It's even worse. I know something about this case.
The US Government ALSO cooperated.
I once met Ernst Zundel, a naturalized Canadian citizen, because he is married to the mother (an American Citizen) of a mentally retarded man who's computer I kept running until last year when he moved from California to his mother's home.
I also disagree with Zundel's position on the Holocaust and vociferously argued with him about his opinions, but he was certainly denied his civil rights both in the United States and Canada. In actual fact, Zundel did not write the books they mention in the article. He was merely the Canadian publisher of books written in Canada and the United States.
He has been convicted in Germany of "thought crimes" that occurred outside the jurisdiction where he has been tried and convicted: books published years ago in Canada.
Part of what he was accused of was running a "holocaust denial website"... which happens to be based in the United States and is blocked in Germany. Again, the jurisdiction of the courts that convicted him is very questionable... the crimes were not committed in German jurisdiction.
Zundel had been quietly living in the United States for several years with his wife, when he was arrested and deported to Canada for missing an immigration hearing that neither he nor his attorney were notified of.
Eight armed immigration officers arrested him at his house at gunpoint and then kept him incommunicado, not even allowed a phone call, for several days and moved from jail to jail in several states before being summarily taken across the Canadian border and handed to Canadian authorities for trial before their Human Rights Tribunal for "hate crimes" for publishing the books. During the entire trial, he was kept solitary confinement as a "terrorist." (One of the interesting rulings by the Tribunal, when Zundel's Canadian attorney presented evidence that Zundel had not written the words he was being accused of saying was "The truth is not a defense in this court."
In his German trial, his defense attorneys were repeatedly warned that they could not say anything that might be interpreted as denying the holocaust or they too would be arrested and tried. Twice, his defense attorneys were fired by the prosecutor and he had to start over with newly appointed (by the prosecutor) attorneys.
Be very fearful for the freedom of speech. This is the third check point on the slippery slope that passage of "hate crime" legislation has put us on.
This principle troubled me when the CIA "rendition" program broke. Seems we renditioned Zundel. The Canadian Tribunal's line about "the truth is no defense" reminds me of a Rehnquist death penalty decision in US Supreme Court. Appeallant had newly discovered exculpatory evidence, sought rehearing. Rehnquist, writing for majority held that so long as all legal process had been properly observed, at the level of SCOTUS, "innocence was irrelevant".
Be afraid, very afraid. The slope is slippery and elevating angle.
You certainly do. Then again, so do I.
When Ernst Zundel was nailed in the US his visa had expired. He was therefore an illegal alien. One could argue that he married his German-born American wife to seek cover for his Holocaust-denial website, by trying to claim it was she not he who is responsible for it. It was all a gambit to keep publishing his filth.
You certainly do seem to have great empathy for that man, the author of the book The Hitler We Loved and Why.
"One of the interesting rulings by the Tribunal, when Zundel's Canadian attorney presented evidence that Zundel had not written the words he was being accused of saying was "The truth is not a defense in this court.""
While I despise Canada's hate-speech laws as much as anyone, what you have implied above is not correct. "The truth is not a defense in this court." refers to the fact that speech judged to cause hatred towards an identifiable group cannot be excused just because it is based on a true fact. For example, to say that gays are overrepresented in the ranks of child molestors, if you had facts to that effect, if used in writings whose intention is to disparage gays, would be considered hate speech, even if true. OTOH, if you never actually said something you are accused of saying, that be considered by the court to be exculpatory.
Now, that's still effed up, no doubt, but it's a little different than what you implied.