|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
| Departments
| Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
© 2002 The University of Adelaide |
|
Dean of Law, Kath McEvoy.
1. Some years ago I was advised that The University of Adelaide had problems filling its top administrative posts. Hence, anyone who wished to apply for a vacancy had to be prepared to compromise with the prevailing 'idiocy' of political correctness. As many of our universities suffer from that kind of affliction, it is evident that an actual free and open exchange of ideas is rather curtailed.
2.Kath McEvoy's mind-set is revealed in her ruling, and it speaks for itself. Electronic Frontiers Australia's board member, Danny Yee, ridiculed McEvoy's findings as "terrible", especially because she demanded Adelaide Institute's whole website should be removed.
3. Then she ordered that we place on the website the following apology, which she had uncritically adopted from Zionist-racist Jeremy Jones who had formulated it for her:
"I hereby unreservedly and unconditionally apologise to you and to the Australian Jewish community for having published materials inciting hatred against the Jewish people in contravention of the Racial Discrimination Act.
I undertake that neither I nor any employee or agent of mine (actual or ostensible) will publish any such material in the future and that all such material which is presently published by me, or by any employee or agent of mine (actual or ostensible) in any print or electronic media (including the Internet) will forthwith be withdrawn from publication."
That such an 'apology' was uncritically adopted by McEvoy reflects badly on her critical faculties — and to think that this mind is in charge of a law faculty!
How do you place such nonsense on a website that does not exist anymore?
The above 'apology' is a total gag-order, something McEvoy agreed to do because she claimed our material had no academic value. She forgets expressed dissent is the hallmark of a vibrant and questing university environment.
4. Kath McEvoy also did not like my asking her during the HREOC proceedings whether truth was a defence, as it is in defamation actions. She refused to answer that question for the obvious reason that it is not!
As the truth concept is the foundation upon which our civilisation rests, I deemed the hearing to be immoral because where truth is not a defence, lies flourish and we are in an immoral situation — and walked out of the hearing.
Those who use Marxist dialectics to claim that the truth concept is relative, that there is no such thing as truth, usually do this to justify their own immoral behaviour of anything goes. That, of course, is the worst of process thinking where the physical world is deemed to be irrelevant because of the held belief only that which is in our mind is real.
5. Such nonsense still finds currency within our tertiary institutions, and it explains the intellectually wanting findings made by Kath McEvoy. It's all rather sad because such minds are not free and mature enough to comprehend the complexities of human nature. They measure life's challenges with a subjective measure, then enforce their own prejudices by virtue of some socially-held position and not by virtue of a brilliant thought. How can they when their minds are operating within an environment that is far divorced from their actual intellectual competence? Hence, a reliance upon some deep-seated authoritarian trait becomes paramount for guaranteeing their survival within their chosen profession. And such individuals sit in judgment upon others.
Students have no choice but to go along with this, i.e. until they pass their examinations. It is hoped that the young and developing minds are not destroyed at the end of a study course controlled by such minds. It always amazes me how so-called educators neutralise their students by dumbing them down, e.g. the whole discrimination industry relies on a woolly conceptual framework of 'discrimination'.
Every thinking individual discriminates, something that is implied in the next step of that thinking process that bids them to make 'choices'. Naturally the 'choices' available are controlled by the educators, and any idea of free-roaming explorations, free-falling or catching the 'pulsations of the universe' with one's mind, is effectively eliminated. The environment is totally controlled.
All very sad.
Xenophanes justifies the importance of having a questing/enquiring mind thus:
"The gods did not reveal, from the beginning all things to us; but in the course of time, through seeking we may learn and know things better. But as for certain truth, no man has known it, nor will he know it; neither of the gods, nor yet of the things of which I speak. And even if by chance he were to utter the final truth, he would himself not know it. For all is but a woven web of guesses."
6. Kath McEvoy supports the mindset of Pierre Vidal-Naquet who in 1992 stated the following about Revisionists:
"I have thus imposed on myself the following rule: one can and one should enter into discussion concerning the "revisionists"; one can analyze their texts as one might the anatomy of a lie; one can and one should analyze their specific place in the configuration of ideologies, raise the question of why and in what manner they surfaced. But one should not enter into debate with the "revisionists". It is of no concern to me whether the "revisionists" are neo-Nazi or extreme left in their politics; whether they are characterized psychologically as perfidious, perverse, paranoid, or quite simply idiotic. I have nothing to reply to them and will not do so. Such is the price to be paid for intellectual coherence."
This is, of course, the mindset of a persecutor who will talk about a person but will not talk with a person. It is also a classic example of someone who is a legend in their own mind, divorced from reality, but like a child will heap abuse on those who do not agree with his opinion on matters.
This man offends against one of Common Law's important principles: Right-of-Reply, giving someone Natural Justice.
Kath McEvoy has lost sight of this, and it appears she feels comfortable within the German legal framework where basic principles of justice, especially on matters 'Holocaust', do not apply. Why not? I dare not continue my train of thought for fear of offending against Justice Branson's 17 September 2002 Orders!
7. There we have it, the proof that we are moving ever closer to the mindset that prevailed in the former Soviet Union and its satellites where everything had to conform to the Marxist dogma. Do we all have to conform to the 'Holocaust' dogma? I don't have to as yet, but if I publicly question the dogma, in particular the matter of the murder weapon, i.e. the homicidal gas chamber's existence, then I will be in contempt of court, and I am then committing a criminal act.
All very sad, very sad.
----- Original Message -----
From: <toben@adelaideinstitute.org>
To: <info@adelaideinstitute.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 2:43 AM
Subject: SPIEGEL ONLINE - Website verboten: Australien geht gegen Holocaust-Leugner vor
Dieser Artikel aus dem Angebot von SPIEGEL ONLINE wurde Ihnen
geschickt von toben@adelaideinstitute.org mit der persönlichen
Mitteilung:
Greetings from Koenigsberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Website verboten: Australien geht gegen Holocaust-Leugner vor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Die "Meinungsfreiheit" hat ihre Grenzen: Erstmals wurde in Australien
eine Website verboten, die den Holocaust bestreitet. Fredrick Toben,
der deutschstämmige Betreiber der Seite, hat nicht vor, sich an das
Verbot zu halten - und dürfte in Kürze vor Gericht stehen.
Adelaide - Wie Kathleen McEvoy, die Vorsitzende der zuständigen
Menschrechtskommission, bekannt gab, muss das "Adelaide Institut"
entsprechendes Material von seiner Webseite entfernen. Als Begründung
führte McEvoy an, die Schriften existierten hauptsächlich, um
jüdische Menschen zu diskriminieren. Der in Deutschland geborene
Direktor des Institutes, Fredrick Toben, kündigte an, er werde die
Anweisung nicht befolgen.
Blanker Zynismus
Toben muss sich nach Anordnung von McEvoy außerdem schriftlich bei
der jüdischen Gemeinde in Australien entschuldigen. "Ich werde nichts
dergleichen tun", sagte Toben der australischen Nachrichtenagentur
AAP, "warum sollte das jemand verletzend finden? Wir feiern die
Lebenden, von denen man annahm, dass sie alle tot sind."
Die Präsidentin des Exekutivrates des australischen Judentums, Nina
Bassat, begrüßte die Entscheidung der Menschrechtskommission, und
bezeichnete Tobens Verhaltensweise zugleich als "schmerzhaft". Sie
kündigte als nächsten Schritt ein Verfahren vor dem obersten
Gerichtshof Australiens an.
Das wäre für Toben nicht die erste Erfahrung mit der Justiz: Bereits
im vergangenen Jahr hatte er in Deutschland sieben Monate wegen
Volksverhetzung, Beleidigung und Verunglimpfung des Andenkens
Verstorbener in Haft verbracht. Toben sagte, er sei bereit, ein
weiteres Mal ins Gefängnis zu gehen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) SPIEGEL ONLINE 2000
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Vervielfältigung nur mit Genehmigung der SPIEGELnet AG
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesen Artikel erreichen Sie im Internet unter der URL
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,97388,00.html
©-free 2002 Adelaide Institute
.gif)
