the Holocaust, Jewish-non-Jewish relations, Second World War, but the journal does deal with other issues, especially 20th century history in the United States and Europe.
Q. In these proceedings there is a pamphlet introduced called "Jewish Soap." Do you have any personal knowledge of that pamphlet?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Why?
A. I am the author of it.
Q. You have listed in your CV articles that you have published in the Journal of Historical Review; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. How often do you attend at the Institute for Historical Review and carry out research in the course of a normal month?
A. I go to the office five or six times a week. Even when I am not at the office I almost daily do reading and study on these historical questions.
Q. Have you taken part in any academic debates about the subject of the Holocaust?
A. Yes. The most significant one in this regard was in July 1995. I engaged in a two-hour debate with a professor at Occidental College in California on the Holocaust question. This was with Dr. Michael Shermer. He is a professor there of the History of Science and also editor of Skeptic Magazine which is a fairly well-read magazine in the United States.
MR. CHRISTIE: Those are my questions.
I was asked to specify the area of expertise in which I propose to call the witness. I am prepared to do that now.
Mark Weber is tendered as an expert on Holocaust history, Holocaust revisionism and the historical relations between Jews and non-Jews in modern times. He will be tendered to provide expert testimony on the social and historiographic context of Holocaust revisionism as identified ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Say that again, please.
MR. CHRISTIE: The social and historiographic context of Holocaust revisionism, including as expressed on what has been referred to here as the Zundelsite.
Mr. Weber will contest the opinions of Dr. Schweitzer about the allegedly hateful content of the Zundelsite, explaining its importance in the context of an ongoing historical debate.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Will you give me what you said again preceding the one about social and historiographic context?
MR. CHRISTIE: Mark Weber is an expert on Holocaust history, Holocaust revisionism and the relations between Jews and non-Jews in modern history and will provide expert testimony on the social and historiographic context of Holocaust revisionism, including as expressed on the Zundelsite.
Mr. Weber will contest opinions of Dr. Schweitzer about the allegedly hateful content of the Zundelsite, explaining its import in the context of an ongoing historical debate.
As an expert, Mr. Weber will testify that Zundelsite postings can and should be seen as part of a vital, global, historical debate on the nature and scope of the wartime fate of Europe's Jews. He will explain the revisionist side in this debate and indicate that it does not expose Jews to hatred or contempt but is, rather, a salutary correction of a dogmatically one-sided, anti-German, non-scholarly portrayal of the past.
He will allege the existence of a Holocaust industry which, in the context of this debate, is bad for Jews and causes hatred.
MR. KURZ: I don't think it is necessary for Mr. Christie to give us a précis of his anticipated evidence. When I stood up, I just wanted to know what he is being tendered as an expert in, not what he is going to testify on. I don't think it is necessary for Mr. Christie to read in the evidence.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You have covered the area in which his propositions will fall.
MR. CHRISTIE: I am anticipating the objections to be either in the realm of competence or in the realm of relevance. In order to deal in some practical way with any allegations about relevance, one has to identify what the areas of tendered evidence will be, and I intend to do that in order to show the relevance. If I cannot demonstrate or indicate what the intended evidence is, there is no way that I could address issues of relevance.
If you wish me to indicate that ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have more to say in that area?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, I did, but I understand the objection.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Please proceed.
MR. CHRISTIE: Mr. Weber can testify as to the effect and historical validity of Zundelsite postings in the context of the ongoing historical debate.
Mr. Weber will testify that revisionism brings a humanizing and rational perspective to Holocaust history by offsetting the virtually religious dogmatism that now prevails. Revisionist scholarship helps the public to see Jews, as well as non-Jews, as human beings caught up in a tragic but explicable chapter of history.
He will suggest that some professional Holocaust dogmatics seek to stifle the debate by baseless allegations of hurt feelings such as antisemitism to prevent the discussion of this debate. He will identify that process in the nature of this complaint. I will repeat that.
He will suggest that some professional Holocaust dogmatics seek to stifle debate by baseless allegations of hurt feelings or antisemitism as is the nature of the complaint in this case.
That is the intended scope and purpose of the evidence of Mr. Weber.
I have the examination-in-chief and cross-examination on the qualifications of Mr. Weber which I have photocopied, along with the ruling of His Honour Judge Thomas as he then was. If it is not of any use at the moment, I am prepared to wait.
THE CHAIRPERSON: My colleague and I will decide whether we are going to look at that after full argument.
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.
MR. FREIMAN: In line with the Tribunal's direction to save time and to avoid repetition, Mr. Rosen will take the lead in cross-examination. Ms Zayid or I may have one or two questions at the end of the day.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Rosen, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
MR. ROSEN:
Q. Mr. Weber, I understand, sir, that you were born in Portland, Oregon in October 1951. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. So that would make you, what, 47 years old?
A. Yes.
Q. Am I correct, sir, that you were raised in the Portland, Oregon area?
A. That's correct.
Q. You went to the Jesuit high school there?
A. That's correct.
Q. You graduated from high school, did you?
A. Yes.
Q. In 1969?
A. That's correct.
Q. That would make you about 17 or 18 years old?
A. I was 17.
Q. Then, I understand, sir, you travelled a bit. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. After travelling, you returned to the United States and went to university. Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You studied for a year at the University of Illinois at Chicago?
A. That's correct.
Q. You then studied for a year at the University of Munich in Germany. Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You called it two semesters. It would be the equivalent of an academic year?
A. Right.
Q. It may have taken you longer to do the two years because you were there for quite a while. Right?
A. I was there a year and a half altogether.
Q. That's right. Then you ultimately at some point in time returned to Portland State University where you got your Bachelor's Degree in history. Is that right?
A. To be more precise, I went to Portland State University and then the University of Illinois and then the University of Munich and then went back to Portland State.
Q. That is not clear in your CV. I take it that you were not at the University of Illinois on an exchange program with Portland.
A. No.
Q. And you were not at the University of Munich under the auspices of Portland State University, were you?
A. No.
Q. In fact, you did not complete your year at Portland State University in the first year before you went off to Illinois and Munich, did you?
A. The question is unclear. I completed a year at Portland.
Q. You spent the time there, but you didn't get full credit for a year of university, did you?
A. At Portland State University?
Q. That's right. You took less than a year's worth of credit, didn't you?
A. I think I did do a year's worth of credits, but I don't remember exactly.
Q. In any event, what year did you ultimately get your Bachelor's Degree in history?
A. I think it is on the CV.
Q. It isn't, actually.
A. I think it was 1976 or 1975.
Q. So, really, it took you from 1969 to 1975 or 1976 to complete four years of university.
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. To get a Bachelor's Degree.
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. You didn't get a degree before 1975 or 1976, did you?
A. No ‑‑ but that is misleading. I didn't start university in 1969 after I left high school.
Q. I understand. What I am saying, sir, is that from 1969 to 1975 or 1976 you did a number of things, going to these schools and travelling around. Right?
A. And working.
Q. And working, of course. Then at some point you spent about a year and a half getting a Master's Degree in European history in 1977 from Indiana University in Bloomington. Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So that we are clear, sir, in your university years and your undergraduate years, you did not study Holocaust studies as part of your course work, did you?
A. I did some studies in graduate school, but not primarily.
Q. That was not my question. My question was: In undergraduate school you didn't do any, did you?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. Then in your Master of Arts Degree in European history the topic of your study or the main part of your study was on Hapsburg Europe, wasn't it?
A. That is correct, and 20th century Austro-Hungarian history, yes.
Q. Of course, the Hapsburgs went into the 20th century, up until World War I, didn't they?
A. Of course.
Q. And it was not a Master of Arts Degree in European history focused on a study of the Holocaust, was it?
A. No.
Q. Since you got your Master's Degree in European history in 1977, you have not gotten any other post-graduate degree, have you?
A. No.
Q. You say in your CV that you travelled widely in Europe and northwestern Africa. Right? That is what it says?
A. Yes.
Q. You lived and worked for two and a half years in Germany, Bonn and Munich. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And for a time in Ghana in west Africa where you taught English, history and geography, you say, at a secondary school level. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Was that just sort of on an ad hoc basis? You are saying "yes"?
A. I am waiting for the question.
Q. Was that teaching on an ad hoc basis or was that under the auspices of a particular program?
A. I don't know what you mean by "ad hoc" in this context. It wasn't as part of a program, no.
Q. You weren't with the Peace Corps.
A. No, I wasn't.
Q. And you weren't with any other government aid program, were you?
A. No.
Q. You were essentially either in school or travelling around for the period 1969 to 1977. Right ‑‑ about eight years?
A. I travelled. I lived in different countries. I went to school in different places, and I worked, yes.
Q. Through all that period of time you were able to avoid your conscription duty to the U.S. Services; isn't that right?
A. Are you implying that this was a way to avoid conscription or that I just wasn't conscripted?
Q. You didn't go, did you?
A. I was exempted because of a lottery.
Q. Because of what?
A. Because of a lottery. There was a lottery system at the time.
Q. You were exempted because of the lottery system, not because you were out of the country or not because you just made sure you were in one school or another to avoid your duty as an American citizen.
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Of course, while you were doing this, you were gaining an insight into racism as a credo; isn't that right?
A. No, that is not right.
Q. White supremacy became your credo, didn't it?
A. No.
Q. You believe in the separation of the races, don't you?
A. I don't understand the question. Is this a question relating to then or now?
Q. You believe in the separation of the races, don't you?
A. I don't even know what the question means. Do I believe that the races are separated or should be separated?
Q. Mr. Weber, you know exactly what I mean. Let's not fool around. You personally believe that the white race should stay white, the black race should stay black, the yellow yellow, and so forth. Isn't that right?
A. I believe that each race should decide for itself what it wants to do.
Q. And you are a member of the white race, aren't you?
MR. CHRISTIE: Is that really relevant?
THE WITNESS: I think it is an insulting question. I am not a member of the white race; my race is white.
MR. ROSEN:
Q. And you consider yourself a member of the white race as opposed to some other race, don't you?
A. My race is white, yes.
Q. And you don't believe that you or any other person who is white should dilute that white race to something else, do you?
A. That's a ridiculous question.
Q. Is it?
A. Yes. It's an insulting question.
Q. Let's see what you did for the period that you were on the road from high school onward.
At some point in time after you did your travelling, you went to work and live in Washington, D.C. Is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. While you were there, you went to work for a publication called the National Vanguard; is that right?
A. That is not quite correct. I was never employed by that publication. For about a year I was a member of the National Alliance which publishes a paper called the National Vanguard and I contributed to the paper.
Q. You told the Court in 1988, the Ontario District Court of Ontario as it was then, in the case of Her Majesty the Queen v. Ernst Zundel ‑‑ that is the one you testified at. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You testified there in March 1988. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You told the Court that you were the News Editor of the National Vanguard. Correct?
A. That's correct ‑‑ for a period of time.
Q. For a period of time, that's right. While you were the News Editor of the National Vanguard, there appeared a May 1978 edition of the Vanguard with a portion that you wrote. Isn't that correct?
A. Yes, I assume. I don't recall exactly, but I had articles in a number of issues about that time.
Q. You don't remember your discussion with Mr. John Pearson, the prosecutor at the time, that went on for 50 or 60 pages of transcript?
A. Oh, yes, I remember. I just don't remember specifically the date of the issue that you are referring to.
Q. Let me see if I can assist your memory.
Sir, I have produced for you part of your cross-examination in Volume XXV of the trial before Mr. Justice Thomas. Do you see that on the first page?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. At page 6524 Mr. Pearson asked you at about line 20:
"Q. You told us on Friday that you are or you were the news editor of the National Vanguard; is that right?
A. For ‑‑ well...
Q. Were you the news editor?
A. For a period of time. Eight years ago. More than eight years ago, I was affiliated with the paper.
Q. Right, and this is an article that appeared in the May 1978 edition of the National Vanguard, isn't it?"
He produces it for you, and on the next page you say:
"That's correct. I haven't seen this article in quite a few years."
Does that help you to refresh your memory, sir, that it was May 1978?
A. Yes.
Q. In May 1978 ‑‑ you told us that you got your Master's Degree in European history in December 1977. Correct?
A. I don't recall specifically, but I may have.
Q. And by May of 1978 here you are in Washington, D.C. the editor of the National Vanguard and writing almost one of your first articles for that publication. Right?
A. Well, it was almost one of my last, to be more accurate.
Q. The point is that you are writing about yourself.
A. It is the only article I wrote about myself, yes.
Q. The article that you wrote about yourself has a summary at the top of it in bold letters, which is set out at page 6526. Search as I did, I could not find a copy of the original, so we will go with the transcript:
"The best way to judge an organization or a movement is to look closely at the people who make it up. Decide whether or not they are people of character and intelligence who really understand the principles they are promoting and are deeply committed to them. Ask yourself whether they are the sort of people you want to become involved with; the sort of people in whom you can have confidence."
Do you see that? That little summary appeared at the top of the article before your words begin, didn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Then it goes on with your little history of yourself. Is that right, Mr. Weber?
A. That is one way to put it.
Q. Let's see what your history was. Starting at about line 23 at page 6526:
"My first interest in politics..."
Then there is an objection by Mr. Christie, and we will start again. If you go to page 6528 ‑‑ by the way, so we are clear, you are the one who is reading this to the Court at that time, aren't you?
A. That's correct.
Q."My first interest in politics began during the Kennedy-Johnson years of unrestrained liberal optimism."
Are those your words?
A. As I recall, yes.
Q. Of course, "unrestrained liberal optimism" is your way of saying that those were the times that people got sucked into thinking the wrong way. Isn't that right?
A. No.
Q."Kennedy announced the Peace Corps and the alliance for Progress. Johnson proclaimed that his War on Poverty and other programs would begin a new age of abundance and equality for all."
Right? That is what you wrote?
A. I wrote that, yes.
Q. Then you have:
"'Freedom marches' and civil rights laws were dismantling the last barriers to 'racial equality', we were told."
Is that what you wrote?
A. Yes.
Q. The reason you put "Freedom marches" in quotes ‑‑ of course, you were referring to the marches of the sixties by black civil rights workers trying to break down the laws of discrimination and segregation in the south, weren't you?
A. As much as by others, yes.
Q."Films such as 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner' suggested a happy mulatto future for America."
Is that what you wrote?
A. Yes.
Q. Of course, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" was the movie with Sidney Poitier who plays a black fiancé of a white girl?
A. That's correct.
Q. And is invited to meet her folks for the first time, and the reaction of the family to his arrival.
A. That's correct.
Q."I shared the national mood of childlike confidence."
Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you saw the national mood of the people of the United States at that time as not only one of confidence but of childlike confidence, being led down the garden path. Is that right, sir?
A. You are ascribing me words I didn't say.
Q. I know, but I am ascribing to you, sir, meanings. That is why you used the words "childlike confidence," isn't it?
A. You added more than just that.
Q. There was a reason for you to use "childlike", wasn't there?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever been to a church revival?
A. Yes.
Q. You know how somebody who has seen the light stands up in front of the congregation and begins by confessing their sins. Right?
A. I haven't seen that, but I have seen it on television.
Q. They confess their sins. Then, when they confess their sins, they tell their audience how they found the light to truth. Isn't that right?
A. I don't know. I have seen some movies and I have seen some television portrayals that portray something like that. I don't know quite what you are asking. Have I seen such a thing myself? No, I haven't.
Q. This is exactly what you are doing here in this little message, isn't it? You are confessing your sins, how you were led astray and down the garden path with the rest of America until you saw the light. Isn't that right, Mr. Weber?
A. Completely wrong.
Q. Let's see if I am wrong.
"I shared the national mood of childlike confidence. The President and the press claimed that the Great Society would usher in the liberal millennium."
Those are your words, aren't they?
A. That's correct.
Q."I took the politicians and the media masters at their word."
That is what you said?
A. Not exactly.
Q. Did you say:
"I took the politicians and the media masters at their word?"
A. Not exactly.
Q. You mean you misread that part of the pamphlet?
A. No, you misread what I wrote.
Q. Do you have the original?
A. No.
Q. Where have I ‑‑
A. You added the word "the", and it is not there.
Q. Oh, excuse me.
"I took the politicians and media masters at their word."
Is that right, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. We want it right. Media masters ‑‑ that is the same media masters that manipulate the press today when it comes to the Holocaust. Is that right?
A. I don't know if I would use the word "manipulate," and they are not the same necessarily at all. The answer, I suppose, would be "no," but anyway ‑‑
Q. What were you going to say? Go ahead and finish your answer.
A. We are talking about a ‑‑ I don't understand your question.
Q. You seemed to because you were going to give me an answer and then you cut yourself off. Go ahead and finish your answer.
A. Would you repeat the question, please.
Q. Media masters, sir, that is what we are talking about. Those are the same media masters who manipulate and control the press when it comes to Holocaust revisionism; isn't that right?
A. Nowadays?
Q. And back then.
A. Well, no. I mean, at that time there wasn't anything like what we call a Holocaust campaign in the media then. There is now. The media masters, presumably, are different; the politicians are different. There is a period of about 20 or 30 years' difference.
Q. And in the 20 or 30 years what has happened, of course, is that the likes of you have come on the scene. Right?
A. That is a pretty insulting way to put things, sir.
Q. Sir, let's see what else you said:
"I earnestly believed in the social perfectibility of man, and in my all-White high school, I vigorously defended the notion that all races were created equal."
Is that what you wrote?
A. That's correct.
Q. You don't believe that today, though, do you?
A. It's a compound sentence. I could identify each part of it if you wish.
Q."I vigorously defended the notion that all races were created equal."
Do you see that part?
A. Yes.
Q."‑‑ the notion that all races were created equal."
Those are your words.
A. Correct.
Q. That all races were created equal is an idea that you are speaking of there, isn't it?
A. That is part of the sentence.
Q. Do you still believe today that all races were created equal?
A. I believe that races differ in many different ways.
Q. So that races are not created equal, just different. Is that right?
A. Correct, yes.
Q."During the summer, I volunteered time to help tutor young Blacks."
Is that one of the sins of your past?
A. No, it's not.
Q."There were no Negroes in the Portland, Oregon neighbourhood where I grew up. Race was never discussed at home, and my parents actively supported liberal Democrats at election time."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I think so.
Q. Was that true?
A. Is that statement true? Yes, it is.
Q."Like many Americans in the North during the 1960's, I uncritically accepted the notion that inferior Negro social performance was the result of White racism and an environment of deprivation."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I think so.
Q. That is what you wrote?
A. That's correct.
Q. When you were in high school, according to this, that is what you believed. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Before you started your world travels. Is that correct, sir?
A. Yes.
Q."Like many Oregonians, I assumed that we would avoid racial problems by showing tolerance and understanding. We would be different from those racist Whites in the East and South, I thought."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I believe so.
Q. That is what you thought at the time?
A. That's correct.
Q. It turned out that you were wrong. Is that right? It turned out that those thoughts were wrong?
A. Well, I think that's ‑‑ you know.
Q."But if social and racial equality were realistic goals, why had they not been achieved long before?"
You ask; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Is this a question you asked yourself in high school?
A. That's right.
Q. So away back in high school you were starting to dwell upon this concept of racial and social equality among the races. Is that right?
A. That is part of it. I was very, very interested in high school in this whole question of racial relations.
Q. You were?
A. Yes.
Q."‑‑ why had they not been achieved long before?"
Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. You go on to say:
"Dissatisfied with both liberal and conservative explanations, I turned to Marxism for answers."
That is what you wrote?
A. That's correct.
Q. Liberal explanations, of course, would include the notion that inferior Negro social performance was the result of White racism and an environment of deprivation. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. What would conservative explanations be?
A. For many conservatives the same thing, I suppose.
Q. You suppose.
A. Yes. There is some split among many conservatives on that very point.
What I was meaning here was with regard to specifically the question I had raised just before that, not the sentence several lines before.
Q. But we are talking about notions, and this is your dissatisfaction with both liberal explanations that your parents held ‑‑ right?
A. Yes.
Q. And conservative explanations which you have not set out in this.
Would you agree with me that liberal and conservative explanations represent the mainstream of societal thought?
A. Certainly.
Q. Marxism or communism is one fringe on the left on the political spectrum.
A. I suppose, yes. I won't argue with that.
Q. And White racism and extremism and Naziism or neo-Naziism is the fringe on the right, isn't it?
A. I wouldn't combine all those things like that at all.
Q. That is the political spectrum in the United States, isn't it?
A. No, I wouldn't put it that way. I don't agree with that characterization.
Q. There are Marxists on the left, liberals, conservatives and White supremacists right across the political spectrum.
A. No, I think that is a silly characterization. Some of what you call White supremacists may agree with Marxists in economic terms. You are combining or convoluting a schema that can apply in social and economic ways with views on race, which may not apply or may not be applicable.
Q. Let's stick to race: Marxism, liberalism, conservatism, White racism. That is the spectrum, isn't it?
A. No, I don't agree with that characterization.
Q. In any event, away back when in your early days, you chose to go to the left. According to you, "I turned to Marxism for answers." Is that right?
A. That is with regard to this specific question that I raised just before that: If social and racial equality were realistic goals, why had they not been achieved long before? I wrote: "Dissatisfied with liberal and conservative explanations ‑‑" that is, of that question ‑‑ "I turned to Marxism for answers."
Q. Yes, exactly. You went to the left first.
A. I turned to Marxism for answers.
Q. You go on:
"I attended meetings of various Marxist groups in Portland and was surprised by the reasonableness of their viewpoint."
A. Right, in that regard.
Q."Like millions of other young Americans, I became infatuated with the New Left. The Vietnam war starkly revealed to us the boundless hypocrisy of the system. Only a fool could believe a President who told the world that Americans were destroying Vietnam for the good of the Vietnamese themselves."
That is what you wrote?
A. Not exactly.
Q. Which word did I leave out this time?
A. You convoluted several words.
Q. Let's go back:
"Like millions of other young Americans, I became infatuated with the New Left."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes, you have.
Q."The Vietnam war starkly revealed to us the boundless hypocrisy of the system."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes.
Q."Only a fool could believe a President who told the world that Americans were destroying Vietnam for the good of the Vietnamese themselves."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes.
Q."And widespread Black uprisings exposed the futility and bankruptcy of Great Society 'equality' schemes."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I believe so.
Q. So there you are with the New Left, and you have come to this realization as you have expressed it, at that time in your life. Right?
A. I said I was infatuated with the New Left.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes. You ‑‑
Q."I had already rejected ‑‑"
MR. CHRISTIE: If my learned friend would be so kind, I think it is appropriate not to cut the witness off.
MR. ROSEN: I haven't been cutting him off; he has been cutting himself off and then not giving me the answer.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Continue.
MR. ROSEN:
Q."I had already rejected rightwing conservatism as pathetically moribund and utterly without principle."
Is that what you wrote, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q."I had seen conservatives eventually give in to the liberals on every important issue."
Is that what you wrote, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. And those statements are true, as far as you know, in terms of what you saw and believed?
A. At that time, yes.
Q."The conservative position of the moment was the liberal position of ten years ago. The left, on the other hand, seemed dynamic, alive, progressive, and young."
Correct, in terms of how I have read it?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that is what you believed at the time?
A. Yes. That is how I saw things.
Q. Yes, initially, around the time you were leaving high school.
A. That is how I saw things at the time, yes.
Q."We were not really revolutionaries, we millions of young leftists who joined the demonstrations behind New Left banners."
Is that what you wrote, sir?
A. That's right.
Q. You didn't get to Chicago until 1973 or 1974?
A. That's correct. I wasn't there in 1968.
Q. You weren't there in 1968, no.
A. I wasn't there. I was in ‑‑
Q. You were still in high school.
A. That's right.
Q. You never literally joined the millions who demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, did you?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. You never joined the millions who went south in the United States in the Freedom Marches, who fought segregation, who worked for voter registration. You never did that, did you?
A. No.
Q."We demanded only the fulfillment of those liberal promises of world peace, racial equality, and economic redistribution which the politicians, the writers, and our teachers had made for many decades."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I believe so.
Q."We wanted action, not more high-sounding but empty rhetoric."
Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q."We demanded no new goals, but only the realization of those which we had been taught were desirable."
Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. At the time you were leaving high school, that, according to you, is what you believed, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q."In my last year of high school, 1969, and during the following summer, I worked in the campaign to raise money for starving, war-ravaged Biafrans, and I enthusiastically supported the Biafran struggle for independence from Nigeria. That war for 'national liberation' seemed infinitely more vital and noble than the wretched shop-politics of the West."
Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes.
Q. Of course, the war in Biafra was a small tribe of Ibos being persecuted by the larger population of Nigeria, and that is what led to the war. Right?
A. It's a little more complicated than that, but that is not an unfair characterization of the struggle.
Q. In fact, it was the beginning of one of the genocides in Africa, wasn't it?
A. It is probably correct to call it genocidal, yes.
Q. Of course, the reason you wrote this in 1978 was to show your readers of the National Alliance that you are just not such a bad guy after all. Right? You tried on that left hat and you worked for black people, you taught black kids and you got money for Biafrans, so you're not such a bad guy after all. Isn't that right, Mr. Weber?
A. That's a silly characterization.
Q. You go on to say:
"During the Biafra campaign I was both amazed and dismayed by the ignorance of the issues involved which was displayed by the wealthy liberals, church group representatives, politicians, and many ordinary White Americans who contributed money or time."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. I believe so.
Q."More disgusting yet were the expressions of guilt, opportunism, and inadequacy which characterized many of the most eager Biafra relief campaign supporters."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. What you are saying there is that the people that you worked with in Portland, Oregon to raise money for Biafra, among others, were the wealthy liberals, church group representatives, politicians, and many ordinary White Americans who contributed money and time. Right?
A. Well, not quite. I was involved in the Biafra campaign not just in Portland, Oregon but in other places as well. Part of this is based upon personal experience; part of it is based upon my reading and conversations with others about this whole phenomenon. I was deeply involved in the Biafra campaign, so your characterization is a bit inaccurate.
Q. What was concerning you was the ignorance of the issues displayed by wealthy liberals. Right?
A. Could you repeat the question.
Q. One of the things that was bothering you was the ignorance of the issues displayed by wealthy liberals.
A. That's correct.
Q. Is that a pseudonym for Jews?
A. No.
Q. It doesn't include Jews at all? Is that right? Does it?
A. It might.
Q. But you didn't have any Jewish experiences, did you?
A. What are Jewish experiences?
Q. You didn't have any experience with wealthy liberals who were Jews, did you?
A. I don't recall; I may have.
Q. You don't recall. Church group representatives, of course, would not include that. Politicians wouldn't include that, in your experience?
A. I don't recall any Jewish politicians.
Q. And "many ordinary White Americans" who contributed money or time ‑‑ you are not talking about Jewish Americans, are you?
A. Not particularly.
Q. Then you go on to say that the disgusting part was the expressions of guilt. What is this? Was this White people saying, "The reason we are chipping in here for the Biafrans is because we are White and we have to help these poor Black people?" Is that the expressions of guilt that you are referring to?
A. I was disgusted by what I felt were unfounded feelings of guilt by many White Americans at that time.
Q. Not only guilt, but expressions of guilt and expressions of opportunism. What do you mean by that, that White Americans felt badly that they had exploited the Blacks, so they were helping out here in the Biafra campaign?
A. I am not sure what I meant exactly.
Q. Something along those lines, though? Is that what you mean by "opportunism?"
A. I don't remember exactly.
Q. Certainly that is your word, "opportunism." Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And inadequacy. That is White inadequacy. That is what you are referring to?
A. I am not sure if I meant just White inadequacy or inadequacy by many of the people who were involved in the campaign. I don't believe I was referring to race.
Q. You were talking about ordinary White Americans who contributed money and time. Right?
A. Among other people.
Q. Then you say:
"After the Biafra summer campaign, I flew to Europe. During a year spent working in Bonn, Germany, I first began to doubt many of my liberal ideas."
Have I read that correctly, sir?
A. That you read correctly.
Q. Up until this point, of course, we haven't mentioned anything about Jews, have we?
A. No, we haven't.
Q."In elementary and high school, I had been very interested in modern European history. I devoured many history books, especially ones dealing with the intriguing Hitler years, and now I hoped to find out more about that puzzling era."
Have I read that correctly?
A. Yes, you have.
Q. Modern European history. So you had devoured history books in high school. Right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Especially the ones dealing with the "intriguing Hitler years." Is that right?
A. "Especially" may not be the best use of the word, but, yes, I read a lot on that subject.
Q. But that is what you wrote in 1978.
A. Yes.
Q. Just a shorter time after the period we are talking about than we are now, 20 years later.
A. That's right.
Q. The "intriguing Hitler years" ‑‑ it intrigued you, didn't it?
A. Yes, it did.
Q."‑‑ and now I hoped to find out more about that puzzling era."
Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. So you went over to Bonn, Germany for not just a little visit, but for an extended stay.
A. I was there for a year.
Q. And you wanted to find out what these intriguing Hitler years were really all about, didn't you?
A. That's not why I went to Bonn.
Q. How old were you when you went to Bonn?
A. Eighteen.
Q. Did you have family over there?
A. No.
Q. Did you have friends over there?
A. I knew people, friends or acquaintances, through the Biafra campaign.
Q. Had you met any neo-Nazis in Portland, Oregon up to that time?
A. No.
Q. White supremacists?
A. I don't believe so.
Q. People with connections to Germany?
A. People with connections to Germany?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes, I had met people with connections to Germany, I am sure.
Q. In fact, all through your high school years, in your White high school, race had been discussed by you and your friends. Isn't that right?
A. On occasion, yes.
Q. And it had intrigued you as much as the intriguing Hitler years, didn't it?
A. Questions of race intrigued me? Yes, that's correct.
Q. You go on and you say this:
"On the one hand, I had heard that Hitler and his small gang of henchmen had managed to deceptively take over and enslave the largest, most cultural and advanced nation in Europe and then madly tried to take over the world."
Have I read that correctly?
A. You read it correctly, but probably it is not correct. I probably meant "most cultured" rather than "most cultural."
Q. Most cultured or most cultural, but I read it correctly from the transcript?
A. I think so, yes.
Q. Not much turns on whether it is "cultured" or "cultural." We understand the meaning, don't we?
A. I think so.
Q. What you were summarizing was what you perceived to be sort of the standard history line that you learned in high school about that period of time. Right?
A. No. As the paragraph goes on, one heard different things, which the second part is also what I heard.
Q. First of all, one thing you were taught, or at least you say you were taught, was that Hitler and his small gang of henchmen had managed to deceptively take over and enslave, basically, the German nation.
A. Right.
Q. You go on:
"On the other hand, I was also taught that the German people were traditionally militaristic, chauvinistic, power-hungry fanatics who eagerly supported Hitler's evil policies and were, therefore, also collectively 'guilty' of 'crimes against humanity'."
Have I read that correctly?
A. I believe so.
Q. That is what you say you were taught. Is that right?
A. Yes.