From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2005 10:47 PM
Subject: Memo from Fredrick Töben concerning Legal persecution of Ernst Zündel at Mannheim, Germany
Memo from Fredrick Töben concerning Legal persecution of Ernst Zündel at Mannheim, Germany, in November 2005.
When the 1917 Russian Bolshevik Revolution settled down, the first thing that lawmakers put on the books was to criminalize two concepts: Antisemitism and Revisionism, the former was punishable by death, while the latter earned you a long stretch in the Gulags. That’s how the Marxists punished dissenting minds because the fact that the extermination of the European Royal Tsarist family was almost totally Jewish-inspired had to be legally protected against those who knew the score – and against those who still opposed a foreign non-Russian mindset taking control of the Russian Empire.
Today we are well on the way to a repeat performance of this very phenomenon in the USA and its European allies, except that this time the terms to be criminalized have multiplied to ‘hater’, ‘Holocaust denier’, ‘ antisemite’, ‘racist’, ‘neo-Nazi’.
30 years ago eastern European countries were pacified and mentally enslaved to the Marxist doctrine. Security was everywhere to be seen – a great contrast to the open and generous mindset prevailing in the western democratic countries.
Today, the social fabric of our western democracies resembles that prevailing in the former Soviet Union/Eastern European countries – a fearful obsession with security that intensified since the internal job/scam of 911, which enabled the USA-Neocons-Jewish administration to re-focus all USA-Allies energy on the saving of Israel from extinction. The official reason given is that we are in a war against terrorism and we are fighting for freedom and democracy. It sound hollow when we witness the horrible carnage that is still being inflicted upon the Iraqis and the Palestinians – all for the sake of securing world freedom and democracy.
The ‘Holocaust’ in this venture is a critical building block – without the Holocaust the Zionist, racist state of Israel loses its rationale to exist as a European colonial outpost in the Middle East.
Almost two years ago, on 9 November 2003, at Vloto, Germany, a number of Revisionists formed an organisation to support those individuals who have been legally persecuted/victimised for refusing to believe in the Holocaust. The driving force behind the formation of this organisation has been Horst Mahler, who has valiantly battled in a Berlin court, defending himself against the allegation of having denied the Holocaust. As expected, all his work in attempting to contextualise his 'offending statements' by extensively drawing on numerous sources and drawing on the latest research results on Auschwitz, still resulted in a guilty finding, which is still subject to an appeal.
In November 2005 at Mannheim Ernst Zündel's trial will begin. It has been set down for five days: 8, 9, 15, 16, 24 November 2005.
Evidence given at a trial that deals with the historical topic 'Holocaust' is not privileged, and if evidence is tendered, such an act of defence is used by the prosecution ruthlessly to initiate new charges against the defendant. Privilege does not attach to anything said in court, as it does in Common Law courts.
However, in Common Law countries, such as the United Kingdom, USA, Canada and Australia, the upholders of the ‘Holocaust’ myth/religion use the term ‘hate crimes’ with which to overcome free speech principles. Truth is not a defence anymore, and a hurt feeling – without evidence from doctors and psychiatrists – will gain a conviction.
The dilemma facing Ernst Zündel is thus whether to remain silent and offer no defence and thereby escape a severe sentence on account of his silence being interpreted as his showing remorse for having challenged the Holocaust industry’s stifling grip on his personal value system.
When I faced the Mannheim court, also on 8 November, but in 1999, I remained silent on the first day because my defence lawyer, Ludwig Bock, decided he could not defend me properly on account of a pending court decision against him. He had defended Günter Deckert too vigorously, something state prosecutor Hans-Heiko Klein considered clear evidence that Ludwig Bock’s mind was closely aligning, perhaps identifying itself with the Revisionist mindset. That decision was handed down after my case had concluded, and Bock was fined around DM10.000.
The signal this Bock judgment sent throughout the world was that mounting an effective defence in Germany was impossible.
In my case, after the first day’s hearing, I conferred with a supporter who convinced me that I should not remain silent, and that I should dismiss Bock as my defence counsel.
I formulated a statement that I then read out before proceedings began on the second day. On 10 November 1999, I read out the following:
1. It is painful for me if I let myself be forced to be silent, especially if it concerns seeking clarification or solving problems.
2. I regard this trial as state-sanctioned mental rape of my person.
3. Through a lifetime of philosophical studies I have liberated myself from my own ignorance thereby not shying away from becoming a citizen who voices his concerns and takes a moral-ethical stand against injustices.
4. After I left the court Monday afternoon, I reflected a lot on what was happening in court. I also saw the RNF television news, how reporter Volker Hurrle insulted me and incited hatred against me. Yesterday morning I read the article written by Ulrich Willenberg in the Frankfurter Rundschau and the Rhein-Neckar-Zeitung, that also offered an ideologically distorted picture of my endeavours, and thereby defamed and incited hatred against me.
5. Every thinking human being is a revisionist – revisionism is nothing but a method, an heuristic principle, with which to construct one’s world view. Opinions are constantly revised through a free flow of information. Only encrusted minds cannot absorb new information and so moral responsibility does not come to the fore. Then citizens like I are arrested in a private discussion and thrown into prison.
6. I revised my plans last night when I heard German President Raus’s address given on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Rau said no one is expelled from Germany for disagreeing with the government’s opinions. He also talked about freedom and how justice requires such. I now add to that, in Germany there is a basic law that protects my human rights. I therefore request that I may defend myself in this court with a new lawyer – Dr Dr Thor von Waldstein.
7. I am now in my eighth month in Mannheim Prison and I have gained many impressions about the German judiciary. I was also elected spokesperson for the 250 prisoners on remand, and I hear how many prisoners insult prosecutors and judges as ‘ racists’ and ‘ Nazis’. State public prosecutor Klein – that is the irony – also defames me with these words. He even decorates his office wall with a swastika!
8. I see how prosecutors and judges order that prisoners on remand be placed in their cells for 23 hours a day – they are treated like convicted prisoners and not as innocent persons. Convicted prisoners are better off than prisoners on remand. They are not even allowed to participate in the church service and in the Bible Study Group. This is human rights abuse – the prevention of exercising one’s religious belief. Why do Messrs Volker Hurrle and Ulrich Willenberg not focus on such injustices?
9. I have no criticism to make of the Mannheim remand personnel. The staff there attempt to do their best in coping with a difficult situation, but they can only do so much and they are often just overburdened.
My application to have my defence counsel removed was rejected by both judges Kern and Schmetzer. The judges ordered that Bock continue to defend me – and so the proceedings continued with my remaining silent and not mounting any kind of defence
I recall how in his summing up prosecutor Klein retells a sob story from Auschwitz-Birkenau, but mentions only two gas insertion holes. He refers to the 1964-65 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial. Klein then bemoans the fact that it is quite obvious the seven months in prison have had no effect on me, and so he seeks at least 2 years and 4 months.
I receive a ten month sentence, with immediate release upon posting DM6000 bail.
After the court rises I walk over to the judges and shake their hands – no hard feelings from my side because these men are prisoners in that conceptual prison called the ‘ Holocaust’.
That I was not able to defend myself was taken by the Karlsruhe appeal court to be a ground on which to allow my appeal; prosecutor Klein’s appeal ground was also granted – that German law reached outside of Germany into any computer that carried material deemed to be offending against Para. 130.
I was prepared to attend the re-trial set down for 8 November 2004, but I had been placed on a list carried by the BKA, Wiesbaden, that prevented me from entering any European country. And so I was faced with a dilemma: If I entered Germany to attend the court hearing, I would upon entering Germany face immediate arrest; if I did not attend, then I would forego my defence. If I defended myself in court, then I would merely aggravate my offence and receive a more severe sentence.
German Justice in matters Holocaust is still victors’ justice because Germany still has not signed a peace treaty, that’s 60 years after the end of World War II. It will be interesting to observe How Ernst Zündel will present his case – and it is hoped that he will follow the only avenue open to him, that of adopting the Mahler strategy of attacking the ‘Offenkundigkeit’ of the Holocaust, i.e. courts have taken judicial notice of the official version of the ‘Holocaust’. But this version of events is totally superseded with what Fritjof Meyer claims in his version of the ‘Holocaust’, and he escaped prosecution, though it was not for lack of trying by interested parties to get a prosecution off the ground. Gunter Deckert attempted to submit a complaint against Meyer but the public prosecutors rejected it, claiming Meyer had not committed an offence. Meyer remains a PC person and so legal protection extends to his utterances about Auschwitz-Birkeanu’s Krema II never having been a homicidal gas chamber!
Sensational news you would think, but Judge Faust conducting the Horst Mahler trial did not accept this as new evidence.
We shall now watch with interest how defence counsel Rieger will handle the third Zündel trial.
Verein zur Rehabilitierung der wegen Bestreitens des Holocausts Verfolgten
Wer jetzig Zeiten leben will,
Muß haben ein tapfers Herze,
Es sein der argen Feind so viel,
Bereiten ihm groß Schmerze.
Da heißt es stehn ganz unverzagt
In seiner blanken Wehre,
Daß sich der Feind nicht an uns wagt,
Es geht um Gut und Ehre.
Geld nur regiert die ganze Welt,
Dazu verhilft Betrügen;
Wer sich sonst noch so redlich hält,
Muß doch bald unterliegen,
Rechtschaffen hin, rechtschaffen her,
Das sind nur alte Geigen;
Betrug, Gewalt und List vielmehr,
Klag du, man wird dir’s zeigen.
Doch wie’s auch kommt, das arge Spiel,
Behalt ein tapfers Herze,
Und sind der Feind auch noch so viel,
Verzage nicht im Schmerze.
Steh gottgetreulich, unverzagt,
In deiner blanken Wehre;
Wenn sich der Feind auch an uns wagt,
Es geht um Gut und Ehre!
Nichts kann uns rauben
Liebe und Glauben
Zu unserm Land;
Es zu erhalten
Und zu Gestalten,
Sind wir gesandt.
Mögen wir sterben,
Gilt dann die Pflicht:
Es zu erhalten
Und zu gestalten:
Deutschland stirbt nicht!
Vlotho, 9 November 2003
This is unbelievable, the Jews are turning the entire West into updated versions of the USSR. I was in Berlin when the wall came down. I never dreamed the contagion which enslaved Germans and others behind the Iron Curtain would spread. I thought it was finished and I was looking at a despised, rotting corpse. And to think back in 1939, all Germany wanted was that the German people of Danzig should return to the Reich. What a small problem that was in light of what has gone on ever since.
How Offensive Is Offensiveness?
From: John Bryant
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 00:24
One of the most important political issues to arise within the last half-century is the question of whether people have a right to not be offended. Traditionally this Right of Non-Offense (hereinafter designated RNO) has been the purview of conservatives, who have maintained an RNO in the realms of religion and sexuality, a right long ago recognized by the State in the form of laws against blasphemy, heresy, and various sexual behaviors. Now, however, with conservatism on the ropes, liberalism has not only captured the right to be offensive on the sexual and religious fronts, but has hewn out its own RNOs in the areas of race, ethnicity and sexuality.
The principal argument against RNOs has always been the right -- or at least the desirability -- of free speech, and in particular, the need to know and to communicate the bad news as well as the good. As I have often pointed out, this is vital, because without a knowledge of what has gone wrong -- something which can be obtained only by allowing people to speak freely -- neither persons nor governments can correct their behavior, with the result that they end up in wreck and ruin.
The desire for the RNO has always stemmed from the weak-egoed who cannot stand criticism, and from the short-term-oriented who prefer 'peace now' even if it means war later. The biggest offenders in these categories are women, whose short-term orientation is amply fit for the household (change the baby, stir the pot, keep the guests from fighting and the husband from grumping), and the minorities -- primarily blacks and browns -- whom the liberals have introduced into our midst in large numbers, whose power the liberals have nurtured, and whose short-term orientation reflects the fact that their genome was formed in lands of plenty -- Africa and South America -- where food and shelter could be obtained quickly and at little cost. This contrasts sharply with whites, whose inhospitable Northern lands made survival a constant struggle, and which therefore winnowed down the race to only those who could work efficiently and act together as a community, a situation which eventually led to mankind's greatest achievement, Western civilization.
It is not just that the liberal's favored minorities have a short time-preference, as it is often called; it is equally the case that they -- and particularly blacks -- have an emotional nature which causes a preternatural hysterical reaction when their time-preference is not satisfied. This, I believe, is a significant part of why blacks are so riot-prone and crime-prone: Their hair-trigger emotional nature causes them to react violently whenever their animal desires are sufficiently thwarted. Thus we see them tearing up their own neighborhoods when they hear of a 'racist incident', as they did in the Los Angeles riots and elsewhere; and we see them attacking, robbing and raping 'whitey'
because they have been convinced by the liberal media that 'whitey' -- and not their own low intelligence and impatience -- is the cause of their low economic and social status.
The fact that blacks and browns have a tendency to riot constitutes a sort of justification for the RNO which minorities are increasingly being given, since the authorities undoubtedly hope that the RNO will act to 'keep the lid on' this kind of behavior. This is particularly important because of the fact that whites do not have a high opinion of minorities, and are therefore inclined to speak their minds about the less pleasant facts of minority existence. The problem with this is not merely that minorities are cut off from important communications about their faults, but also that the RNO creates resentment in whites whose speech is suppressed, so that ultimately, the minority RNO may fail to keep the peace, and instead lead to much more virulent racial warfare than would have occurred without the RNO. This, indeed, was intended by the creators of the RNOs -- the liberals, and their driving force, Establishment Jewry -- with the view to better rend society asunder, since it was a major part of the communist program beginning in the late 1920s to sow hatred between blacks and whites. But whether we agree that this was a motive or not, the fact remains that Jews themnselves do not want to be criticised, not because of a short-term outlook, but rather because they do not want exposure of their war against gentiles -- a matter which we have explored in detail elsewhere. In particular, the most prominent part of this war is the Holocaust scam, a congeries of lies which has netted the Jewish establishment billions upon billions in guilt money; but there are all kinds of other scams, lies and dirty deeds -- from money manipulation and white slavery to genocide and government subversion -- that would have Establishment Jewry dangling from lampposts before nightfall if the ugly truth were just a bit better known.
But is there any moral claim to the RNO? We have partly answered this question by noting that survival depends on free speech as an error-correcting mechanism. Some would ask, however, if speech which did not communicate significant information, eg, insult, should fall under this rubric; but the anwswer is that even insult communicates to a person or group that they are disliked, and this, in itself, is important information, since it may well have the salubrious effect of forcing those who are insulted into a wee bit of self-examination, and will at the very least let them know who their enemies are.
One complication in examining the moral claim for RNOs is that morals are often confused with manners. Thus, while one might well feel that blacks as a group act like a bunch of apes, a mannerly person -- or someone who does not want to have his block knocked off -- would not go around telling blacks of his low opinion of their race. The point here is that manners are a way for individuals to get along with other individuals -- manners are, as JBR Yant has remarked, 'the lubricant of social intercourse'. But when it comes to one race fighting another for territory, power, rights, or whatever, the interaction is between groups rather than individuals, and different rules apply. There is always the hope, of course, that the leaders of different groups may settle their differences in a mannerly way, and in this sense manners may be relevant to group interactions; but in general, manners do not and cannot apply to intergroup conflicts, except perhaps in the sense of 'rules of war', which groups do not violate only from fear that other groups will also violate them.
One of the pressures in favor of the RNO is the fact that, in many societies -- perhaps even most -- an insult is looked on as a challenge to one's masculinity or integrity, and thus is something which must be responded to, often with violence. This is particularly true in the 'macho' latin societies, where establishing one's physical courage and vigor is de rigueur; but is not greatly different from American society of the not-too-distant past, where dueling was customary, and men often died for what they dared to say. What the macho culture fails to realize about insults, however, is that -- purely aside from the fact that violence does not decide who is right, but only who is left -- the ability to take insult without responding in kind, or with a response that invites friendship rather than fighting, is itself 'macho' in its own way, because it demonstrates a mature self-control and commitment to civilized ways that are absent from the insulter, and thus holds up his behavior as a contrast to that of a person who is civilized and self-controlled.
In conclusion it is worthy of note that there has been a particularly bizarre outcome of the RNO phenomenon in what I call the Pimple Republik of Kanada. This bizarrity arose in one of Kanada's so-called Human Rights Tribunals, a quasi-judicial phenomenon staffed with minority and liberal types which makes it easier for minorities to secure their RNOs by the effective legal bludgeoning of those accused of offending them.
The bizarrity in question arose in one of the hearings of Holocaust skeptic Ernst Zundel, and consisted of the ruling that 'truth is no defense' against the charge of offending a minority. It is almost mind-boggling to think that a tribunal in a country of supposedly Western principles would put sensitivity of feelings ahead of truth; and yet this was done explicitly and with no apologies, and no reversal by higher tribunals. The world has yet to recover from the rumbling earthquake of this ruling -- certainly Zundel has not, as the hatred for his views in Kanada and elsewhere is apparently going to keep him in jail for the rest of his life -- for the explicitness of the absurdity clearly labels the RNO as a kind of Alice-In-Wonderland phenomenon that is going to drive Western civilization into the ground if it is not stopped soon.
Top | Home
©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute