|
During the Night of June 20-21, 1999  What sparked the vandalism? Can we point to anything that might have triggered the vandalizing of the Ukrainian Cultural Centre described in the media release at the bottom of the present page? I have a hypothesis. Maybe hate literature. The vandalism was committed on the night of June 20-21. If it is the case that the Globe and Mail of June 21 is in fact available on the night of June 20-21, perhaps even on the evening of June 20, then we have a close temporal link between a possible cause and the vandalism. The possible cause is the Andrew Cohen Globe and Mail article of June 21, 1999 whose headline was:
Thus, right from the beginning of Andrew Cohen's article — right from the headline — condemnation is expressed: the title's reference to "settling the score" implies that John Demjanjuk has committed some wrong for which a score needs to be settled, and referring to him as "notorious" is derogatory and implies guilt. "War crimes suspect" is in error, as the original accusations against John Demjanjuk have been totally abandoned, and the current accusations are merely that he served in German uniform, which is not a war crime. At first glance, I took "... 6 years of freedom. Neighbors ask why" to mean that John Demjanjuk's neighbors were asking why he had been allowed to enjoy 6 years of freedom. This misreading of the headline was my mistake, but makes me think that the wording of the Globe and Mail headline was unfortunate. The Globe and Mail gave the Cohen article major billing — the left column of the front page, and most of p. A14. Two large photographs on p. A14 guarantee that the reader's attention will be arrested — the upper one 16.1 x 11.4 cm, and the lower one 21.6 x 19.2 cm. The photographs manipulate the reader into a negative frame of mind toward John Demjanjuk. The upper of the two photographs shows John Demjanjuk in custody between two policemen, which suggests his guilt. The lower of the two photographs shows a prosecutor speaking at a mounted display relating to the Trawniki ID card, and suggests that the case against John Demjanjuk had been supported by careful research and extensive documentary evidence. What else to do but laugh? The fact that John Demjanjuk is laughing in the upper of the two Globe and Mail photographs does not make him seem benign, but suggests rather a lightheartedness out of keeping with the gravity of his situation. Juxtaposed with the images of sadism cited in Andrew Cohen's text (see below), John Demjanjuk's laugh will suggest to many readers a lack of remorse for the crimes that he has committed. The Globe and Mail does not explain to its readers that even a man on trial for his life, even a man kept in solitary confinement with a light burning in his cell (Adolf Eichmann's cell, actually) 24 hours a day, will be observed to laugh if watched for enough years, particularly if given much to laugh at, and John Demjanjuk was imprisoned and watched for many years, and was given much to laugh at, as is documented, for example, by Philip Roth who attended the Jerusalem trial and recorded just one such laugh, where the idiocy of star prosecution witness Eliahu Rosenberg deposing right after the war that he had been present at the killing of Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka in the course of an inmate uprising, but testifying in 1987 that the same Ivan the Terrible stood before him in the Jerusalem courtroom — the idiocy of such testimony, I say, overcame even John Demjanjuk who upon hearing it not only smiled, and not only laughed, but he laughed out loud, he stood up and he laughed right out loud and he shouted at Eliahu Rosenberg in Hebrew, "Atah shakran!" — "You are a liar!" Philip Roth records this incident, and you will find his description on the Ukrainian Archive, but never on the pages of the Globe and Mail, which on some topics refuses to publish dissenting views. In any court aspiring to Western standards of justice, a witness caught in such a blatant contradiction would be discredited, but the three Israeli judges sitting on the Demjanjuk trial, unburdened by any aspiration to rise to Western standards of justice, found Eliahu Rosenberg credible, an incongruity of gargantuan proportions, but of a sort that is forbidden to be disclosed to the readers of the Globe and Mail.  Andrew Cohen repeats disproven allegations. Despite the fact that by this time even the U.S. Office of Special Investigations (OSI) has been forced to agree that John Demjanjuk was never at Treblinka, the old rumors of what an imaginary Ivan the Terrible was supposed to have done at Treblinka are repeated, and are left floating in the reader's memory, together with the name of John Demjanjuk, where the images and the name have a high probability of sticking together: "throw babies into the air so he could shoot at them," "crushing skulls, cutting off ears and putting out the eyes of his victims, living or dead," "ordered the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl after she emerged dazed, from the gas chambers crying for her mother," "stood in the engine room pumping poisonous carbon monoxide into the showers, having herded victims to their death with a pipe in one hand and a sword in the other." The images are vivid and linger in memory; any qualifications that they are only allegations are subtle and readily forgotten. The underlying reality that as John Demjanjuk was not at Treblinka, these fantastic images have nothing whatever to do with him will for many readers be buried in the avalanche of their emotion. That the witnesses whom the prosecution induced to recite such stories lacked all credibility is an accusation that the Globe and Mail is incapable of printing, regardless of how strong the documentation for such an accusation happens to be. Andrew Cohen misses the point. The most stunning conclusion to emerge from the Demjanjuk case is that for the crime of being Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, the OSI succeeded in having John Demjanjuk denaturalized and extradited to Israel, and Israel succeeded in convicting him and sentencing him to death, when at present it is agreed by all that John Demjanjuk had never even been at Treblinka. This is the most stunning conclusion to emerge from the Demjanjuk case, but it is not one that any reader of Andrew Cohen's article will be led to, nor any reader of the Globe and Mail generally. This staggering miscarriage of justice reveals a profound and alarming corruption not only of the American and Israeli justice systems, but also of the American and Canadian and Israeli press, most notable among these being the Globe and Mail, as the press by and large supported the corruption, and was a party to it. The Globe and Mail finds the topic of the corruption of our institutions too hot to handle, whereas the dissemination of familiar stereotypes follows convention and does not rock the establishment boat. The one big thing that the world needs to know about John Demjanjuk, and that the Globe and Mail has an obligation to report to its readers, is not anything Andrew Cohen has to say, but is rather that John Demjanjuk's prosecutors, both in the United States and in Israel, suppressed evidence which they could plainly see proved John Demjanjuk's innocence. Despite all this, Andrew Cohen's condemnation is unrestrained. Consider these two excerpts from the Andrew Cohen text that are echoed in large font on p. A14, and ask yourself whether it is not close to a certainty that the average reader of Andrew Cohen's writing will come away from it with a conviction that John Demjanjuk is not merely guilty of some war crimes, but is a living monster:
In this and many ways, then, Andrew Cohen smears John Demjanjuk, shows no awareness of the injustices that have been inflicted upon him, fails to divulge that his prosecutors at the earliest stages of building their case became aware of his innocence and yet cynically went on to frame him, and in short writes an ignorant piece of hate literature, and presents it in the most provocative and inflammatory manner. Andrew Cohen incites hatred, and to say that he invites vandalism is to understate the case. Anyone who reads such incendiary material, and who of course is protected from any corrective information — as the Globe and Mail makes sure that its readers are — is almost to be commended for his restraint in doing no more than writing graffiti on a single Ukrainian building. With provocation like Andrew Cohen's, it is a wonder that the building didn't get torched, or that some Ukrainian didn't get beaten up. With hate literature like Andrew Cohen's in wide circulation, John Demjanjuk is not safe to walk to the corner store or to go to church on Sunday. No reciprocal hate from the Ukrainian side. Consider if the shoe were on the other foot — and a Ukrainian published a review of the Beilis case which featured in large font the accusation of Jewish ritual murder committed by Menahem Mendel Beilis in Kyiv in 1911, and which showed in one large photograph Beilis (preferrably laughing) between two police officers, and in another large photograph the multiple stab wounds of the murdered 12-year-old Ukrainian boy, but which obscured such details as that the linkage between the murder and Beilis had not been substantiated. The Globe and Mail would not print such hate literature directed against Jews, which is good, but it does print such hate literature when it is directed against Ukrainians, which is par for the course. The Globe and Mail would condemn the author of such hate literature directed against Jews as a primitive hatemonger, but it retains Andrew Cohen on its payroll. The Globe and Mail would categorize any newspaper that published such hate literature directed against Jews as worse than a supermarket tabloid, but it publishes such hate literature directed against Ukrainians without awareness that it loses respect. The Globe and Mail sets a record. If the Globe and Mail had published such a Beilis hate article, then a large number of people would have recognized that the newspaper was not under the control of journalists of competence and integrity; and given that the Globe and Mail did published Cohen's Demjanjuk hate article, a small number of people who happen to be informed about the Demjanjuk case have come to recognize that the newspaper is not under the control of journalists of competence and integrity. Nobody adhering to professional standards of journalism would have allowed the Andrew Cohen hate piece to be published, or would even have put Andrew Cohen on the payroll. I venture to suggest that Andrew Cohen's article has set a Globe and Mail record for the magnitude of the discrepancy between the injury done to reputation and the meagerness of the evidence justifying that injury. No Ukrainian hate, and not even a Ukrainian rebuttal. One reason that Ukrainians are singled out by Jews for attack is that Ukrainians — by and large — demonstrate that they are too timid to fight back. Ukrainians take their Christian upbringing seriously, and have become so practiced in turning the other cheek that it has become reflexive. They cannot bring themselves to believe that the motivation underlying the interminable Jewish attacks guarantees that such attacks will continue indefinitely, and so after the last slap has stopped smarting, they imagine that their feeble complaint has purchased them security from future attacks. However, a feeble complaint is not the same as an effective rebuttal. The effective rebuttals that I have in mind are to be found on the pages of the Ukrainian Archive, but only rarely on the lips of Ukrainians, and never on the lips of Ukrainian leaders. Among those effective rebuttals that Ukrainians decline to give voice to would be included the accusation that John Demjanjuk was sentenced to death for crimes committed at Treblinka when the evidence presented in the first two days of the trial by prosecution expert witness Yitzhak Arad pointed to the conclusion that the Treblinka death camp, as depicted by the prosecution, did not exist. Yes, a truly astounding conclusion, and one that invites skepticism in most people, and this for one reason only — the reason being that they have never heard such a radical conclusion before. They have certainly not read it on the pages of the Globe and Mail. They have not read it anywhere. Therefore, it must be untrue. But some who do not rush to judgment may reflect that unfamiliar propositions do occasionally turn out to be true, and that my Treblinka conclusion might be one of those unfamiliar propositions. I have laid out my arguments in my letter to Yitzhak Arad of 09Mar99, and I have invited Yitzhak Arad to tell me what is wrong with them. He remains silent. I published my arguments on the Ukrainian Archive, but so far no UKAR visitor has told me what is wrong with them either. At present, I invite anyone to tell me what is wrong with my arguments. I am listening. I am all ears. I am attentive to all feedback. I am interested in avoiding error. I am responsive to all criticism. If I am wrong, I wish to be shown my error. If I have been misled, I wish to revise immediately, to retract immediately, to apologize immediately. Not only does reading prosecution expert witness Yitzhak Arad lead me to conclude that the Treblinka death camp, as depicted by the prosecution, did not exist, it also leads me to conclude that in his effort to help the prosecution murder John Demjanjuk, Yitzhak Arad committed perjury. I put this accusation in my letter to Yitzhak Arad of 24Mar99, and I put it publicly such that it tends to ruin his reputation — and yet he makes no reply! Yes, read that accusation too, and tell me if I am wrong, because I do not wish to let another day go by in a state of error. And there is more. I put it to prosecution expert witness Yitzhak Arad that he pretended to be ignorant of literature that he himself had published, that he himself had written a preface to, because he was aware that it exculpated John Demjanjuk, and because he was aware that it contradicted the story he himself was telling about Treblinka, and because he was aware that it demonstrated the existence of Holocaust fabulism. This accusation has been put in my letter to Yitzhak Arad of 25Jun99, has been put publicly in such a manner as to ruin his reputation — and yet he does not respond. He does not respond in any personal letter to me. He does not publish any response in print or on the Internet. And he does not respond by means of a law suit for libel, because he is aware that in most of Canada for the time being, truth is a defense to the charge of libel, and he knows that he dare not bring up the question of truth in a court of law. When I put my questions to him in a letter, he can ignore the questions, but if I should put the same questions to him when he is on the witness stand, he would no longer have that option, and so he will not step on to the witness stand because there are too many questions that he knows he cannot answer. In Germany, Yitzhak Arad could have me thrown into jail for the questions I have asked him. In France, he could have me thrown into jail for the questions I have asked him. These are countries in which truth is not a defense, and where you can be thrown into jail for saying something that is true merely because someone else finds it objectionable. Germany and France will not throw Yitzhak Arad or Andrew Cohen into jail for perjury or slander, but it can, and may, throw somebody into jail for disputing with Yitzhak Arad or Andrew Cohen. Well, fortunately for me, I am not in Germany or France. I am still in Canada, and in Canada at the present time, truth is still a defense, and for a while more it is hoped truth will continue to be a defense, and so for now and for a while longer the law protects me in my asking Yitzhak Arad to produce the evidence for the Treblinka death camp that he testified to in his effort to murder John Demjanjuk, and protects me in my asking Yitzhak Arad to defend himself against the accusation that he committed perjury in his effort to murder John Demjanjuk, and protects me in my asking Yitzhak Arad to reply to the accusation that he pretended to be ignorant of testimony which demonstrated John Demjanjuk's innocence in his effort to murder John Demjanjuk. And there is still more, much more, but to summarize it here is to review a goodly portion of the Ukrainian Archive, which the reader has access to and can read. That is what I mean when I say that Ukrainians make no effective rebuttal — they won't articulate their most powerful arguments, such as the ones above, because they are aware that these arguments have been shut out of the media, and so will seem unfamiliar to most listeners, and so will for that reason meet with an initial rejection. Ukrainians are afraid to speak the truth for fear of being disbelieved, as if repeating popular lies afforded them safety or protection. Thus, handed the possibility of one easy victory after another, Ukrainians time after time prefer to walk away from the fight after receiving the first blow across the face, leaving their aggressors untouched and — after such a cost-free victory — leaving their aggressors eager to launch a fresh assault. There is a Ukrainian saying that captures this Ukrainian docility: "Spit in his face, and he will conclude that it must be raining." A new motive for Jewish calumniation of Ukrainians — influencing judicial decisions. The Jewish attacks on Ukrainians can be expected to continue because the motivation for the attacks will continue. There are many such Jewish motives, and they are discussed throughout the Ukrainian Archive. Among these motives is that of stampeding the Jews that remain in Ukraine to Israel, for which a Jewish fear and hatred of Ukrainians is useful, as is a Ukrainian resentment at Jewish calumniation. Another motive is to discredit Ukrainians so that as they begin to disclose to the world how they have been among the foremost victims of Jews, they will be disbelieved. A third motive is to remove the shame of a having served as oppressors whom Ukrainians overthrew successfully in the Khmelnytsky rebellion of 1648 — which rebellion of slaves against masters Jews have recently taken to styling as an early Holocaust perpetrated by the first Hitler. Many other such Jewish motives are extant, and along with the three above guarantee an enduring antagonism of Jews toward Ukrainians. However, in Canada at this very moment, there may be in operation still another motive that has not previously been mentioned on the Ukrainian Archive. This new motive hinges on there existing today several Jewish-inspired prosecutions of Eastern Europeans for war crimes that are presently awaiting decision. (In the absence of evidence of war criminality, these proceedings typically take the form of prosecutions for half-century-old immigration infractions, which though being non-criminal and thus not requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt, nevertheless carry the severe penalties of denaturalization and deportation from a land that has been home to the accused for over fifty years.) The Andrew Cohen article, then, may be an attempt to convince the judges who are presently writing those decisions that our society is infiltrated by unrepentent and unpunished Nazi monsters, particularly Ukrainian ones, with John Demjanjuk being the tip of an iceberg. Such Jewish-inspired prosecutions have suffered setbacks in recent days, as for example in the instance of Johann Dueck, and it may be the case that Jewish leaders are pulling out all stops in an attempt to prevent the embarrassment of more such setbacks. Whichever of the many plausible motives happened to be uppermost in the decision to publish the Andrew Cohen article we cannot know, but it does seem plausible that some such political motivation to employ the Globe and Mail as a tool to spread disinformation was at work, and not the motivation of pursuing disinterested journalism. Two crimes. Two crimes have been committed here. The lesser crime is that of petty vandalism — one imagines some Globe and Mail readers with weak emotional control being incited by the Cohen article to express their moral indignation in an illegal, but minimally damaging, way. The greater crime is that of Andrew Cohen writing incendiary hate literature and of the Globe and Mail publishing it. A third crime. A third crime is one committed by Ukrainian leaders against their own people. These leaders are crippled by a slave mentality, and are incapable of resistance. Their policy of appeasement is an indispensible precondition for Andrew Cohen to have written his piece of hate literature, and for the Globe and Mail to have published it, and for vandals to have defaced the Ukrainian Cultural Center. Nothing more was wanted from Ukrainian leaders than that they stand up and speak the truth boldly, but to this challenge they have not found the strength to rise. Perhaps they have been haunted by memories of NKVD arrests in the middle of the night, and so cannot bring themselves to believe claims that they now live in a land of free speech and now enjoy the protection of the law; and perhaps recent attempts to criminalize Ukrainian self-defense, and to corrupt the law into in instrument of political persecution of Ukrainians have reinforced their fears. Perhaps, then, it is only those few who are naive enough to take the claims of free speech and protection of the law literally who find the courage to speak out. Where might the police begin their investigation? The proximity in time between the publication of the Globe and Mail article and the Ukrainian Cultural Centre vandalism is striking. Perhaps, as suggested above, the Andrew Cohen article incited some Globe and Mail readers to vandalism on the night of June 20-21. However, the Andrew Cohen article had undoubtedly been in preparation for some time prior to its publication in the June 21 edition, and thus would have been known to several Globe and Mail employees, and it may have been through them that the incitement took place. Globe and Mail employees might be able to throw some light on this possibility. As Andrew Cohen has amply demonstrated that he places Zionist goals of inciting fear and hatred among Jews above the goal of professional reporting, he at the moment may be the one person most likely to be able to shed light on the Ukrainian Cultural Centre vandalism. What do we ask the police to do? We pray that the police are allocating adequate resources to monitoring and infiltrating groups that have a history of vigilante action. Groups that feel they are justified in painting graffiti today can begin to feel that they are justified in committing arson tomorrow, and assassination the day after that. High on the list of priorities would be for police to discover what individuals fund such vigilante groups, and what directives they attach to their funding. The time has come to stop looking only at the puppets, and to ask who might be the puppeteers. An alternative hypothesis. Further speculation as to the origin of the Christie Street vandalism can be found at Israel Roitman: Former SMERSH agent boasts of war crimes. |