Toronto, Ontario
‑‑- Upon resuming on Thursday, December 11, 1997
at 10:11 a.m.
RECALLED: GARY D. PRIDEAUX
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Is there a Mr. Lemire here? No.
Is there anyone here representing Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.? No.
In the absence of their presence, I won't deal with the applications that have been filed with us.
We will now continue with Mr. Prideaux' cross-examination. You are still under oath, Mr. Prideaux.
CROSS-EXAMINATION, Continued
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. On the last occasion, Mr. Prideaux, we were asking you about the subject of "66 Questions and Answers" and we were dealing with Question 44 as an example. That is in the large book in front of you at tab 2.
A. Question 44?
Q. Yes. Just what part does truth play in your analysis in the language, in your opinion?
A. What part does truth play?
Q. Yes.
A. I don't know how to answer that. I think truth is important, plays an important part, but the analysis often can stand on the nature of the arguments without the content.
Q. In the opinions you have expressed, what part does truth play?
A. I don't how to answer that, Mr. Christie.
Q. Why not?
A. Perhaps, if we could have an example, we could address it. Truth is important to me. Truth is important in my analyses. I try not to be untruthful.
Q. What part does truth of what you are analyzing play in your analysis?
A. I am analyzing the texts, not their historical content.
Q. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the content is true. Does that have any effect on your analysis?
A. If I know it is true or if I know it is not true, I presume it would have. But I wasn't analyzing the truth of the text; I was trying to analyze to texts.
Q. So, in effect, it has no effect on your opinion at all, then.
A. No, I didn't say that.
Q. Well, what effect does it have on your opinion? You said: If I believed it was true, it might; if I didn't, it wouldn't.
What is your position?
A. I like the truth, I suppose. That is important to me, and I try to be truthful. I try to understand the texts as texts.
Q. But when they are descriptive of events, does truth have any part in your analysis of the effects or likely effects of these documents?
A. It may. I am sorry, Mr. Christie, I don't‑‑
Q. Does it?
A. It may.
Q. Has it?
A. It has.
Q. Where?
A. When I look at the structure of an argument, looking at the premises and whether, if the premises are accepted, certain things follow from them, those are analytical truths, aren't they?
Q. You are saying, then, that analytical truths are what you deal with? I don't quite understand what you mean by that. What do you mean by that?
A. Analytical truths?
Q. Yes.
A. If a premise exists and something follows from that premise logically, that is called analytical truth.
Q. Is that what you mean by truth?
A. Not always; of course not. There are other kinds of truth, too; historical truth perhaps.
Q. What is the historical truth and what part does it play in your analysis?
A. It plays no part in my analysis so far as I am not a historian and I don't know the truth of these issues.
Q. In your analysis you have expressed opinions as to what the likely effect of certain writing is in certain documents. How did you make a selection of the documents?
A. I was given the documents.
Q. How many of these documents are there that you analyzed?
A. There are these.
Q. So you are saying that 33 or so were what you analyzed?
A. That's right, the documents that are in the little book.
Q. How representative are these of ‑‑ how many documents are there on the Zundelsite?
A. I don't know.
Q. And you didn't make the selection?
A. I did not make the selection.
Q. So you are analyzing a selected sample of a number of a size you have no idea of.
A. That's right.
Q. Is that proper scientific analysis?
A. That is an analysis of the texts.
Q. I am sorry, is that proper scientific analysis?
A. Yes.
Q. To be given a sampling which somebody else has selected from a large number?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that produce a proper analysis of the content of the entire site?
A. I don't know if it is a representative sample or not.
Q. Who gave you the sample?
A. The Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Q. Do you know what criteria they used to make the selection?
A. I do not.
Q. In terms of the statement that we were analyzing on the last day at tab 2, Question 44:
"Given a 100 percent duty cycle of all the crematories in all the camps in German -controlled territory, what is the maximum number of corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the entire period such crematories were in operation?
About 430,600."
how do you analyze that statement?
A. It is an assertion based on the content of the question. It's an asserted answer based on the content of the question. Whether it is true or not I don't know.
Q. Wouldn't the impact or the effect of that statement depend on whether it was true or not?
A. I suppose it would depend on who was reading it as well.
Q. Whatever other thing it might depend on, it does depend also on whether it is true or not, doesn't it?
A. I am sorry...?
Q. Doesn't it depend on whether it is true or not?
A. Not necessarily. I don't know if it is true.
Q. I didn't say you knew if it was true, but doesn't the effect of the statement depend on its truth or not?
A. It may. It doesn't have to, but it may.
Q. In what circumstances does it not depend on its truth?
A. The effect could simply be the association of a word with other words, and that might cause an effect in the reader or the hearer.
Q. It might cause an effect?
A. It may or may not.
Q. Would it?
A. It may.
Q. What we are interested in, I hope, is what is probable. What is probably the result of a truthful statement?
A. Acceptance of the statement.
Q. If the statement is true, its acceptance is the probable result?
A. I can't say that; I don't know that that is the case.
Q. Well, what do you know about the truth or falsity of that particular statement?
A. I don't know anything about the truth or falsity of it.
Q. Or any of the statements and answers that are given in the "66 Questions and Answers."
A. I didn't say that.
Q. Do you know about the truth or falsity of any of them?
A. No, I am not a historian. I could not comment on the truth or falsity of any of them.
Q. Generally speaking, do you have any opinions on the likely effect of the communication of truth?
A. I don't understand the question, Mr. Christie.
Q. What part of it do you not understand? As a linguist, you should be able to tell me and then I can clarify it.
A. I don't understand the context. I don't understand the question. Just say the question again.
Q. The question has no context. What part of the question don't you understand?
A. Would you repeat the question, please.
Q. In your opinion, what part does truth play in the understanding of a term?
A. I don't know what part it plays.
Q. Does it have any effect on your own views?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you determine the truth or falsity?
A. I accept what people who know something about it generally say.
Q. You accept what people who know something about it generally say?
A. That is what I said, yes.
Q. What people generally know something about it?
A. I suppose, with respect to this material, historians would know something about it.
Q. What historians?
A. I presume people who are trained in the area and know something about the history of the period.
Q. Anyone in particular?
A. I haven't asked historians. I haven't gone to look at modern European historians.
Q. Obviously, in your analysis you made no attempt to ascertain whether the statements were true or false.
A. That is correct.
Q. In some of your opinions earlier, I understand that you said that Mr. Zundel advocated violence or expressed violence or somehow was associated with violence.
A. I think I did say that.
Q. Can you show me what it is you refer to? Did you say "advocates violence", "expresses violence?" What is it that you are saying here?
A. I think I said it invites violence.
Q. It invites violence. What text, in your analysis, invites violence?
A. You will have to give me a moment, Mr. Christie, to try to find it.
I am still searching, Mr. Christie, but the text, as I recall, said something about people who don't know their proper place and that enough is enough and that this could be the straw that broke the camel's back, or something to that effect. I will keep looking.
One of those occasions is on page 27 of my document. In the text it says at the top of the page:
"Some people simply have no feel for when enough is enough!"
This is having to do with the claim that the Jews have arrived. Then there is the statement:
"There is always that last straw that breaks the camel's back!"
I take that to be, if it is not simply a rhetorical gesture, one that suggests that somebody is going to take action because of these facts. That is my interpretation at any rate.
Q. Your interpretation?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it not consistent with the logical interpretation of those words to say that sometimes people push their arguments too far and then they are rejected and they are no longer credible?
A. I think, if that is what it had meant to say, that is probably what it would have said. I think "the straw that breaks the camel's back," as we know it as an idiom, is a kind of last resort notion.
Q. You are saying that that implies violence necessarily?
A. I said it invites violence.
Q. It invites violence. Why does it invite violence?
A. Because the people who have been targeted, the Jews in the earlier part of the passage and B'nai Brith and the like, have been argued to be abusive of power and influence once they had arrived. "Some people simply have no feel for when enough is enough!"
In other words, these people are targeted, and they have gone too far and something is going to have to be done about them. That is my interpretation.
Q. Who are these people?
A. The Jews.
Q. Where does it say "the Jews" in that passage?
A. It says "Jewish track record," "Jewish history," "organized Jewry," "B'nai Brith."
Q. Is B'nai Brith synonymous with all Jews?
A. No, of course not. I don't think so; I don't know.
Q. "Jewish history and the Jewish track record
shows that organized Jewry repeatedly clenched defeat from the jaws of near-total victory by their arrogant abuse of power and influence ‑‑"
You are saying that is what, a reference to all Jews in history?
A. It is hard for me to know. It looks like to me it says that Jewish history, the Jewish track record and organized Jewry and B'nai Brith and the Jewish lobby, et cetera ‑‑ a whole aggregate of nouns.
Q. You deny or you say that that is impossible of conveying the meaning that Jewish history and Jewish track record shows that organized Jewry has overdone it at times?
A. That is what it says. That is my interpretation of what it says.
Q. Overdone it?
A. Yes, gone too far.
Q. Gone too far; that is what I was suggesting, and that on those occasions they have lost power and influence. Does it say what happened on those occasions?
A. Does it say that?
Q. No, it doesn't say what happened on those occasions. You are saying that the implication is that on all those occasions it is necessarily implying violence, are you?
A. No, I am saying that the passage suggests that organized Jewry has abused its power and that they simply don't know when enough is enough and that is the straw that breaks the camel's back. In other words, they have exceeded their authority and, therefore, it follows that they need to be opposed.
Q. They need to be opposed?
A. Yes.
Q. Where does it say that?
A. I said that that was my interpretation.
Q. Does it indicate how they need to be opposed?
A. It does not indicate how they need to be opposed.
Q. Does it necessarily imply that they need to be violently opposed?
A. It does not necessarily imply it; it invites that interpretation.
Q. Why does it invite that interpretation as opposed to "opposed" in the sense that they need to be debated, disputed, argued with, criticized?
A. It could mean that, too.
Q. It could mean that, too?
A. Yes.
Q. In the context of other items that you analyzed, isn't that process of opposition what is expressed in other areas ‑‑ disputation with the Holocaust, disputation with other issues of Jewish religion and Jewish belief?
A. In places; in other places they are simply name-calling.
Q. Do you agree with me that the interpretation of this passage is capable of meaning disputation as well?
A. It may be.
Q. You then base your analysis on the rest of the passage, do you?
A. With respect to violence?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Q. So we have exhausted the reference in this paragraph or passage to what you took to mean an invitation to violence?
A. That's right.
Q. And you acknowledge that it is capable of inviting disputation as well?
A. As well.
Q. By what means do you ascertain the most likely implication to be drawn from these words, be it either an invitation to violence or an invitation to disputation?
A. I guess I draw it from the kind of language that is used in the passage itself, the language of "hit squads" and "arrogance" and so forth.
Q. Arrogance and hit squads. Hit squads to silence B'nai Brith opposition?
A. Yes.
Q. Surely that doesn't mean that they go around shooting the people who oppose them, does it? Are you suggesting that the author implies and that it is a logical implication to derive from those words that "hit squads to silence B'nai Brith opposition" means actual physical violence to go around and shoot the people who oppose B'nai Brith?
A. The passage says: "the Federal government bureaucracy as its patsy or hit squad," in other words, the instrument of B'nai Brith. The hit squad, in my interpretation, is not someone who goes around and disputes with people.
Q. The term "hit squad" can mean a number of things in the context.
A. Yes, it can.
Q. It can mean actually people who go around and shoot other people or kill them and it can also mean people who go around and embarrass others, people who go around and harass others. Right?
A. I would not use "hit squad" to mean that, but I suppose it might.
Q. Surely, Doctor, in this passage there is no suggestion, no realistic inference to be derived by any rational person that the author was suggesting that any federal government bureau goes around to kill people to silence B'nai Brith opposition.
A. I think that is correct; I think you are right.
Q. It is extreme language to convey intense emotion, but surely it does not mean that he implies that there is actual killing by the federal bureaucracy at the behest of B'nai Brith.
A. I would hope not.
Q. When you say you would hope not, I am not asking your wishes or your aspirations, but your opinion as an expert. If you claim to be able to interpret these words, I am suggesting that the common sense interpretation by the average rational human being is that the author is not suggesting that there is a group of secret murderers who go around to kill people who oppose B'nai Brith, that a "hit squad to silence B'nai Brith opposition" does not mean that in that context.
A. I guess we would have to ask the author, but what the passage says ‑‑
Q. If we had to ask ‑‑
MR. TAYLOR: Let him finish his answer.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. If we had to ask the author, we would not have to ask you, Doctor, would we, as an expert? We can't ask the author; we are asking you.
A. Can I finish?
Q. Yes. Please get to the point, though.
A. The passage states that ‑‑ the rhetorical statement is:
"‑‑ time will tell how long these people will be allowed to use the Federal government bureaucracy as its patsy or hit squad ‑‑."
My interpretation is that those terms are used to indicate some sort of action against the B'nai Brith opposition. The term "hit squad" is typically used, as I think we know, to mean violence. I think it is used metaphorically here.
Q. I think it is used metaphorically there, too, and I think any logical interpretation would have to be that, wouldn't you, Doctor?
A. I would hope so. I know you don't care about my hopes, but ‑‑
Q. When your opinion is such that you are giving evidence under oath of some likely interpretation to be derived from words, surely you cannot maintain, or do you maintain that those words in that context imply violence by federal government bureaucrats against opponents of B'nai Brith? Are you suggesting that?
A. Let me take a moment, please.
No, I think you are right. I think they don't necessarily imply violence.
Q. May I just take it one step farther? In all likelihood, sir, they don't logically imply violence to a thinking human being in our society, do they?
A. I can't answer that; I don't know. I can't answer that, Mr. Christie, because I don't know.
Q. You don't fit within those categories or your expertise doesn't cover those categories?
A. Logical thinking human beings in our society?
Q. Yes.
A. I hope I fit in it.
Q. I hope so, too. I suggest, sir, that as an expert you must acknowledge that frequently people use metaphors that don't necessarily carry their primary meaning.
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. People use "hit squad" to refer to political opponents in other than violent contexts. I can give you examples.
A. Fine, give me an example.
Q. The Liberal Party might refer to their critics in the Opposition as a hit squad, but they don't mean they are going to kill them. I mean, this happens, doesn't it, in normal discourse?
A. It does.
Q. In this context, I suggest that it is not just not necessarily going to mean that there is no violence contemplated; I am going to suggest that logically and in the context it is very unlikely that that passage suggests that the author seriously contends that the federal government is involved in violence to silence the opponents of B'nai Brith.
A. That is correct. I accept that.
Q. More than likely he means that the federal government, through its many powers ‑‑ perhaps Revenue Canada, IRS or some other lawful authority ‑‑ will make life difficult for opponents of B'nai Brith. Is that not really a logical context there, a likely implication?
A. That they will use Revenue Canada as an instrument?
Q. I don't know what "federal government" refers to there, and it is difficult to say. It is Canadian politicians, so probably Revenue Canada or some other government agency to make life difficult for opponents of B'nai Brith.
A. I don't know if that follows or not. I have no idea.
Q. Tell me what you think it means.
A. The focus of the analysis was not on this passage, but on the passage saying, "Some people simply have no feel for when enough is enough! There is always that straw that breaks the camel's back!"
Q. That is right, but then I said: What in there suggests violence as opposed to perhaps disputation? Some people push a point too far. You know what I mean? Sometimes lawyers ask too many questions. Right? They will ask questions that are a big embarrassment. Are you familiar with that?
A. It seems like it, yes.
Q. Are you suggesting that that is not a possible meaning, in fact the likely meaning, from "the straw that breaks the camel's back?"
A. No. It seems to me that it invites more than just verbal opposition or the use of Revenue Canada or whatever.
Q. When I asked you why you thought so, you took me back to "hit squads."
A. The use of terms that refer to violent activity.
Q. Yes. You remember that we went back to that sentence and we analyzed that and we went through it. You agreed with me that, although the words are there, the likely implications are that they don't mean violence, that they mean some sort of lawful activity which makes life difficult. I don't know if you agree with that now or if you want to ‑‑
A. I don't know what those lawful activities are, so I can't ‑‑
Q. I gave you a couple of examples.
A. You gave me some examples, and I agreed that those were possibilities, but I don't know.
Q. But, in all likelihood, the sentence you referred to as referring back to violence is actually referring not to violence but to some nuisance activity.
A. Some nuisance activity? It could be. Violence is pretty nuisance.
Q. Okay, we will go back around this again, then.
I suggested to you, and you did at one point agree, that that sentence does not imply violence.
A. I suggested that it is used metaphorically and probably doesn't.
Q. So let's not say ‑‑
A. Can I ‑‑
Q. Let's not say that murder is a nuisance. Right? I don't think I am ‑‑
A. You are correct. I won't ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me. Mr. Kurz...?
MR. KURZ: The witness many times keeps trying to finish his answer and another question is fired in his direction. He is not my witness, but I am trying to hear his answers, and I simply ask that he be allowed to answer the question fully as he sees fit before Mr. Christie puts the next question.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, Mr. Christie.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. What I am trying to get at, sir, is that the sentence that we have analyzed which refers to "hit squads" probably does not refer to violence. Am I right?
A. That is right.
Q. So, if it probably doesn't refer to violence, is it also fair to say that "breaking the camel's back" probably doesn't refer to breaking backs at all?
A. That is an idiom.
Q. I know it is an idiom. I am trying to suggest that it doesn't mean breaking backs.
A. It does not mean breaking backs.
Q. And it does not mean violence in most circumstances.
A. I don't know if it does or not in most circumstances, but in ‑‑
Q. In this circumstance, it doesn't mean violence, I suggest to you.
A. No, I say that it is possible that it does mean violence.
Q. Possible?
A. That is my interpretation.
Q. I understand what you mean. You say it is possible that it means violence.
Looking at all the context, I suggest to you it means not violence; it means that the disputation or the argument will be pushed too far, that people will reject the argument. In essence, that is the more probable meaning, is it not, sir?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. I agree that it is not necessarily so, but isn't it probably so?
A. No, it is not necessarily so, in my view.
Q. What is probable then?
A. It is possible that it can invite violence; it is possible that it can invite disputation.
Q. Anything, sir, from those words would be possible, I suppose.
A. Not anything, but that range of interpretations.
Q. That range of interpretations, yes. So what is more probable?
MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering how long we are going to go around this. I think the witness has given as best he can the answers to Mr. Christie's questions. Mr. Christie obviously is not happy with the answers. He has probed those answers, and now it seems we are going around it the third and fourth time.
MR. CHRISTIE: With the greatest of respect ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: I hesitate to put any undue restriction on Mr. Christie's right to cross-examine.
MR. CHRISTIE: Maybe I could answer briefly. I realize you are saying that I might continue. Let me just put it this way.
It seems to me what is significant is what is probable, not what is possible. That is why I wanted to ask the questions, to try to get to that point. That is basically what I am trying to do.
THE CHAIRPERSON: To the extent that it is on Dr. Prideaux' statement that began this particular line, namely that in his opinion the statement invites violence, and now what you are doing is exploring whether that is a possibility, a probability or something in between ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: That is correct.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps Dr. Prideaux can help us with an answer to that area. I suggest that you pose the question again in those terms.
MR. CHRISTIE: I will try.
Q. I hope you understand what I am trying to get at, sir. Do you understand my question? I will put it again.
Is it not more probable in this context that the implications that would be derived by most rational people would be non-violent?
A. I can't agree with that, Mr. Christie; I am not an expert on probability. What I am suggesting is a range of possibilities, and that is as far as I can honestly go.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So your answer, as I understand it, is that your opinion that this statement invites violence is within the realm of possibility.
THE WITNESS: That is correct, sir.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. How is it possible to derive the inference of violence out of that statement?
A. If one were to say that these individuals had exceeded their proper place, "the straw that breaks the camel's back" invites the possibility that they have to be opposed, and one way of opposing them is through violence.
Q. Certainly not all opposition is violent.
A. I didn't say that.
Q. Where is there a suggestion that the method of opposition should be violence?
A. I don't know. My point was that it is possible that that is an interpretation. There is no suggestion that it is non-violent, for that matter, either.
MR. CHRISTIE: Could the reporter read back my last question.
‑‑- (Reporter read back as requested)
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Where is there a suggestion that the method of opposition should be violence ‑‑ that is what I want to ask. Do you have the question?
A. Yes, I am waiting for you.
Q. I have asked it twice.
A. I am sorry, Mr. Christie, I thought you were busy writing.
Q. I was, but I am still able to listen and also hear. I am still here.
A. There is no overt statement in this passage, overt statement, suggesting opposition through violence, or non-violence for that matter.
Q. So where is there a covert suggestion that the method of opposition should be violence?
A. My analysis was that the passage, "the straw that breaks the camel's back" ‑‑ and we have done this before ‑‑ can invite the possibility of opposition which is violent. We have agreed that it is not necessary, but that it is a possibility.
Q. Other than that, you can't refer to anything specific that covertly suggests that the methods of opposition should be violent as opposed to non-violent?
A. Not in this passage.
Q. Anywhere else?
A. I am trying to remember. Just give me a moment, please.
MR. FREIMAN: I wonder if the Panel might consider suggesting ‑‑ it seems to me that it is awkward to have Mr. Prideaux be asked to try from memory to isolate passages to deal with specific themes. Obviously, it could take some time.
If Mr. Christie has examples of themes that he wishes to explore with Professor Prideaux, perhaps the best idea would be to let us know what those themes are, and then at a break Professor Prideaux can review his notes and review the material that he studied and identify the relevant passages. I am afraid what is going to happen here is that Professor Prideaux is being asked to go quickly through a large number of documents. He may find the passages; he may not. He may not give the information that will be of most use to the Panel and most responsive to Mr. Christie's questions.
MR. CHRISTIE: I could not possibly think of a better way to render a cross-examination ineffectual than to give advance signals or require that advance notice be given of all questions. I don't know what the point would be after such a rule was established. I really think we could do the whole thing by correspondence after that.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think we should simply continue with the cross-examination, and Dr. Prideaux will do the best he can to identify areas. If he can't find them quickly now, perhaps, Mr. Christie, you could go on to another area and he can examine that at the recess.
THE WITNESS: I am looking for another passage; I just can't find it.
MR. CHRISTIE: I don't mind if you want to move on.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we could move on and then we could come back to that.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. There is a question I would like to address at your first opportunity at a break, as to any other passage that you think ‑‑ I guess the word is "invites" violence. Is that a fair statement?
A. Yes, and I have a passage now.
Q. Perhaps you could take me to that now.
A. Page 30, tab 22, in my book.
THE CHAIRPERSON: HR-3.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Page 30 in your analysis, page 3 of tab 22; is that right?
A. Page 2 of tab 22. There are two passages cited here.
Q. I have highlighted them. They start with "The Swiss ruling elite ‑‑"
A. That's right.
Q. Then you skip one paragraph and you start with:
"Where will this end? I fear for the 'little Jew' who has no voice and no say in this matter, but ultimately will have to suffer the fallout!"
A. Yes.
Q. Is that an invitation to violence?
A. My interpretation is that the 'little Jew' is going to be damaged, suffer the fallout from this kind of activity that is discussed.
Q. Is that presented in a positive sense, that the author is celebrating that, encouraging that, inviting that?
A. Inviting the "little Jew" to suffer fallout?
Q. That's right.
A. No, he says that he fears that the "little Jew" will suffer fallout.
Q. Are you suggesting that that is some secret code for just the opposite to what it appears to say or do you take it at face value then?
A. I take it to mean that the "little Jew", whoever that might be, is going to be suffering because of the activities of the Holocaust lobby pressure group, et cetera.
Q. Suffering what?
A. It says "suffer the fallout." I presume suffer any consequences that happen to other Jews.
Q. Are you suggesting that the author is inviting that consequence or is expressing disapproval of that consequence? What are you saying? When he says, "I fear for the 'little Jew' who has no voice and no say in this matter but ultimately will have to suffer the fallout," I would suggest that that implies that the author, whoever that is ‑‑ perhaps "he"; I guess it is a Power Letter, so probably Mr. Zundel ‑‑ is not encouraging or happy with that result.
A. My interpretation was that all the Jews are going to be suffering consequences of this activity, even those who have no voice in the matter. These kinds of consequences could possibly be violent. Look at the ‑‑ well.
Q. Go ahead.
A. I am looking at the language of "The eternal parasite, riding high on a wave of victimhood", drunk with power and influence, et cetera. This language strikes me as being not ordinary discourse but inviting ‑‑ it is very strong rhetorical language.
Q. Are you suggesting that it is inviting the consequence of violence, or is it warning against the consequence?
A. It is warning against the consequence of violence for the "little Jew" but suggesting the possibility of violence for all Jews. It seems to me that the passage says that all Jews, those who have a voice in the matter and those who don't have a voice in the matter, will suffer.
Q. In the previous paragraph it refers to what they are suffering or will perhaps suffer; is that right?
"‑‑ the Swiss public are furious, and their largest paper has come out condemning this particular pressure initiated by a New York Senator, D'Amato."
Doesn't that identify what it is they are going to suffer in public opinion? It seems clear to me.
A. It is not entirely clear to me, but it seems that that is a possibility.
Q. It is a possibility, I suggest that it is the possibility as the author presents as the truth or the real historical reality; isn't it?
A. Not necessarily.
Q. What other reality does he suggest in his actual text that is actually happening?
A. He suggests that the "little Jew" and also other Jews will ultimately have to suffer the fallout ‑‑ that is, they are going to suffer some retribution or whatever because of this parasitic activity in the past of the Holocaust lobby.
Q. What they are going to suffer in terms of fallout is identified in the previous paragraph, is it not?
A. No, it really isn't. There is a discussion of media frenzy and there is discussion of thoughtful Jewish voices of warning and there is discussion of an orgy of hate.
Q. Let's not take words out of context; let's deal with sentences. Let's read the first sentence of the previous paragraph which says:
"Large segments of the Swiss public are furious, and their largest paper has come out condemning this political pressure initiated by a New York Senator, D'Amato."
Isn't that a reference to public opinion?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Doesn't that suggest that public opinion will be against the Holocaust lobby?
A. That is what it suggests.
Q. I thought it did, and I hope we agree that that is the effect which is referred to later as "fallout;" isn't it?
A. Not necessarily, Mr. Christie. There could be a variety of other possibilities.
Q. There could be a variety of other possibilities; I guess that is true. "Fallout" could be nuclear. But if there is no reference to "nuclear" and the reference is actually to worldwide opinion or the opinion in the Swiss press, then the possibility is narrowed by what is described as a reality.
A. If the next passage said, "I fear that the little Jew will ultimately suffer the fallout of this political pressure," then I would agree with you. But it says, "Where will this end?" ‑‑ whatever "this" is. Where will this activity end?
Q. Didn't you just invert the order of the sentence? Didn't you just put the last sentence first and the first sentence last? Actually, the first sentence of that paragraph is "Where will this end?"
A. Yes.
Q. Then he answers it:
"I fear for the 'little Jew' who has no voice and no say in this matter, but ultimately will have to suffer the fallout!"
A. Yes, I said the sentences in the other order, but for a purpose.
Q. I agree. What was your purpose?
A. My purpose was to say that, if the paragraph had begun with "I fear for the 'little Jew' who has no voice or say," et cetera, then it would be a more likely interpretation that you give. But it seems to me that "Where will this end?" simply enlarges the domain of the context of activity, which is going to be resulting in the suffering of the Jews.
Q. When the question is asked and the answer is given, why do you not take the answer as meaning what it says?
A. "Where will this end?" is not answered by the next passage. It's a rhetorical question.
Q. It's a rhetorical question. Isn't there a rhetorical answer with an exclamation mark immediately following? Why should you take it out of that context?
A. I would suggest that it is not an answer; it's a statement.
Q. Answers are generally statements, aren't they?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. That is what I thought. I was beginning to wonder that maybe I don't understand how to answer questions.
What is the answer to this question, then, other than the one he gives?
A. There is no answer to the question.
Q. Well, he gives one, doesn't he?
A. No, he gives another statement.
Q. Which answers the question.
"Where will this end? I fear for the 'little Jew' who has no voice and no say in the matter, but will ultimately suffer the fallout!"
Isn't this a warning about the dangers of the Holocaust lobby creating a public backlash? Surely that is the common sense interpretation of these ‑‑
A. But it is not an answer to the question is my point.
Q. The fallout is a public backlash, isn't it? It has been identified in previous paragraphs.
A. Yes.
Q. He says that he fears for the little Jews that have no voice and no say in this matter but who ultimately will have to suffer the fallout in public opinion.
A. Yes.
Q. When unrealistic positions are taken in debate and discourse, is it not logical that reactions will occur and isn't that what this refers to?
A. In the first part of your question, isn't it logical that in debates when unreasonable positions are taken ‑‑ how did you say that?
Q. That there is a reaction.
A. Yes, that is true.
Q. If you take an argument too far and support it without reasons, the reaction is that you are discredited. Is that not your understanding?
A. That, in the best of all worlds, would be the case.
Q. And in the normal world in which we live, if you are making it on the world stage, you get condemned in the press. Right? Like it says here, their largest paper has come out condemning this political pressure. That is a reaction to an extreme position, is it not?
A. It is a reaction to a position. which I guess the author views as extreme.
Q. And he is suggesting that the media is presenting it as extreme and condemning it as such because it comes from a New York Senator by the name of D'Amato. Right?
A. That is what he says.
Q. Isn't he talking about the demand for investigation of dormant Swiss accounts? Isn't that what that is all about?
A. I think it is, yes.
Q. This is a topic in the news. Right?
A. It may be; I don't know. Is it?
Q. In the world we live in, I think you might have heard of it. Right? Have you not heard of it?
A. Dormant Swiss accounts?
Q. The demand to open dormant Swiss accounts to see if they belong to Holocaust survivors.
A. Yes, I have heard of it.
Q. When was this written, in March 1997? It looks like it.
A. It looks like it.
Q. He goes on to say in the same paragraph, preceding the reference to "fallout:"
"The Swiss, like their German brothers, were accused, tried and convicted in an unrelenting, shrill, disgusting media frenzy."
Do you recall the demands that originated with Senator D'Amato for opening of dormant Swiss accounts?
A. No. I didn't even know that D'Amato had anything to do with it, frankly, before I read this.
Q. He said:
"Thoughtful Jewish voices of warning have been drowned in the orgy of hate unleashed by the Bronfman campaign."
Is that what he says?
A. That is what he says.
Q. Isn't that an indication, or implies or suggests ‑‑ isn't the meaning of that sentence that there are thoughtful Jews who are not so inclined and that there is an orgy of hate unleased by the Bronfman campaign, and those are two conflicting points of view?
A. Yes.
Q. Then he says that the position of the Holocaust lobby ‑‑ would you agree that he is equating the Holocaust lobby with the Bronfman campaign?
A. I don't know.
Q. When you read the preceding paragraph ‑‑
A. I am reading the preceding paragraph.
Q. The one that we highlighted.
A. Yes. Does he say anywhere in this passage anything about the Bronfman ‑‑
Q. No, in that paragraph he doesn't mention the Bronfman campaign. I would like to suggest that quite often, if the theme transmits between two paragraphs, that where there is a connecting reference, by implication, you can attach the two ‑‑ Holocaust lobby in this case and the Bronfman campaign. I just suggest to you that that is probably what that implies.
A. I think so, or at least some overlap.
Q. Would you say that he is siding with what he considers thoughtful Jews who warn about getting drowned in an orgy of hate?
A. That he is siding with them?
Q. Yes, siding with them, supporting their position. At least, he says that there is such a position and that he is supporting it.
A. He is asserting that there is such a position and that it has been drowned in an orgy of hate.
Q. By the Bronfman campaign.
A. By the Bronfman campaign.
Q. Which is associated with the Holocaust lobby.
A. If that is a correct association.
Q. By him. We agree that you are not here to decide if it is or is not historical ‑‑
A. I am trying to look at the text and make that ‑‑
Q. That's right. I was suggesting that he is identifying the Holocaust lobby with the Bronfman campaign, and he is opposed to it and he supports what he says is the more thoughtful Jewish voices of warning.
A. Yes.
Q. How do you derive out of that the implication, any necessary implication first of all, of violence?
A. I derived it in the way I said before. If there is going to be fallout and if people are going to be caught up in such fallout, that fallout could be ‑‑ that is, that backlash could, it is possible ‑‑ I don't know about probability, but it is possible that that could have a violent component.
Q. In the preceding paragraphs he identifies the consequence not as violence but as condemnation and public pressure ‑‑ sorry, condemnation in the media, in the largest paper.
A. Right.
Q. So at least in the identification of consequences that precede this word "fallout", he has identified them with public disapprobation.
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. So he is not identifying it with anything violent in anything he has written.
A. My point was that it invites that possibility.
Q. From the sentence that you have analyzed, is he not implying that, if that is a possibility to derive from it and not what I have suggested, merely disapprobation, isn't he saying that that would be wrong? Isn't he implying that he has sympathy for what he calls the little Jews who have no voice and no say in the matter?
A. He says that. He fears for those people because they are going to be caught up in the reaction that is associated with all Jews.
Q. That is associated with the Holocaust lobby and the Bronfman campaign. Right?
A. Yes.
Q. He says, whether he is right or not ‑‑ and, in fact, you are deciding that for your presentation. He is saying that thoughtful Jews don't agree with that position.
A. That is what he says; that is what he asserts ‑‑ or that at least some don't.
Q. Is he not implying that this is wrong? I derive, maybe mistakenly with whatever limited faculties I have, the understanding from these three paragraphs that it is wrong that this reaction should include those who don't agree with the Holocaust lobby.
A. That's right.
Q. Isn't he condemning what he calls ‑‑ the inference or the meanings of all these words, the three paragraphs taken together, condemn an orgy of hate or what he calls an orgy of hate, don't they?
A. Disapproval; condemnation I don't ‑‑
Q. Condemnation is a pretty strong word, but disapprobation of what he calls orgy of hate.
A. Yes.
Q. Whether he is a sanctimonious hypocrite or an honest man is hard to ascertain, and I am not here to ask you to decide that, but it appears from what he is writing that he disapproves of the Holocaust lobby because of what he calls an orgy of hate that it will unleash.
A. That has been unleashed.
Q. Has been unleashed. By inference, is it not fair to say that, as he disapproves of the orgy of hate, he expresses equal disapproval of the consequences of it, whether they be violent or not? We have argued about that, but whether they be violent or whether they be condemnation in the press he disapproves of those consequences.
A. They are going to have to suffer, he says.
Q. Does he seem to ratify or congratulate or encourage or support or give approbation to such suffering in those words? I suggest not.
A. No. I think you are right.
Q. I was going to ask you if you can think of any others but, if you need time for that, in a little while we will have a break. I do have a couple of other questions I wanted to ask you.
In the analysis of this writing, occasionally you have said that this passage or that passage holds the object of its discussion or the subject of its debate or criticism up to ridicule. Am I misstating?
A. I would have to find that passage.
Q. I thought that a number of times that was suggested. To be fair, I don't have a specific to give you, and that might involve the same problem.
Would you agree with me that sarcasm is often a method of disputation? In an argument we often use sarcasm to ‑‑
A. Sometimes we do.
Q. ‑‑ at times, even misrepresent our opponent's position in a way that makes it appear more ridiculous than it might otherwise be. Is that fair?
A. As in creating a straw man.
Q. A straw man, yes. This is not an unusual technique of rhetoric and debate.
A. I don't know how usual it is.
Q. In your analysis of these texts, would you say that that is a technique that is sometimes used?
A. Sarcasm?
Q. Yes.
A. We should find some ‑‑
Q. We could find examples, I suppose.
A. I think I would agree with you in general, Mr. Christie, that there are cases of sarcasm here. I would have to find them to make that comment with content.
Q. Maybe we should move to your analysis at page 30 of tab 26. Could I ask you a couple of questions on that point.
This is the paragraph that begins:
"Why the need to exaggerate? To justify what? A vicious hate campaign for half a century against a former, long defeated enemy? A regime which entered the pages of history over 50 years ago?"
I guess that is a misprint, is it? "It that what this is all about?"
A. "Is that ‑‑." Yes, it is; sorry.
Q. Would you agree with me that at least‑‑ and I know it could be taken out of context here. I was going to ask you to consider whether actually that is not a criticism of hate. Whether he is right factually is another matter, but does it not appear that the implication of those words is that the author disapproves of what he calls a hate campaign?
A. He is stating that it is hate campaign, so I would infer that he disapproves of this hate campaign.
Q. Having a read a number of those passages or similar passages, would you agree with me, from your recollection, that it seems to be the author's position throughout that he pretends or believes to be defending himself or his German group against what he considers a hate campaign?
A. In places he is; in other places he is simply asserting the existence of this campaign.
Q. Whether he is factually accurate or not is another matter, but that is the implication that one derives from at least that paragraph and a number of others I guess I could refer to. Would you agree?
A. I would have to look at the others, Mr. Christie.
Q. Of course. Then he says:
"Or is it not rather to keep the Germans in perpetual mental, political, economic and financial bondage and to make them susceptible to ever new, thinly disguised blackmail schemes which have extorted over 100 Billion DM out of them for the Holocaust Lobbyists and many members of their tribe, institutions and organizations - not to forget the state of Israel, a state which did not even exist at the time of the alleged crimes that were supposed to have been committed by the Nazis? Could it be also about political influence and advantage, both domestic and foreign, that those who can claim 'victim' status can amass by exploitation of the 'Holocaust'?"
I think your analysis was that these questions ‑‑ you would call them rhetorical questions?
A. I don't think I did.
Q. Are they?
A. Yes.
Q. They imply that the Holocaust is being used for financial gain.
A. Yes, they do.
Q. In the identification of the Holocaust Lobby, at least in this and other parts of the text, it identifies that lobby as certainly not all Jews. Would you agree?
A. That's right. In other cases others are associated with it. I seem to recall the Government of Canada.
Q. How do you assess the implication of political statements? Just where in your lexicon or understanding do you make way or give ground or give credence to or recognize the right to exist of opinions of a political nature?
A. You mea
Toronto,
Ontario ‑‑-
Upon resuming on Thursday, December 11, 1997 at 10:11
a.m. RECALLED:
GARY D. PRIDEAUX THE
CHAIRPERSON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Is
there a Mr. Lemire here? No. Is
there anyone here representing Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc.?
No. In the
absence of their presence, I won't deal with the applications that have been
filed with us. We
will now continue with Mr. Prideaux' cross-examination. You are still under
oath, Mr. Prideaux. CROSS-EXAMINATION,
Continued MR.
CHRISTIE: Q. On the last occasion, Mr. Prideaux, we were asking you about
the subject of "66 Questions and Answers" and we were dealing with
Question 44 as an example. That is in the large book in front of you at tab 2. A. Question 44? Q. Yes. Just what part does truth play in your analysis in the
language, in your opinion? A. What part does truth play? Q. Yes. A. I don't know how to answer that. I think truth is important,
plays an important part, but the analysis often can stand on the nature of the
arguments without the content. Q. In the opinions you have expressed, what part does truth play? A. I don't how to answer that, Mr. Christie. Q. Why not? A. Perhaps, if we could have an example, we could address it.
Truth is important to me. Truth is important in my analyses. I try not to be
untruthful. Q. What part does truth of what you are analyzing play in your
analysis? A. I am analyzing the texts, not their historical content. Q. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the content is true.
Does that have any effect on your analysis? A. If I know it is true or if I know it is not true, I presume it
would have. But I wasn't analyzing the truth of the text; I was trying to
analyze to texts. Q. So, in effect, it has no effect on your opinion at all, then. A. No, I didn't say that. Q. Well, what effect does it have on your opinion? You said: If
I believed it was true, it might; if I didn't, it wouldn't. What
is your position? A. I like the truth, I suppose. That is important to me, and I
try to be truthful. I try to understand the texts as texts. Q. But when they are descriptive of events, does truth have any
part in your analysis of the effects or likely effects of these documents? A. It may. I am sorry, Mr. Christie, I don't‑‑ Q. Does it? A. It may. Q. Has it? A. It has. Q. Where? A. When I look at the structure of an argument, looking at the
premises and whether, if the premises are accepted, certain things follow from
them, those are analytical truths, aren't they? Q. You are saying, then, that analytical truths are what you deal
with? I don't quite understand what you mean by that. What do you mean by
that? A. Analytical truths? Q. Yes. A. If a premise exists and something follows from that premise
logically, that is called analytical truth. Q. Is that what you mean by truth? A. Not always; of course not. There are other kinds of truth,
too; historical truth perhaps. Q. What is the historical truth and what part does it play in your
analysis? A. It plays no part in my analysis so far as I am not a historian
and I don't know the truth of these issues. Q. In your analysis you have expressed opinions as to what the
likely effect of certain writing is in certain documents. How did you make a
selection of the documents? A. I was given the documents. Q. How many of these documents are there that you analyzed? A. There are these. Q. So you are saying that 33 or so were what you analyzed? A. That's right, the documents that are in the little book. Q. How representative are these of ‑‑ how many
documents are there on the Zundelsite? A. I don't know. Q. And you didn't make the selection? A. I did not make the selection. Q. So you are analyzing a selected sample of a number of a size
you have no idea of. A. That's right. Q. Is that proper scientific analysis? A. That is an analysis of the texts. Q. I am sorry, is that proper scientific analysis? A. Yes. Q. To be given a sampling which somebody else has selected from a
large number? A. Yes. Q. Does that produce a proper analysis of the content of the
entire site? A. I don't know if it is a representative sample or not. Q. Who gave you the sample? A. The Canadian Human Rights Commission. Q. Do you know what criteria they used to make the selection? A. I do not. Q. In terms of the statement that we were analyzing on the last
day at tab 2, Question 44: "Given a 100 percent duty cycle of all the
crematories in all the camps in German -controlled territory, what is the
maximum number of corpses it would have been possible to incinerate during the
entire period such crematories were in operation? About 430,600." how do you
analyze that statement? A. It is an assertion based on the content of the question. It's
an asserted answer based on the content of the question. Whether it is true or
not I don't know. Q. Wouldn't the impact or the effect of that statement depend on
whether it was true or not? A. I suppose it would depend on who was reading it as well. Q. Whatever other thing it might depend on, it does depend also on
whether it is true or not, doesn't it? A. I am sorry...? Q. Doesn't it depend on whether it is true or not? A. Not necessarily. I don't know if it is true. Q. I didn't say you knew if it was true, but doesn't the effect of
the statement depend on its truth or not? A. It may. It doesn't have to, but it may. Q. In what circumstances does it not depend on its truth? A. The effect could simply be the association of a word with other
words, and that might cause an effect in the reader or the hearer. Q. It might cause an effect? A. It may or may not. Q. Would it? A. It may. Q. What we are interested in, I hope, is what is probable. What
is probably the result of a truthful statement? A. Acceptance of the statement. Q. If the statement is true, its acceptance is the probable
result? A. I can't say that; I don't know that that is the case. Q. Well, what do you know about the truth or falsity of that
particular statement? A. I don't know anything about the truth or falsity of it. Q. Or any of the statements and answers that are given in the
"66 Questions and Answers." A. I didn't say that. Q. Do you know about the truth or falsity of any of them? A. No, I am not a historian. I could not comment on the truth or
falsity of any of them. Q. Generally speaking, do you have any opinions on the likely
effect of the communication of truth? A. I don't understand the question, Mr. Christie. Q. What part of it do you not understand? As a linguist, you
should be able to tell me and then I can clarify it. A. I don't understand the context. I don't understand the
question. Just say the question again. Q. The question has no context. What part of the question don't
you understand? A. Would you repeat the question, please. Q. In your opinion, what part does truth play in the understanding
of a term? A. I don't know what part it plays. Q. Does it have any effect on your own views? A. Yes. Q. How do you determine the truth or falsity? A. I accept what people who know something about it generally say. Q. You accept what people who know something about it generally
say? A. That is what I said, yes. Q. What people generally know something about it? A. I suppose, with respect to this material, historians would know
something about it. Q. What historians? A. I presume people who are trained in the area and know something
about the history of the period. Q. Anyone in particular? A. I haven't asked historians. I haven't gone to look at modern
European historians. Q. Obviously, in your analysis you made no attempt to ascertain
whether the statements were true or false. A. That is correct. Q. In some of your opinions earlier, I understand that you said
that Mr. Zundel advocated violence or expressed violence or somehow was
associated with violence. A. I think I did say that. Q. Can you show me what it is you refer to? Did you say
"advocates violence", "expresses violence?" What is it
that you are saying here? A. I think I said it invites violence. Q. It invites violence. What text, in your analysis, invites
violence? A. You will have to give me a moment, Mr. Christie, to try to find
it. I am
still searching, Mr. Christie, but the text, as I recall, said something about
people who don't know their proper place and that enough is enough and that
this could be the straw that broke the camel's back, or something to that
effect. I will keep looking. One of
those occasions is on page 27 of my document. In the text it says at the top
of the page: "Some people simply have no feel for when enough
is enough!" This is having
to do with the claim that the Jews have arrived. Then there is the statement: "There is always that last straw that breaks the
camel's back!" I take
that to be, if it is not simply a rhetorical gesture, one that suggests that
somebody is going to take action because of these facts. That is my
interpretation at any rate. Q. Your interpretation? A. Yes. Q. Is it not consistent with the logical interpretation of those
words to say that sometimes people push their arguments too far and then they
are rejected and they are no longer credible? A. I think, if that is what it had meant to say, that is probably
what it would have said. I think "the straw that breaks the camel's
back," as we know it as an idiom, is a kind of last resort notion. Q. You are saying that that implies violence necessarily? A. I said it invites violence. Q. It invites violence. Why does it invite violence? A. Because the people who have been targeted, the Jews in the
earlier part of the passage and B'nai Brith and the like, have been argued to
be abusive of power and influence once they had arrived. "Some people
simply have no feel for when enough is enough!" In
other words, these people are targeted, and they have gone too far and
something is going to have to be done about them. That is my interpretation. Q. Who are these people? A. The Jews. Q. Where does it say "the Jews" in that passage? A. It says "Jewish track record," "Jewish
history," "organized Jewry," "B'nai Brith." Q. Is B'nai Brith synonymous with all Jews? A. No, of course not. I don't think so; I don't know. Q. "Jewish history and the Jewish track record shows that organized Jewry repeatedly clenched defeat
from the jaws of near-total victory by their arrogant abuse of power and
influence ‑‑" You are saying
that is what, a reference to all Jews in history? A. It is hard for me to know. It looks like to me it says that
Jewish history, the Jewish track record and organized Jewry and B'nai Brith and
the Jewish lobby, et cetera ‑‑ a whole aggregate of nouns. Q. You deny or you say that that is impossible of conveying the
meaning that Jewish history and Jewish track record shows that organized Jewry
has overdone it at times? A. That is what it says. That is my interpretation of what it
says. Q. Overdone it? A. Yes, gone too far. Q. Gone too far; that is what I was suggesting, and that on those
occasions they have lost power and influence. Does it say what happened on
those occasions? A. Does it say that? Q. No, it doesn't say what happened on those occasions. You are
saying that the implication is that on all those occasions it is necessarily
implying violence, are you? A. No, I am saying that the passage suggests that organized Jewry
has abused its power and that they simply don't know when enough is enough and
that is the straw that breaks the camel's back. In other words, they have
exceeded their authority and, therefore, it follows that they need to be opposed. Q. They need to be opposed? A. Yes. Q. Where does it say that? A. I said that that was my interpretation. Q. Does it indicate how they need to be opposed? A. It does not indicate how they need to be opposed. Q. Does it necessarily imply that they need to be violently
opposed? A. It does not necessarily imply it; it invites that
interpretation. Q. Why does it invite that interpretation as opposed to
"opposed" in the sense that they need to be debated, disputed, argued
with, criticized? A. It could mean that, too. Q. It could mean that, too? A. Yes. Q. In the context of other items that you analyzed, isn't that
process of opposition what is expressed in other areas ‑‑
disputation with the Holocaust, disputation with other issues of Jewish religion
and Jewish belief? A. In places; in other places they are simply name-calling. Q. Do you agree with me that the interpretation of this passage is
capable of meaning disputation as well? A. It may be. Q. You then base your analysis on the rest of the passage, do you? A. With respect to violence? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. So we have exhausted the reference in this paragraph or passage
to what you took to mean an invitation to violence? A. That's right. Q. And you acknowledge that it is capable of inviting disputation
as well? A. As well. Q. By what means do you ascertain the most likely implication to
be drawn from these words, be it either an invitation to violence or an
invitation to disputation? A. I guess I draw it from the kind of language that is used in the
passage itself, the language of "hit squads" and
"arrogance" and so forth. Q. Arrogance and hit squads. Hit squads to silence B'nai Brith
opposition? A. Yes. Q. Surely that doesn't mean that they go around shooting the
people who oppose them, does it? Are you suggesting that the author implies
and that it is a logical implication to derive from those words that "hit
squads to silence B'nai Brith opposition" means actual physical violence
to go around and shoot the people who oppose B'nai Brith? A. The passage says: "the Federal government bureaucracy as
its patsy or hit squad," in other words, the instrument of B'nai Brith.
The hit squad, in my interpretation, is not someone who goes around and
disputes with people. Q. The term "hit squad" can mean a number of things in
the context. A. Yes, it can. Q. It can mean actually people who go around and shoot other
people or kill them and it can also mean people who go around and embarrass
others, people who go around and harass others. Right? A. I would not use "hit squad" to mean that, but I
suppose it might. Q. Surely, Doctor, in this passage there is no suggestion, no
realistic inference to be derived by any rational person that the author was
suggesting that any federal government bureau goes around to kill people to
silence B'nai Brith opposition. A. I think that is correct; I think you are right. Q. It is extreme language to convey intense emotion, but surely it
does not mean that he implies that there is actual killing by the federal
bureaucracy at the behest of B'nai Brith. A. I would hope not. Q. When you say you would hope not, I am not asking your wishes or
your aspirations, but your opinion as an expert. If you claim to be able to
interpret these words, I am suggesting that the common sense interpretation by
the average rational human being is that the author is not suggesting that
there is a group of secret murderers who go around to kill people who oppose
B'nai Brith, that a "hit squad to silence B'nai Brith opposition"
does not mean that in that context. A. I guess we would have to ask the author, but what the passage
says ‑‑ Q. If we had to ask ‑‑ MR.
TAYLOR: Let him finish his answer. MR.
CHRISTIE: Q. If we had to ask the author, we would not have to ask you,
Doctor, would we, as an expert? We can't ask the author; we are asking you. A. Can I finish? Q. Yes. Please get to the point, though. A. The passage states that ‑‑ the rhetorical statement
is: "‑‑ time will tell how long these
people will be allowed to use the Federal government bureaucracy as its patsy
or hit squad ‑‑." My
interpretation is that those terms are used to indicate some sort of action
against the B'nai Brith opposition. The term "hit squad" is
typically used, as I think we know, to mean violence. I think it is used
metaphorically here. Q. I think it is used metaphorically there, too, and I think any
logical interpretation would have to be that, wouldn't you, Doctor? A. I would hope so. I know you don't care about my hopes, but ‑‑ Q. When your opinion is such that you are giving evidence under
oath of some likely interpretation to be derived from words, surely you cannot
maintain, or do you maintain that those words in that context imply violence by
federal government bureaucrats against opponents of B'nai Brith? Are you
suggesting that? A. Let me take a moment, please. No, I
think you are right. I think they don't necessarily imply violence. Q. May I just take it one step farther? In all likelihood, sir,
they don't logically imply violence to a thinking human being in our society,
do they? A. I can't answer that; I don't know. I can't answer that, Mr.
Christie, because I don't know. Q. You don't fit within those categories or your expertise doesn't
cover those categories? A. Logical thinking human beings in our society? Q. Yes. A. I hope I fit in it. Q. I hope so, too. I suggest, sir, that as an expert you must
acknowledge that frequently people use metaphors that don't necessarily carry
their primary meaning. A. Yes, that is correct. Q. People use "hit squad" to refer to political opponents
in other than violent contexts. I can give you examples. A. Fine, give me an example. Q. The Liberal Party might refer to their critics in the
Opposition as a hit squad, but they don't mean they are going to kill them. I
mean, this happens, doesn't it, in normal discourse? A. It does. Q. In this context, I suggest that it is not just not necessarily
going to mean that there is no violence contemplated; I am going to suggest
that logically and in the context it is very unlikely that that passage suggests
that the author seriously contends that the federal government is involved in
violence to silence the opponents of B'nai Brith. A. That is correct. I accept that. Q. More than likely he means that the federal government, through
its many powers ‑‑ perhaps Revenue Canada, IRS or some other lawful
authority ‑‑ will make life difficult for opponents of B'nai
Brith. Is that not really a logical context there, a likely implication? A. That they will use Revenue Canada as an instrument? Q. I don't know what "federal government" refers to
there, and it is difficult to say. It is Canadian politicians, so probably
Revenue Canada or some other government agency to make life difficult for
opponents of B'nai Brith. A. I don't know if that follows or not. I have no idea. Q. Tell me what you think it means. A. The focus of the analysis was not on this passage, but on the
passage saying, "Some people simply have no feel for when enough is
enough! There is always that straw that breaks the camel's back!" Q. That is right, but then I said: What in there suggests
violence as opposed to perhaps disputation? Some people push a point too far.
You know what I mean? Sometimes lawyers ask too many questions. Right? They
will ask questions that are a big embarrassment. Are you familiar with that? A. It seems like it, yes. Q. Are you suggesting that that is not a possible meaning, in fact
the likely meaning, from "the straw that breaks the camel's back?" A. No. It seems to me that it invites more than just verbal
opposition or the use of Revenue Canada or whatever. Q. When I asked you why you thought so, you took me back to
"hit squads." A. The use of terms that refer to violent activity. Q. Yes. You remember that we went back to that sentence and we
analyzed that and we went through it. You agreed with me that, although the
words are there, the likely implications are that they don't mean violence,
that they mean some sort of lawful activity which makes life difficult. I
don't know if you agree with that now or if you want to ‑‑ A. I don't know what those lawful activities are, so I can't ‑‑ Q. I gave you a couple of examples. A. You gave me some examples, and I agreed that those were
possibilities, but I don't know. Q. But, in all likelihood, the sentence you referred to as
referring back to violence is actually referring not to violence but to some
nuisance activity. A. Some nuisance activity? It could be. Violence is pretty
nuisance. Q. Okay, we will go back around this again, then. I
suggested to you, and you did at one point agree, that that sentence does not
imply violence. A. I suggested that it is used metaphorically and probably
doesn't. Q. So let's not say ‑‑ A. Can I ‑‑ Q. Let's not say that murder is a nuisance. Right? I don't think
I am ‑‑ A. You are correct. I won't ‑‑ THE
CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me. Mr. Kurz...? MR.
KURZ: The witness many times keeps trying to
finish his answer and another question is fired in his direction. He is not my
witness, but I am trying to hear his answers, and I simply ask that he be
allowed to answer the question fully as he sees fit before Mr. Christie puts
the next question. THE
CHAIRPERSON: Proceed, Mr. Christie. MR.
CHRISTIE: Q. What I am trying to get at, sir, is that the sentence that we
have analyzed which refers to "hit squads" probably does not refer to
violence. Am I right? A. That is right. Q. So, if it probably doesn't refer to violence, is it also fair
to say that "breaking the camel's back" probably doesn't refer to
breaking backs at all? A. That is an idiom. Q. I know it is an idiom. I am trying to suggest that it doesn't
mean breaking backs. A. It does not mean breaking backs. Q. And it does not mean violence in most circumstances. A. I don't know if it does or not in most circumstances, but in ‑‑ Q. In this circumstance, it doesn't mean violence, I suggest to
you. A. No, I say that it is possible that it does mean violence. Q. Possible? A. That is my interpretation. Q. I understand what you mean. You say it is possible that it
means violence. Looking
at all the context, I suggest to you it means not violence; it means that the
disputation or the argument will be pushed too far, that people will reject the
argument. In essence, that is the more probable meaning, is it not, sir? A. Not necessarily. Q. I agree that it is not necessarily so, but isn't it probably
so? A. No, it is not necessarily so, in my view. Q. What is probable then? A. It is possible that it can invite violence; it is possible that
it can invite disputation. Q. Anything, sir, from those words would be possible, I suppose. A. Not anything, but that range of interpretations. Q. That range of interpretations, yes. So what is more probable? MR.
TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering how long we
are going to go around this. I think the witness has given as best he can the
answers to Mr. Christie's questions. Mr. Christie obviously is not happy with
the answers. He has probed those answers, and now it seems we are going around
it the third and fourth time. MR.
CHRISTIE: With the greatest of respect ‑‑ THE
CHAIRPERSON: I hesitate to put any undue
restriction on Mr. Christie's right to cross-examine. MR.
CHRISTIE: Maybe I could answer briefly. I realize
you are saying that I might continue. Let me just put it this way. It
seems to me what is significant is what is probable, not what is possible.
That is why I wanted to ask the questions, to try to get to that point. That
is basically what I am trying to do. THE
CHAIRPERSON: To the extent that it is on Dr.
Prideaux' statement that began this particular line, namely that in his opinion
the statement invites violence, and now what you are doing is exploring whether
that is a possibility, a probability or something in between ‑‑ MR.
CHRISTIE: That is correct. THE
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps Dr. Prideaux can help us with
an answer to that area. I suggest that you pose the question again in those
terms. MR.
CHRISTIE: I will try. Q. I hope you understand what I am trying to get at, sir. Do you
understand my question? I will put it again. Is it
not more probable in this context that the implications that would be derived
by most rational people would be non-violent? A. I can't agree with that, Mr. Christie; I am not an expert on
probability. What I am suggesting is a range of possibilities, and that is as
far as I can honestly go. THE
CHAIRPERSON: So your answer, as I understand it,
is that your opinion that this statement invites violence is within the realm
of possibility. THE
WITNESS: That is correct, sir. MR.
CHRISTIE: Q. How is it possible to derive the inference of violence out of
that statement? A. If one were to say that these individuals had exceeded their
proper place, "the straw that breaks the camel's back" invites the
possibility that they have to be opposed, and one way of opposing them is
through violence. Q. Certainly not all opposition is violent. A. I didn't say that. Q. Where is there a suggestion that the method of opposition
should be violence? A. I don't know. My point was that it is possible that that is an
interpretation. There is no suggestion that it is non-violent, for that
matter, either. MR.
CHRISTIE: Could the reporter read back my last
question. ‑‑-
(Reporter read back as requested) MR.
CHRISTIE: Q. Where is there a suggestion that the method of opposition
should be violence ‑‑ that is what I want to ask. Do you have the
question? A. Yes, I am waiting for you. Q. I have asked it twice. A. I am sorry, Mr. Christie, I thought you were busy writing. Q. I was, but I am still able to listen and also hear. I am still
here. A. There is no overt statement in this passage, overt statement,
suggesting opposition through violence, or non-violence for that matter. Q. So where is there a covert suggestion that the method of
opposition should be violence? A. My analysis was that the passage, "the straw that breaks
the camel's back" ‑‑ and we have done this before ‑‑
can invite the possibility of opposition which is violent. We have agreed that
it is not necessary, but that it is a possibility. Q. Other than that, you can't refer to anything specific that
covertly suggests that the methods of opposition should be violent as opposed
to non-violent? A. Not in this passage. Q. Anywhere else? A. I am trying to remember. Just give me a moment, please. MR.
FREIMAN: I wonder if the Panel might consider
suggesting ‑‑ it seems to me that it is awkward to have Mr.
Prideaux be asked to try from memory to isolate passages to deal with specific
themes. Obviously, it could take some time. If Mr.
Christie has examples of themes that he wishes to explore with Professor
Prideaux, perhaps the best idea would be to let us know what those themes are,
and then at a break Professor Prideaux can review his notes and review the
material that he studied and identify the relevant passages. I am afraid what
is going to happen here is that Professor Prideaux is being asked to go quickly
through a large number of documents. He may find the passages; he may not. He
may not give the information that will be of most use to the Panel and most
responsive to Mr. Christie's questions. MR.
CHRISTIE: I could not possibly think of a better
way to render a cross-examination ineffectual than to give advance signals or
require that advance notice be given of all questions. I don't know what the
point would be after such a rule was established. I really think we could do
the whole thing by correspondence after that. THE
CHAIRPERSON: I think we should simply continue
with the cross-examination, and Dr. Prideaux will do the best he can to
identify areas. If he can't find them quickly now, perhaps, Mr. Christie, you
could go on to another area and he can examine that at the recess. THE
WITNESS: I am looking for another passage; I just
can't find it. MR.
CHRISTIE: I don't mind if you want to move on. THE
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps we could move on and then we
could come back to that. MR.
CHRISTIE: Q. There is a question I would like to address at your first
opportunity at a break, as to any other passage that you think ‑‑ I
guess the word is "invites" violence. Is that a fair statement? A. Yes, and I have a passage now. Q. Perhaps you could take me to that now. A. Page 30, tab 22, in my book. THE
CHAIRPERSON: HR-3. MR.
CHRISTIE: Q. Page 30 in your analysis, page 3 of tab 22; is that right? A. Page 2 of tab 22. There are two passages cited here. Q. I have highlighted them. They start with "The Swiss
ruling elite ‑‑" A. That's right. Q. Then you skip one paragraph and you start with: "Where will this end? I fear for the 'little
Jew' who has no voice and no say in this matter, but ultimately will have to
suffer the fallout!" A. Yes. Q. Is that an invitation to violence? A. My interpretation is that the 'little Jew' is going to be
damaged, suffer the fallout from this kind of activity that is discussed. Q. Is that presented in a positive sense, that the author is
celebrating that, encouraging that, inviting that? A. Inviting the "little Jew" to suffer fallout? Q. That's right. A. No, he says that he fears that the "little Jew" will
suffer fallout. Q. Are you suggesting that that is some secret code for just the
opposite to what it appears to say or do you take it at face value then? A. I take it to mean that the "little Jew", whoever that
might be, is going to be suffering because of the activities of the Holocaust
lobby pressure group, et cetera. Q. Suffering what? A. It says "suffer the fallout." I presume suffer any
consequences that happen to other Jews. Q. Are you suggesting that the author is inviting that consequence
or is expressing disapproval of that consequence? What are you saying? When
he says, "I fear for the 'little Jew' who has no voice and no say in this
matter but ultimately will have to suffer the fallout," I would suggest
that that implies that the author, whoever that is ‑‑ perhaps
"he"; I guess it is a Power Letter, so probably Mr. Zundel ‑‑
is not encouraging or happy with that result. A. My interpretation was that all the Jews are going to be
suffering consequences of this activity, even those who have no voice in the
matter. These kinds of consequences could possibly be violent. Look at the ‑‑
well. Q. Go ahead. A. I am looking at the language of "The eternal parasite,
riding high on a wave of victimhood", drunk with power and influence, et
cetera. This language strikes me as being not ordinary discourse but inviting ‑‑
it is very strong rhetorical language. Q. Are you suggesting that it is inviting the consequence of
violence, or is it warning against the consequence? A. It is warning against the consequence of violence for the
"little Jew" but suggesting the possibility of violence for all
Jews. It seems to me that the passage says that all Jews, those who have a
voice in the matter and those who don't have a voice in the matter, will
suffer. Q. In the previous paragraph it refers to what they are suffering
or will perhaps suffer; is that right? "‑‑ the Swiss public are furious, and
their largest paper has come out condemning this particular pressure initiated
by a New York Senator, D'Amato." Doesn't that
identify what it is they are going to suffer in public opinion? It seems clear
to me. A. It is not entirely clear to me, but it seems that that is a
possibility. Q. It is a possibility, I suggest that it is the possibility as
the author presents as the truth or the real historical reality; isn't it? A. Not necessarily. Q. What other reality does he suggest in his actual text that is
actually happening? A. He suggests that the "little Jew" and also other Jews
will ultimately have to suffer the fallout ‑‑ that is, they are
going to suffer some retribution or whatever because of this parasitic activity
in the past of the Holocaust lobby. Q. What they are going to suffer in terms of fallout is identified
in the previous paragraph, is it not? A. No, it really isn't. There is a discussion of media frenzy and
there is discussion of thoughtful Jewish voices of warning and there is
discussion of an orgy of hate. Q. Let's not take words out of context; let's deal with
sentences. Let's read the first sentence of the previous paragraph which says: "Large segments of the Swiss public are furious,
and their largest paper has come out condemning this political pressure
initiated by a New York Senator, D'Amato." Isn't that a
reference to public opinion? A. Yes, it is. Q. Doesn't that suggest that public opinion will be against the
Holocaust lobby? A. That is what it suggests. Q. I thought it did, and I hope we agree that that is the effect
which is referred to later as "fallout;" isn't it? A. Not necessarily, Mr. Christie. There could be a variety of
other possibilities. Q. There could be a variety of other possibilities; I guess that
is true. "Fallout" could be nuclear. But if there is no reference
to "nuclear" and the reference is actually to worldwide opinion or the
opinion in the Swiss press, then the possibility is narrowed by what is
described as a reality. A. If the next passage said, "I fear that the little Jew will
ultimately suffer the fallout of this political pressure," then I would
agree with you. But it says, "Where will this end?" ‑‑
whatever "this" is. Where will this activity end? Q. Didn't you just invert the order of the sentence? Didn't you
just put the last sentence first and the first sentence last? Actually, the
first sentence of that paragraph is "Where will this end?" A. Yes. Q. Then he answers it: "I fear for the 'little Jew' who has no voice and
no say in this matter, but ultimately will have to suffer the fallout!" A. Yes, I said the sentences in the other order, but for a
purpose. Q. I agree. What was your purpose? A. My purpose was to say that, if the paragraph had begun with
"I fear for the 'little Jew' who has no voice or say," et cetera,
then it would be a more likely interpretation that you give. But it seems to
me that "Where will this end?" simply enlarges the domain of the
context of activity, which is going to be resulting in the suffering of the
Jews. Q. When the question is asked and the answer is given, why do you
not take the answer as meaning what it says? A. "Where will this end?" is not answered by the next
passage. It's a rhetorical question. Q. It's a rhetorical question. Isn't there a rhetorical answer
with an exclamation mark immediately following? Why should you take it out of
that context? A. I would suggest that it is not an answer; it's a statement. Q. Answers are generally statements, aren't they? A. Yes, they are. Q. That is what I thought. I was beginning to wonder that maybe I
don't understand how to answer questions. What
is the answer to this question, then, other than the one he gives? A. There is no answer to the question. Q. Well, he gives one, doesn't he? A. No, he gives another statement. Q. Which answers the question. "Where will this end? I fear for the 'little
Jew' who has no voice and no say in the matter, but will ultimately suffer the
fallout!" Isn't this a
warning about the dangers of the Holocaust lobby creating a public backlash?
Surely that is the common sense interpretation of these ‑‑ A. But it is not an answer to the question is my point. Q. The fallout is a public backlash, isn't it? It has been
identified in previous paragraphs. A. Yes. Q. He says that he fears for the little Jews that have no voice
and no say in this matter but who ultimately will have to suffer the fallout in
public opinion. A. Yes. Q. When unrealistic positions are taken in debate and discourse,
is it not logical that reactions will occur and isn't that what this refers to? A. In the first part of your question, isn't it logical that in
debates when unreasonable positions are taken ‑‑ how did you say
that? Q. That there is a reaction. A. Yes, that is true. Q. If you take an argument too far and support it without reasons,
the reaction is that you are discredited. Is that not your understanding? A. That, in the best of all worlds, would be the case. Q. And in the normal world in which we live, if you are making it
on the world stage, you get condemned in the press. Right? Like it says here,
their largest paper has come out condemning this political pressure. That is a
reaction to an extreme position, is it not? A. It is a reaction to a position. which I guess the author views
as extreme. Q. And he is suggesting that the media is presenting it as extreme
and condemning it as such because it comes from a New York Senator by the name
of D'Amato. Right? A. That is what he says. Q. Isn't he talking about the demand for investigation of dormant
Swiss accounts? Isn't that what that is all about? A. I think it is, yes. Q. This is a topic in the news. Right? A. It may be; I don't know. Is it? Q. In the world we live in, I think you might have heard of it.
Right? Have you not heard of it? A. Dormant Swiss accounts? Q. The demand to open dormant Swiss accounts to see if they belong
to Holocaust survivors. A. Yes, I have heard of it. Q. When was this written, in March 1997? It looks like it. A. It looks like it. Q. He goes on to say in the same paragraph, preceding the
reference to "fallout:" "The Swiss, like their German brothers, were
accused, tried and convicted in an unrelenting, shrill, disgusting media
frenzy." Do you
recall the demands that originated with Senator D'Amato for opening of dormant
Swiss accounts? A. No. I didn't even know that D'Amato had anything to do with
it, frankly, before I read this. Q. He said: "Thoughtful Jewish voices of warning have been
drowned in the orgy of hate unleashed by the Bronfman campaign." Is that what he
says? A. That is what he says. Q. Isn't that an indication, or implies or suggests ‑‑
isn't the meaning of that sentence that there are thoughtful Jews who are not
so inclined and that there is an orgy of hate unleased by the Bronfman
campaign, and those are two conflicting points of view? A. Yes. Q. Then he says that the position of the Holocaust lobby ‑‑
would you agree that he is equating the Holocaust lobby with the Bronfman
campaign? A. I don't know. Q. When you read the preceding paragraph ‑‑ A. I am reading the preceding paragraph. Q. The one that we highlighted. A. Yes. Does he say anywhere in this passage anything about the
Bronfman ‑‑ Q. No, in that paragraph he doesn't mention the Bronfman
campaign. I would like to suggest that quite often, if the theme transmits
between two paragraphs, that where there is a connecting reference, by
implication, you can attach the two ‑‑ Holocaust lobby in this case
and the Bronfman campaign. I just suggest to you that that is probably what
that implies. A. I think so, or at least some overlap. Q. Would you say that he is siding with what he considers
thoughtful Jews who warn about getting drowned in an orgy of hate? A. That he is siding with them? Q. Yes, siding with them, supporting their position. At least, he
says that there is such a position and that he is supporting it. A. He is asserting that there is such a position and that it has been
drowned in an orgy of hate. Q. By the Bronfman campaign. A. By the Bronfman campaign. Q. Which is associated with the Holocaust lobby. A. If that is a correct association. Q. By him. We agree that you are not here to decide if it is or
is not historical ‑‑ A. I am trying to look at the text and make that ‑‑ Q. That's right. I was suggesting that he is identifying the
Holocaust lobby with the Bronfman campaign, and he is opposed to it and he
supports what he says is the more thoughtful Jewish voices of warning. A. Yes. Q. How do you derive out of that the implication, any necessary
implication first of all, of violence? A. I derived it in the way I said before. If there is going to be
fallout and if people are going to be caught up in such fallout, that fallout
could be ‑‑ that is, that backlash could, it is possible ‑‑
I don't know about probability, but it is possible that that could have a
violent component. Q. In the preceding paragraphs he identifies the consequence not
as violence but as condemnation and public pressure ‑‑ sorry,
condemnation in the media, in the largest paper. A. Right. Q. So at least in the identification of consequences that precede
this word "fallout", he has identified them with public
disapprobation. A. Yes, that's right. Q. So he is not identifying it with anything violent in anything
he has written. A. My point was that it invites that possibility. Q. From the sentence that you have analyzed, is he not implying
that, if that is a possibility to derive from it and not what I have suggested,
merely disapprobation, isn't he saying that that would be wrong? Isn't he
implying that he has sympathy for what he calls the little Jews who have no
voice and no say in the matter? A. He says that. He fears for those people because they are going
to be caught up in the reaction that is associated with all Jews. Q. That is associated with the Holocaust lobby and the Bronfman
campaign. Right? A. Yes. Q. He says, whether he is right or not ‑‑ and, in
fact, you are deciding that for your presentation. He is saying that
thoughtful Jews don't agree with that position. A. That is what he says; that is what he asserts ‑‑ or
that at least some don't. Q. Is he not implying that this is wrong? I derive, maybe
mistakenly with whatever limited faculties I have, the understanding from these
three paragraphs that it is wrong that this reaction should include those who
don't agree with the Holocaust lobby. A. That's right. Q. Isn't he condemning what he calls ‑‑ the inference
or the meanings of all these words, the three paragraphs taken together,
condemn an orgy of hate or what he calls an orgy of hate, don't they? A. Disapproval; condemnation I don't ‑‑ Q. Condemnation is a pretty strong word, but disapprobation of
what he calls orgy of hate. A. Yes. Q. Whether he is a sanctimonious hypocrite or an honest man is
hard to ascertain, and I am not here to ask you to decide that, but it appears
from what he is writing that he disapproves of the Holocaust lobby because of
what he calls an orgy of hate that it will unleash. A. That has been unleashed. Q. Has been unleashed. By inference, is it not fair to say that,
as he disapproves of the orgy of hate, he expresses equal disapproval of the
consequences of it, whether they be violent or not? We have argued about that,
but whether they be violent or whether they be condemnation in the press he
disapproves of those consequences. A. They are going to have to suffer, he says. Q. Does he seem to ratify or congratulate or encourage or support
or give approbation to such suffering in those words? I suggest not. A. No. I think you are right. Q. I was going to ask you if you can think of any others but, if
you need time for that, in a little while we will have a break. I do have a
couple of other questions I wanted to ask you. In the
analysis of this writing, occasionally you have said that this passage or that
passage holds the object of its discussion or the subject of its debate or
criticism up to ridicule. Am I misstating? A. I would have to find that passage. Q. I thought that a number of times that was suggested. To be
fair, I don't have a specific to give you, and that might involve the same
problem. Would
you agree with me that sarcasm is often a method of disputation? In an
argument we often use sarcasm to ‑‑ A. Sometimes we do. Q. ‑‑ at times, even misrepresent our opponent's
position in a way that makes it appear more ridiculous than it might otherwise
be. Is that fair? A. As in creating a straw man. Q. A straw man, yes. This is not an unusual technique of rhetoric
and debate. A. I don't know how usual it is. Q. In your analysis of these texts, would you say that that is a
technique that is sometimes used? A. Sarcasm? Q. Yes. A. We should find some ‑‑ Q. We could find examples, I suppose. A. I think I would agree with you in general, Mr. Christie, that
there are cases of sarcasm here. I would have to find them to make that
comment with content. Q. Maybe we should move to your analysis at page 30 of tab 26.
Could I ask you a couple of questions on that point. This
is the paragraph that begins: "Why the need to exaggerate? To justify what? A
vicious hate campaign for half a century against a former, long defeated
enemy? A regime which entered the pages of history over 50 years ago?" I guess that is
a misprint, is it? "It that what this is all about?" A. "Is that ‑‑." Yes, it is; sorry. Q. Would you agree with me that at least‑‑ and I know
it could be taken out of context here. I was going to ask you to consider
whether actually that is not a criticism of hate. Whether he is right
factually is another matter, but does it not appear that the implication of
those words is that the author disapproves of what he calls a hate campaign? A. He is stating that it is hate campaign, so I would infer that
he disapproves of this hate campaign. Q. Having a read a number of those passages or similar passages,
would you agree with me, from your recollection, that it seems to be the
author's position throughout that he pretends or believes to be defending
himself or his German group against what he considers a hate campaign? A. In places he is; in other places he is simply asserting the
existence of this campaign. Q. Whether he is factually accurate or not is another matter, but
that is the implication that one derives from at least that paragraph and a
number of others I guess I could refer to. Would you agree? A. I would have to look at the others, Mr. Christie. Q. Of course. Then he says: "Or is it not rather to keep the Germans in
perpetual mental, political, economic and financial bondage and to make them
susceptible to ever new, thinly disguised blackmail schemes which have extorted
over 100 Billion DM out of them for the Holocaust Lobbyists and many members of
their tribe, institutions and organizations - not to forget the state of
Israel, a state which did not even exist at the time of the alleged crimes that
were supposed to have been committed by the Nazis? Could it be also about
political influence and advantage, both domestic and foreign, that those who
can claim 'victim' status can amass by exploitation of the 'Holocaust'?" I
think your analysis was that these questions ‑‑ you would call them
rhetorical questions? A. I don't think I did. Q. Are they? A. Yes. Q. They imply that the Holocaust is being used for financial gain. A. Yes, they do. Q. In the identification of the Holocaust Lobby, at least in this
and other parts of the text, it identifies that lobby as certainly not all
Jews. Would you agree? A. That's right. In other cases others are associated with it. I
seem to recall the Government of Canada. Q. How do you assess the implication of political statements?
Just where in your lexicon or understanding do you make way or give ground or
give credence to or recognize the right to exist of opinions of a political
nature? A. You mea