Dr Robert Faurisson

Statement by Professor Robert Faurisson on the subject of an appeal by nineteen historians

Tuesday, December 13, 2005

[Nineteen French historians have just made a public call for the repeal of a certain number of laws, beginning with the anti-revisionist law of July 13, 1990, the text of which appeared in the Journal officiel de la République française on July 14, 1990 under the signatures of François Mitterrand, Michel Rocard and some other Socialist ministers. This law, which was in large part inspired by an Israeli law of 1986, had been requested as early as in May of that year by a certain number of French personalities of Jewish origin grouped in Paris around chief rabbi René-Samuel Sirat, Pierre Vidal-Naquet and the late Georges Wellers. The historian Jean-Pierre Azéma had joined those personalities. On the political and parliamentary level, the true sponsor of the law was former prime minister Laurent Fabius. Owing to necessities of a political nature within the Socialist-Communist majority, L. Fabius and the Socialists left the prerogative of putting before parliament a bill against racism, antisemitism and xenophobia to Communist member Jean-Claude Gayssot but on condition that he add on an antirevisionist provision drafted by Fabius and his friends. The resulting Act is known today by the names “loi Gayssot”, “loi Fabius-Gayssot” or “loi Rocard-Gayssot”.]

Far from serving any ideology, the revisionists rigorously apply themselves merely to the methodical search for exactitude in the field of history. They can only be glad that nineteen French historians who, in their great majority, are on the political left and some of whom are of Jewish origin, at last feel compelled to demand the repeal of the “atrocious” Fabius-Gayssot Act (the word was that of Yves Baudelot, lawyer for Le Monde).

The Fabius-Gayssot Act of July 13, 1990 has been applied for fifteen years against a certain number of revisionists, amongst whom in particular — to mention but them — Pierre Guillaume, Robert Faurisson, Eric Delcroix, Alain Guionnet, Roger Garaudy, Jean-Louis Berger, Jean Plantin and also against publications of which some, overwhelmed with fines and orders to pay damages, have ceased to exist. Already laden with heavy sentences or currently facing prosecution are Vincent Reynouard, Georges Theil, Robert Faurisson and Bruno Gollnisch. All this goes on either with the approval of the media or in their silence.

With the exception of one of them, who has always shown courage, the historians who have finally decided to call for the repeal of certain laws, beginning with the “loi Fabius-Gayssot”, have incurred a grave responsibility in formerly approving this law or in remaining stubbornly quiet when the French courts’ convictions were raining down on revisionists. They stayed deaf to our appeals for help and deaf to our warnings when we cautioned them that one day or another this law would turn on them. Today their turnaround is a product of circumstances on which I shall soon expound in another short piece and that, sad to say, are not to their credit.

As for the French justice system and the role it has played in the repression of historical revisionism, it has, in the main, proved guilty of failing in its basic duties. Personally, if I am ever able to do so, I shall seek redress, as has been done in their own case by the victims of a recent scandal in which it has been possible to see, once again, to what abysmal depths our judicial system can sink in callously hounding innocent people on whom the media have set it.

 ___________________________________________

France: Call by 19 Historians for the Repeal of Several Statutory Clauses

Agence France Presse release of December 12, 2005

Paris — In a text sent today to the AFP headed “Liberté pour l’histoire!” (Freedom for history!), nineteen leading historians have come out for the repeal of several statutory clauses concerning “events of the past”, legislation that, according to them, is “unworthy of a democratic regime”.

They refer to articles of the laws of July 13, 1990 (editor’s note: aiming to punish any racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic act [as well as any manifestation of “Holocaust” revisionism]), January 29, 2001 (editor’s note: relating to the acknowledgement of the 1915 Armenian genocide), May 21, 2001 (editor’s note: aiming to acknowledge the slave trade as a crime against humanity) and February 23, 2005.

The last mentioned law’s controversial article 4 (in favour of repatriated French citizens) stipulates that “the school curricula shall recognise in particular the positive role of the French presence overseas, notably in North Africa”.

The text is signed by Jean-Pierre Azéma, Elisabeth Badinter, Jean-Jacques Becker, Françoise Chandernagor, Alain Decaux, Marc Ferro, Jacques Julliard, Jean Leclant, Pierre Milza, Pierre Nora, Mona Ozouf, Jean-Claude Perrot, Antoine Prost, René Rémond, Maurice Vaïsse, Jean-Pierre Vernant, Paul Veyne, Pierre Vidal-Naquet and Michel Winock [most of whom are on the political left and several of whom are of Jewish origin].

“Moved by the ever more frequent political interventions in the assessment of events of the past and by the legal proceedings affecting historians and thinkers, we see fit to recall the following principles”, they write.

According to them, “history is not a religion. The historian accepts no dogma, respects no prohibition, knows no taboos. History is not morality. The historian’s role is not to exalt or to condemn: he explains. History is not the slave of current affairs. The historian does not stick contemporary ideological outlines onto the past and does not bring today’s sensitivity into the events of former times”.

“History is not remembrance”, they continue. “The historian, in a scientific procedure, collects people’s memories, compares them with each other, confronts them with documents, objects, traces, and establishes the facts. History takes remembrance into account, it does not amount merely to remembrance. History is not a juridical object. In a free country, it is the job neither of Parliament nor of the judicial authorities to define the historical truth [emphasis mine, R. Faurisson]. The State’s policy, albeit motivated by the best intentions, is not the policy of history”.

“It is in violation of these principles that clauses of successive laws — notably those of July 13, 1990, January 29, 2001, May 21, 2001 and February 23, 2005 — have restricted the historian’s freedom, have told him, on pain of sanctions, what he must look for and what he must find, have prescribed him his methods and set down limits. We call for the repeal of these legislative provisions that are unworthy of a democratic regime”, they conclude.

 

"LIBERTE POUR L'HISTOIRE"

Le texte de l'appel

NOUVELOBS.COM | 13.12.05 | 16:55

Voici le texte publié par des historiens, intitulé "Liberté pour l'Histoire", qui réclame l'abrogation d'articles de lois qui nuisent à l'étude historique.

"Emus par les interventions politiques de plus en plus fréquentes dans l'appréciation des événements du passé et par les procédures judiciaires touchant des historiens et des penseurs, nous tenons à rappeler les principes suivants :

L'histoire n'est pas une religion. L'historien n'accepte aucun dogme, ne respecte aucun interdit, ne connaît pas de tabous. Il peut être dérangeant.
L'histoire n'est pas la morale. L'historien n'a pas pour rôle d'exalter ou de condamner, il explique.
L'histoire n'est pas l'esclave de l'actualité. L'historien ne plaque pas sur le passé des schémas idéologiques contemporains et n'introduit pas dans les événements d'autrefois la sensibilité d'aujourd'hui.
L'histoire n'est pas la mémoire. L'historien, dans une démarche scientifique, recueille les souvenirs des hommes, les compare entre eux, les confronte aux documents, aux objets, aux traces, et établit les faits. L'histoire tient compte de la mémoire, elle ne s'y réduit pas.
L'histoire n'est pas un objet juridique.

 


Dans un Etat libre, il n'appartient ni au Parlement ni à l'autorité judiciaire de définir la vérité historique. La politique de l'Etat, même animée des meilleures intentions, n'est pas la politique de l'histoire.
C'est en violation de ces principes que des articles de lois successives ­ notamment lois du 13 juillet 1990, du 29 janvier 2001, du 21 mai 2001, du 23 février 2005 ­ ont restreint la liberté de l'historien, lui ont dit, sous peine de sanctions, ce qu'il doit chercher et ce qu'il doit trouver, lui ont prescrit des méthodes et posé des limites.
Nous demandons l'abrogation de ces dispositions législatives indignes d'un régime démocratique.

Jean-Pierre Azéma, Elisabeth Badinter, Jean-Jacques Becker, Françoise Chandernagor, Alain Decaux, Marc Ferro, Jacques Julliard, Jean Leclant, Pierre Milza, Pierre Nora, Mona Ozouf, Jean-Claude Perrot, Antoine Prost, René Rémond, Maurice Vaïsse, Jean-Pierre Vernant, Paul Veyne, Pierre Vidal-Naquet et Michel Winock."

Ce texte a été publié dans les pages Rebond de Libération mardi 13 décembre.

http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/cgi/mail/qobs_test?rub=societe&cle=20051213.OBS8759&date=2005.1217

   

" FREEDOM FOR THE HISTORY(STORY) "

The text of the call(appeal)

NOUVELOBS.COM ¦ 13.12.05 ¦ 16:55

Here is the text published by historians, entitled " Freedom for the History(Story) ", which demands the abrogation of articles of laws which damage the historic study.

" Moved by the more and more frequent political interventions in the appreciation of the events of past and by the judicial procedures getting(touching) historians and thinkers, we are anxious to call back(to remind) the following principles:

The history(story) is not a religion. The historian accepts no dogma, respects no prohibition, does not know taboos. He can be disturbing.
The history(story) is not the morality. The historian has not for role to excite or to condemn, he explains.
The history(story) is not the slave of the current events. The historian does not stick on the past of the contemporary ideological plans and does not introduce into the events of formerly the current sensibility.
The history(story) is not the memory. The historian, in a scientific step(initiative), collects the memories(souvenirs) of the men(people), compares them between them, confronts them with documents, with objects, with tracks, and establishes the facts. The history(story) takes into account the memory, it is not reduced to it.
The history(story) is not a legal object.


In a Free state, it is not up either to the Parliament or to the judicial authority to define the historic truth. The politics(policy) of the State, even animated(stimulated) by the best intentions, is not the politics(policy) of the history(story).
It is in violation of these principles that articles of successive laws - notably laws of July 13th, 1990, January 29th, 2001, May 21st, 2001, February 23rd, 2005 - restricted the freedom of the historian, said to him(her), at the risk of penalties, for what he has to look and what he has to find, prescribed him(her) methods and put the limits.
We ask for the abrogation of these despicable legal measures of a democratic regime.

Jean-Pierre Azéma, Elisabeth Badinter, Jean-Jacques Becker, Françoise Chandernagor, Alain Decaux, Marc Ferro, Jacques Julliard, Jean Leclant, Pierre Milza, Pierre Nora, Mona Ozouf, Jean-Claude Perrot, Antoine Prost, René Rémond, Maurice Vaïsse, Jean-Pierre Vernant, Paul Veyne, Pierre Vidal-Naquet and Michel Winock. "

This text was published in pages Bounce of Liberation on Tuesday, December 13th.

 

 

Top | Home

c-free 2005 Adelaide Institute