Ernst Zundel (it's actually Zündel, but I can't be bothered) is inevitably described as the author-publisher of The Hitler We Loved and Why and other hits. He stands out among more mainstream holocaust deniers in that along with the usual fascism he is openly anti-semitic in a full-blown, conspiracy-driven way.

One can no doubt get a flavour of this from a devotee ("Earnest [sic] Zundel is a genius.") posting - apparently with no sense of the ridiculous - on Pravda's english-language forum. Then scroll down to find the start of a satirical piece called "Nazi Sympathizer Denies Continent" (If you can get it to load, the whole thing should be here). Scroll down further and the Zundelist responds in way that makes it clear he doesn't know when he's reading something that's obviously untrue.

Why am I not surprised?

By the way, Zundel also teaches us that UFOs are a Nazi secret weapon deployed from Antartica.

If you want any more background, try his Wikipedia entry, this CBC chronology and the Nizkor holocaust education site. Then try - why not - his friends at the Institute for Historical Review.

I'll mention his own website too, if only because of the bit that says all updates are "Chronically indexed". They're arranged by date, too.

Anyway, the ruckus is about Zundel's deportation from Canada to his native Germany earlier this Month.

Zundel had previously been imprisoned in Canada for holocaust denial under their "spreading false news" laws. These were a pretty obvious breach of freedom of expression. They were eventually struck down by the courts and Zundel was released.

Later, he left Canada for the US, vowing never to return. He may have been motivated by the way the Human Rights Commission was investigating him at the time.

Those of you who are unfamiliar with Zundel's case may still experience a certain deja vu from here on in.

Having been kicked out of America for not meeting his immigration requirements, he was sent back to Canada, where he applied for refugee status.

However, he was held in pretty-much solitary confinement for some two years while authorities decided whether he was a security risk under their new anti-terrorism laws. Much of the unclassified version of the summary of charges against him has been ridiculed and it's difficult to understand how he - personally - can possibly be a threat to the Canadian state.

See what I mean?

One thing Ahmed Zaoui has over Ernst Zundel is that nobody likes Zundel. Also, as Canadian commentator Rex Murphy has it (quoted on WIkipedia): "If Ernst Zündel is a refugee, Daffy Duck is Albert Einstein." (more of Murphy's Zundel-inspired sarcasm is here).

At any rate, he was found to be deportable and sent to Germany, where he was promptly arrested for Holocaust Denial on the basis of his website. They probably won't have much trouble making that stick.

Zundel's lawyer says they didn't try to challenge the deportation because they were told old Ernst would be bundled on a plane immediately, pending appeal or no.

Now, before I get too riled, the first question is whether, leaving aside the boring old terror-law-abuse-of-due-process, this is actually a freedom of speech issue or not.

The damning Canadian judgment (pdf) maintained that he intended serious violence to result of his work and, despite his professed pacifism, knowingly associated with white supremacists of a streak that could accurately be called terrorist, acting as an idealogue and leader.

This contrasts with a strident J'Accuse from investigative journalist BIll Dumphy. He has done a lot of investigation of Canada's white supremacist movement and clearly dislikes them. And doesn't think it's much of a threat to anyone these days. And that there is "no justice" in the state's summary of facts against Zundel. That Zundel was kicked out of Canada because nobody likes what he says.

Incidentally, all this trouble could have been avoided if the US had just deported Zundel straight to Germany, where he is a citizen, and instead of to Canada, where he isn't. Or if the Canadians had just waited for the refugee process to expel him.

What's the New Zealand link in all this? Well, if Canada really does have a habit of deporting holocaust deniers on trumped-up immigration charges, what does that say about the Canadian immigration charge against David Irving that is our reason for denying him entry to New Zealand?

It would remain an adminstratively convenient method of keeping him out, even if it was dodgy. I don't want him visiting New Zealand more than anyone else, but we should remember that administrative convenience is not the same as right and wrong.

Fortunately. I know of no reason to doubt the soundness of Irving's deportation. Of course, Irving says it was a flagrant miscarriage of justice, but then he's a liar.

While we're on the subject, I may as well note that David Irving hasn't sued us yet.

By 'us' I mean the New Zealand Government rather than Fighting Talk.

But you never know.

It would make his account of events clearer if his site's FAQ on the New Zealand 'controversy' was actually in the form of questions and answers. I'd particularly like to see his response to "What legal grounds did the NZ govt cite in excluding you?" and "You've threatened to give NZ 'the mother of all legal battles' twice now - when's it going to happen?" Any mention of legal action seems to have dropped off the site.

I digress.

It's possible that, in the right conditions, someone like Zundel could be a threat to a nations social order. Which is to say, I'm not going to argue with the German denial laws just now.

But surely Canada's not in such dire straits, and neither is New Zealand. If Irving had only kept his nose clean, we would have had to let him in. And one day we're going to have to find ways of dealing with our own hating liars that doesn't make martyrs of them.

Remember that they way their beliefs are repressed is actually part of the deniers' argument. Why help them out?

Recently I've been reading The Doubter's Companion. Among many points it makes well is that freedom of speech isn't a luxury so much as a precondition of modern civilisation (the same source reminded me that administration isn't everything).

There's something rather rich about fascists, of all people, complaining about being persecuted as dissidents. And it's not as if these people are models of humanistic values. But defend their rights we must. Because they're not just their rights. They're everybody's.

It is therefore with the greatest of caution I now suggest that to execute George Hawkins - for example, by hanging him and placing his head on a spike in the centre of the parliament chamber - may not be the best possible move at the present time.

Since the idea is so radical, and so at odds with the spirit of the moment, I will be entirely clear: I believe, and with some degree of determination, that Mr Hawkins should not be killed at all. No, not even as a human sacrifice in honour of the new Speaker of the House.

Before I present my reasons for this, I wish to emphasise that I am not some ignoramus who does not understand the arguments - some of them very sound - for the proposed abbreviation.

Firstly, there are suggestions of diminishing of public confidence in the 111 emergency system. Whether this is more due to actual major problems with the system or to media and opposition scandalmongering is clearly immaterial. Responsibility for any perceived crisis must be sheeted home to the relevant Minister in the goriest possible manner.

Judging by recent reports, 111 calls may have a failure rate as high as one in 25 000. Little wonder, then that many suspect systemic failings - how could it happen by chance? Even I, clearly ready to fly in the face of public opinion, would not dare to suggest that such a rate might be normal, or even surprisingly good. The undeniable fact is that, compared to absolute perfection, the performance is pathetic.

Though it's remarkable they do even that well, considering that, as far as I can gather, 111 staffers spend most of their time ignoring critical emergencies while smoking P and impregnating single mothers.

These facts do indeed call out to every godly soul for the immediate termination of Mr Hawkins. All the more so because the few crime reforms the Government is now proposing, such as the Prison Riots (Restoration) Bill and the Defining Practically Any Picture As Child Porn Bill, will not improve the functioning of the 111 system in any way.

And now we discover that - on that same Minister's watch - the crime rate has been allowed to descend to a level wildly out of touch with what the people of New Zealand and the Opposition benches think it is. There is universal agreement that the police minister's function is to combat the public perception of crime. If that means freeing up a few police from pursuing actual criminals, then so be it.

In this task, George Hawkins has failed and should indeed pay the severest possible price.

And still further misdirection of resources appears: he persists in allowing police officers to spend measurable amounts of time doing traffic work. This waste of police time (is that not a crime, Mr Hawkins?) is spuriously justified on the grounds that many, many more people die and are injured on the roads than due to crime.

This ridiculous comparison will earn him no sympathy. I myself would far prefer to die trapped in the burning wreckage of my car than shot in an aggravated robbery, and I know any reasonable person would feel the same.

His performance in parliament, I humbly submit, may be considered less damning. Though he has clearly been singled out as the weakest link and hides the resulting dread of parliamentary questions poorly, those who decry him for this may be missing some crucial points.

Firstly, as with any other playground, the members of the House do need someone to bully.

Secondly, in some respects his behaviour has been of actual benefit to our Government which, since opposing it appears to be sedition, I can only support.

For example, one effect of Mr Hawkins' demeanour is to enhance the impression that those Opposition MPs pursuing their just case against him are doing something akin to kicking a puppy.

And, with a less tempting police minister, National and ACT, instead of concentrating on law and order at a time when police numbers and successes are rising, the crime rate is dropping and prison terms are getting longer, may have chosen an election-year issue on which they have a leg to stand.

But this, though we may agree it offers no reason to kill him, is not, I admit, a reason we should let him live.

The wheels of liberty must be greased from time to time with the blood of martyrs - having been said by an American founding father, this must logically be true. But, unparalleled and evil though his crimes may be, there are reasons George Hawkins should nonetheless be permitted to see the sun rise. These rest not with him, but with ourselves.

However strong the case for teaching Mr Hawkins the hemp fandango, I submit that the destruction of any human life has a brutalising effect on the executioners, and indeed society in general, that should not be discounted. To punish in that way would be to bring us, as it were, to the level of the parliamentarians we are trying to eradicate.

In fact, I cannot bring myself to advocate a general policy allowing any political executions. It would obviously have no deterrent effect - MPs are not know for considering the consequences of their actions, and even the most thoughtful are unable to project them more than four years into the future.

Also, if we allow the execution of one Minister, albeit for undeniable and multifaceted incompetence, it is the beginning of a slippery slope. We may one day execute a politician who is capable of giving the impression of being a good use of space, or conceivably even people, such as violent criminals, who are not parliamentarians in any way - a practice internationally condemned as cruel and barbaric.

I therefore suggest that we merely flog George Hawkins daily. Should this prove to be a breach of his human rights, the taxpayer shall have first dibs on any compensation he wins. While I consider this an admirable solution, some may find it too lenient. If that opinion prevails, I propose the more sadistic option of making him continue answering opposition questions until the next election.