|
|
|
For Students of Jurisprudence
Fredrick Töben's Right of Reply in the form of a Note of Caution
1. If you have a tough mind, then you can afford to disagree with your teachers', lecturers' and professors' expressed views and opinions. However, it may cost you that extra mark if you aim for a distinction. Most of our students will not fail anymore because universities need the numbers - otherwise the bloated bureaucracy begins to expire. If you are an 'average' student, then it is better to shut-up on account of your teacher's sharper mind - and techniques of self-preservation in the form of denigration of differing points-of-view. Academics, especially, can be extremely intolerant. In today's intellectual climate it is called being politically correct. Such an intolerant mindset is usually quite immature and childlike, getting 'upset' at the slightest disagreement. It's an immature 'battle-of-the-wills', something we all indulge in. Even I get the sulks sometimes when someone dear to me asserts a surprising matter in an aggressive way. There are, however, safe things to do within the politically correct environment - and these are often worthy programs for our social and personal well-being.
2. During the 1960s students still failed their courses - especially if they did not toe the political party line, as espoused by the leading lights within the department. By the late 1980s we were instructed to pass anyone, even if the examination paper was blank. I had cases in Sociology where I was instructed to award vital marks for the student getting correct - remembering - her name and number!
3. I vividly recall failing subjects at school and university because of distractions (also laziness), and also because I disagreed with what was put before me, for example in history! In Year 11, I failed the two internal term examinations because I disputed matters with my teacher - then passed the end of year externally assessed examination.. In my final school year I passed history on my own - without a teacher guiding me through the subject!
4. It is not quite like that with the law. One of my past legal counsels stated clearly that the law is a hit-and-miss matter: win some - lose some! I have the view that only the experts can deal with it - and not someone who is not qualified. My training is in literature and philosophy - and the latter demands of us that we ask questions because the unexamined life is not worth living. An Afro-American advised me that 'race' is not a factor in US justice because it only distracts from the real determinant: money. He claimed this lesson was clearly dealt out to the world in the O J Simpson case.
5. Justice Branson's granting me my request for an adjournment was appreciated, and although I loathe to make personal comments, I did state in one email how the caring of one's dying father is a wake-up call about our priorities: wiping one's own father's bottom blends out other matters - especially court cases where the result is already predetermined by clever dialectic-process legislation.
6. Justice Branson is correct when she states in her judgment that my written court submissions are "discursive and argumentative" - but that is my understanding of the nature of our legal adversarial system of law. It shows that it is not possible for a non-legally qualified individual to prepare and file material supportive of his case. I did my best and was criticised for it. Both Justice Branson and the three Appeal Court judges criticised my way of handling the matter. Why did they not order that I be granted legal assistance? Is a duty of care not applicable to judges who have before them un-represented individuals accused of offending against a country's law, and a precedent-setting Internet censorship case to boot? All four judges involved in this case suggested that I just go to the Court Registry in Adelaide where staff would offer computer resources to me that would help me to learn how to submit correctly formulated documents. It was assumed that because of my tertiary studies I should be able to master this within weeks! I didn't know the legal system rests on such flimsy intellectual rigour.
6. The Federal Court of Australia's entry into academia is going to have a chilling effect on free and open enquiry. Research will be free in the generally accepted way, except when it gets to the 'Holocaust' topic where only one side of the argument will be permitted. That is the effect of Justice Catherine Branson's Judgment.
7. However, this politically-correct view of an historical event may be pursued to the bitter end - even if it means publicly defaming individuals such as myself. It is open season on dissenters and heretics, who were at one time wearers of a badge of honour within academic circles. Public defamation of my person is now permitted because the subject matter that gave rise to it has been withdrawn from open debate. I cannot now defend myself anymore - I have been gagged - and this in democratic Australia!
8. Now we have Ph D students, such as Anthony Long at Adelaide University, freely and without inhibitions, propounding libel after libel against individuals whom he labels 'Holocaust deniers', 'Antisemites' and 'racists'. See his website: ' www.williscarto.com , Resources against Holocaust denial and Antisemitism '[Note the spelling varies: anti-Semitism, antisemitism and Antisemitism.]
9. Of course, Sydney University has an MA course in Holocaust Studies where dissenters are likewise libelled and defamed as 'Holocaust deniers' and 'antisemites' - without being accorded a right-of-reply, which is the essence of the legal principle of natural justice. Students who take this course feel cosy because they are not academically challenged: there is no other point-of-view that is permitted to be presented, for fear of offending against Justice Branson's 17 September 2002 orders.
10. Thank God for the Internet - what I write here, no media outlet would print for fear of offending against the Federal Court judgment of 17 September 2002. Why should any media outlet, any editor, any journalist accord me a right of reply? Why break a law that has taken away my right to natural justice?
11. Thank God for the US First Amendment that guarantees free speech on the Internet. But that. too, is under threat - and the same mindset that enabled 'hate laws' to flourish elsewhere, is working to eliminate free speech in the USA..
12. Since 24 September 2002, Australian students - no, anyone living in Australia - may not doubt any aspect of any of the many 'Holocaust' versions that are propounded for whatever reason. The court order has gagged open debate on this topic - yet the 'official' version may be spread at will.
13. Students now have the wonderful opportunity of witnessing the full development of an ideological structure that, under the guise of stopping so-called 'hate-speech', 'Holocaust denial', 'antisemitism' [and some more shut-up words such as 'racism', 'neo-Nazism'], actually protects a small elite from justified criticism of their behaviour:
- how it initially begins within the factual/physical world, resting on solid physical/historical facts
- then is disconnected from any physical objectivity to become an abstract notion where the imagination runs wild
- and finally is enshrined within a legal framework that is disconnected from physical reality and resides exclusively within the abstract world of the mind, and is protected by specially designed laws
- and of course, sold as a physical/historical fact that cannot be challenged in any way because of a precedent legal case that proved, not the physical truthfulness of any assertion made, but whether such an abstract assertion caused subjective hurt and suffering! A subjective affirmation thereby has become an objective fact that the court orders to be beyond dispute because that would, in turn, cause hurt and suffering to individuals.
- this is an example of how the dialectic thought process operates. Most students are familiar with the 'heads you lose, tail I win' proposition when spinning a coin. In the matter of competency it is expressed in the following: "I want to help you overcome your personal problems in dealing with individuals. Let me be there in your group and help you. If my presence helps, then that's because I am there. If it does not, then that shows up your incompetence."
So much for our much-cherished academic tradition where balance and objectivity once guided our enquiring minds.
Fredrick Töben briefly comments on Justice Branson's Judgment
comments, and added material, appear in bold
1. Summary Judgment - a form of legal torture?
3. The Court has exercised its discretion to give judgment on the application for summary judgment because it was satisfied that the respondent was unwilling to co-operate with the Court and the applicant in bringing the proceeding to trial within an acceptable timeframe or at all. Although the respondent did not defend the application for summary judgment, the applicant was required to place evidence before the Court to justify the orders sought by him.
Justice Branson does me an injustice because she assumed that I could just learn how to file a defence by reading a book and visiting the Federal Court Library - the Appeal Court judges suggested likewise. I did not know that law is so simple!
Her Honour: Well, Dr Toben, I understand by reason of your title that you are a man with tertiary education, is that right?
Dr Toben: Your
Honour, is that relevant?
Her Honour:
Would you care to answer my question or not, Dr Toben?
Dr Toben: Your
Honour, I can't quite make out what you're saying there because…
Her Honour: Dr
Toben, I don't propose to compel you to answer, but may I say this: you have on
a number of times had your attention directed to the Federal Court Rules. You
have also been advised of the assistance that could be obtained from practice.
2. Un-represented test-case — legal precedent set by stealth?
42. On 4 April 2002 the respondent again asked that the proceeding be adjourned indefinitely because, as he asserted, he could not obtain legal representative. No evidence was placed before the Court to support this assertion. In any event, as I advised the respondent, the applicant was entitled to have his claim heard and determined. To facilitate the hearing of the respondent's notice of motion, I directed the applicant to issue the notices required by s 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to be issued before argument could be entertained with respect to the constitutional validity of the RDA. I further set a timetable for the filing of addition evidence, if any, and listed both notices of motion for hearing on 4 June 2002.
43 The respondent sought leave to appeal to the Full Court from the above directions. The application for leave to appeal was heard and dismissed on 21 May 2002. It appears from the judgments of the members of the Full Court that the respondent's principal matter of complaint before that Court was that I had not indefinitely adjourned the substantive proceeding by reason of the respondent's inability to obtain legal advice. The respondent also sought an order from the Full Court that I be excused from the case on the ground of bias.
The principal matter was that I remained un-represented —and this should have been a ground for adjournment. As this was a precedent-setting case, I needed expert counsel. No balanced legal principle can emerge from a case where one party is legally un-represented.
I submitted written evidence in my appeal —something that was available for Justice Branson to consider in detail — that I canvassed over 20 of Australia's leading law firms, without success. I did not even get past first base - so the question of costs was not even raised. My appeals to the various law firms was met by silence.
Jeremy Jones's team was aware of this and the following is instructive:
3. Co-operation in a case where Truth is no defence
56. In my view, it was apparent by 14 March 2002 at the latest that the respondent was unwilling to co-operate with the Court and the applicant in bringing this proceeding to trial within an acceptable period of time or at all.
I reminded her Honour of the comments made by Nicholas
Cowdery, QC, NSW Director of Public Prosecutions on the program 'Truth in Public
Life', Insight, SBS TV, 14 March 2002, said the following about our legal
process:
"I think both politics and the law have become unnecessarily adversarial. We do have an adversarial legal system. Any thought that it is designed to find the truth of the matter, I'm afraid, is misplaced. It is a case, which is based upon, or a system which is based, or a system which is based upon one case being pitched against another case. So you have two cases going head for head in an adversarial way. And the political system seems to have gone that way too. There was a comment earlier about the rigid two-party system where you have two adversaries carrying on almost a ritual competition between each other and, I think, there's, I certainly couldn't advocate that every member of parliament should be an independent, but there must be some way devising systems both in the courts and in parliament that will take some of the adversarial character out of the procedures, make them more inquisitorial, in the sense of inquiring into issues that need to be inquired into, and help them to find the truth".
The concept 'Truth' is the foundation of our civilization - and here it is ignored. What a worry.
4. Defence - 'fear of the Jews'
57. The respondent has asserted an inability to obtain legal representation. I accept that the respondent has made efforts to obtain legal representation but I do not know the details of those efforts. It seems more likely than not, however, that the respondent's efforts have been limited to seeking legal representation on a pro bono basis. I am not aware of the financial means available to the respondent to pay for legal advice. It is clear, however, that the respondent travels regularly, including to overseas destinations. He may, therefore be presumed not to be wholly impecunious. Even if it be assumed that he lacks the financial means to retain general legal representation, nothing suggests that the respondent made any endeavours to obtain the help of a legal practitioner for the limited purpose of drawing a defence on the basis of instructions provided by him. In the absence of evidence that the respondent has sought other than pro bono legal representation, I place no weight on his assertion that he is unable to obtain legal representation because members of the legal profession "fear the Australian Jewish Zionists' power".
This comment is a nonsense claim. As late as the final court hearing on Sydney I stated again and again to Justice Branson that I could not even get past first base - over 20 law firms even refused to acknowledge my initial contact. Their names are listed in my appeal books to which I drew Her Honour's attention; copies of which are also with Jeremy Jones' counsel. My own personal legal contacts disconnected from me - the first 'defence' was written up by a couple of individuals, but they then wished me never to mention their names because they feared retribution. "I have a wife and children to think of," was the response.
Anyone who can imagine the pressure I have been under since these legal actions began, can imagine the pressure to which the professional person - lawyer, politician, businessman, etc. - is subjected to tow the line.
A letter, written in 1984 by a former Queens Counsel, and now Federal Court Judge, Justice Alan Goldberg, as Chairman, Anti-Defamation Committee, Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), illustrates to what lengths this pressure was exerted on public figures.
Mrs Joyce Steele, O.B.E.,
former Minister of Education, Parliament of South Australia, the recipient of
such a letter did not bend to the pressure exerted by the ECAJ, then presided
over by Mr Isi Leibler, C.B.E.
I have always stated that we must not criticise those that exert the pressure but rather feel for the ones that bend to this pressure. Mrs Steele did not bend and stood her ground.
I have now bent to the pressure
by obeying the court order.
Another case of Jewish pressure involves the Herald Sun, Australia's largest daily newspaper based at Melbourne when it withdrew the poll results on David Irving.
In my submission to the Federal Court I detailed the most recent matter of Jewish-Zionist legal pressure.
5. 'Holocaust' now official dogma for Australia
89. As Hely J pointed out in Jones v Scully at [176] it is not for the Court in a case of this kind to seek to determine whether or not the Holocaust occurred. No doubt it is for that reason that no attempt was made in this case to lead evidence on that topic. The role of the Court is to determine whether the applicant has substantiated his complaint that the respondent engaged in conduct rendered unlawful by s 18C of the RDA. However, it is appropriate to note, as the document headed "About the Adelaide Institute" itself recognises, that it is generally accepted in Australia and elsewhere that the Holocaust did occur.
But now it is forbidden to doubt anything about the 'Holocaust' - we now do not know whether it is true or false because the topic has been withdrawn from discussion and open debate.
6. Written apology demanded
106. I do not understand the applicant to have pressed his claim for an apology. In any event I do not consider it appropriate to seek to compel the respondent to articulate a sentiment that he plainly enough does not feel. As Hely J pointed out in Jones v Scully at [245], "prima facie the idea of ordering someone to make an apology is a contradiction in terms". The applicant did press for an order requiring a "retraction" by the respondent. I understood the applicant to be seeking a statement of retraction by the respondent. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the practical distinction between an apology and a statement of retraction is slight. I do not consider it appropriate to order the respondent to issue any statement of retraction.
And yet HREOC's Commissioner McEvoy ordered that I place the following apology on our website; this same Order was also submitted to the Federal Court - but Justice Hely in the Olga Scully case soon dismissed this matter. Even Hely could not accept the fact that an Apology had been written for him. The HREOC commissioners had no hesitation in adopting it - doing as they were told!
"4. An Order that the
Respondent forthwith deliver to the Applicant, Jeremy Jones, a written statement
of apology, signed by the Respondent, in the following terms:
'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 and 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'.
***
However, Justice Branson's Orders achieve what they set out to do: to stop a factual discussion of the so-called 'Holocaust', giving me - and in effect anyone in Australia - a gag order. Hence, free speech is dead.
Some years ago Jeremy Jones displayed his hubris by stating that he was out to "stop them from functioning".
Well, we are still alive - just hemmed in by some court orders, to which we shall adapt.
During the Soviet Union days, the Armenian people developed some strange sense of humour, thereby overcoming the mighty Marxist-imposed ideological gag-order. These jokes were available in Germany in a question-answer format from 'Radio Eriwan'.
The Marxists also proscribed at law the dissenter whom they also labelled 'Revisionist'.
The Gulag was full of Revisionist thinkers who simply could not tolerate the official state-imposed dogma. 'Antisemitism' laws operated ruthlessly, until the breakdown of the Soviet Union's political structure. The result was a massive exodus of Jewish individuals, who fled to the prosperous West as a 'persecuted' minority.
During the 1970s I met an academic at the Berlin Humboldt University. This historian had left West Germany during the late 50s because he was a convinced Marxist, and began teaching at the university. However, in time he ran foul of the official dogma, and his lecture notes were censored. It reached the point where he walked to work every day -to do nothing. He had as yet not been dismissed but he had been isolated from student contact. He began to fantasise about young student girls - so he informed me as we enjoyed some vodka in an East Berlin nightclub where diplomats were permitted to while away their time.
Anyone who imposes a dogma on the gullible, will be faced with the same problem. Initially the innocent and naive mind will fall for the well-meaning rhetoric. Then, as the mind matures, it becomes disobedient because it cannot accept such deception any longer. But I repeat myself because I detailed this maturation of the mind and its inherent problems in one of my earlier books written in 1974, When The Innocent Awake.
The importance of the mental maturation process is also evident in the saying: If you are not a Communist at 21, you have no heart; if you are still a Communist at 30, you have no brain.
Those individuals who claim 'change' is the agent of importance delude themselves about human nature's persistence. That was the problem faced by the Marxists/Communists. They wished to force human nature into an ideological mould, and anyone who did not fit in, was sent to the re-education camps or worse, to the Gulags.
The 'Holocaust' dogma is proceedings along Marxist/Communist lines- its dialectics is comparable.
Shall I yield to this power that enslaves our minds? If I did, I would be mad!
7. My material was never subjected to an examined.
Jeremy Jones made a typically misleading statement - a lie - to the Sydney Morning Herald.
What does Jones mean when he states to a newspaper reporter: 'Toben's material did not stand up to any examination, he said.' ?
What did Justice Branson mean when she stated:
"As Hely J pointed out in Jones v Scully at [176] it is not for the Court in a case of this kind to seek to determine whether or not the Holocaust occurred."?
But that to date had been our concern - and it certainly has been Jones' concern to prove that the Holocaust happened by silencing us. Now he may make any claim whatsoever with impunity - without risk of any contradiction. I am not allowed to comment on the issue any more! I have been gagged because Justice Branson's judgment silences me - she has taken away my right of reply; she has destroyed for me the principle of natural justice.
So much for moral and intellectual integrity. So much for our freedom of speech, and so much for judicial balance.
8. Tolerance in Gulag Australia
In the Olga Scully case Jeremy Jones made an important statement about what Australia's democracy is all about.
Jeremy Jones: “Australia prides itself on being tolerant; this judgment reaffirms that."
In the Jewish Chronicle, 6 September 2002, Jeremy Jones is quoted as saying:
“We can feel a true sense of satisfaction that justice has been achieved,” he said. “This reaffirms that Australia is a tolerant society.”
Tolerant? Jones is permitted to talk about 'Holocaust' matters without inhibition. It hurts, for example, the German Australians to continually be reminded of what the Germans are alleged to have done to the Jews during World War II -without asking hard questions of physical evidence, without being accorded a right-of-reply. Now it is a an offence to doubt, to put up questions that test the received version of this historical event's veracity.
I leave it to you to judge how this makes Australia a 'tolerant society', and whether there is not really some lack of balance in the story-telling.
9. Shut-up words win the day, not intellectual discourse.
This matter about the 'Holocaust' has nothing to do with 'antisemitism' and with 'race' because being Jewish is a matter of religion.
Jews are not a race, though there are Jews in the apartheid, Zionist state of Israel who behave like racists, especially towards their Palestinian population. The Palestinians are Semites and we support the Semitic people's right to their homeland Palestine.
I have asserted elsewhere that Jeremy Jones needs me because of his Talmudic dialectic that divides the world into them-us.
He defines his very existence by using negative terms with which he labels his perceived enemy, such as 'hater', 'Holocaust denier', 'antisemite', 'racist', 'neo-Nazi'.
By labelling anyone with whom he disagrees, he avoids making contact with that person's mind, and thus an exchange of views is resisted.
Instead, what happens is that the shut-up words [the Birdman's terminology] begin a persecution process that, as in my case, leads to legal persecution.
This, in turn, has the effect that the persecuted is now fair game for public defamation - the media feeds on this, at least those that are morally and intellectually bankrupt.
Depending on the media feeding frenzy, the whole process initiated by Jeremy Jones could lead to another witch-hunt.
The current world political shut-up word is 'terrorist', where any form of self-protection, self-defence is considered to be 'confrontational'.
Students of literature and philosophy can think of further examples from history. So, in effect, what has happened to me is nothing new.
The problem faced by Jeremy Jones is that I have a life without it being defined by the 'Holocaust' story. He needs it with which to define himself. In time this claim, however, will become wearisome - this in spite of his world-view being legally sanctioned.
Jones needs me, but I don't need him because I do not consider myself to be morally and intellectually bankrupt.
The question is whether justice - compassion and mercy - will permit that pound of flesh without the condition that it be taken without spilling blood.
Jones will forever be running after someone whom he can label and hurt - and draw therefrom some nourishment that will sustain his self-inflicted victim status. Under the self-confessed pretext of feeling deficient in coping with life's lessons, Jones attempts to suck out the lifeblood of those he considers do not belong to his group He needs to do this because of the dialectic process that propels his mindset because he is lacking something he will never possess: wholeness of mind, where love and power are in balance, where Truth is a defence against any allegation made. Without Truth, Lies flourish and Trust is destroyed, and so our social fabric begins to rot. The balance between moral, social and legal forces is destroyed - and legalese rules where the distinction between literal and figurative language use is destroyed. Literal language rules - and individuals are reduced to literal interpretations, that - surprise, surprise - cause hurt. So, literal interpretation - the flat earth one-dimensional society - leads to hurt feelings; hurt feelings lead to litigation; litigation leads to making money without working for it!
That's my view of what is the essence of the conflict to date. Let's see how the enemy of free speech accepts my challenge contained within these pages.
10. Persecution through legal prosecution: an afterthought
I find it rather interesting that Jeremy Jones has never asked me whether any of the shut-up words apply to me. I know individuals who proudly claim they are racists writ large, RACISTS.
I also know individuals who do not consider themselves to be racists - antisemites - haters, etc.
Unfortunately, personally I have never thought in racist categories - that's my literature and philosophy training coming through.
Yet Jones labels me as such without ever speaking with me about this matter. On numerous occasions when Jones and I met in public I tried my best to engage him - without success. So, Jones takes it upon himself to label me as he sees fit without giving me the opportunity of correcting his perception of my person. He is thus simply trying to force me into his conceptual world. I don't like that.
What is this Jones behaviour a sign of, what does it signify? A man takes me to court, having previously refused to speak with my, but has his helpers lay a charge, that is then taken up by the judge. Jones' will has been done. Is that what power is all about - having others do the dirty work for you, so that you can continue to play the helpless victim of life's trials and tribulations?
And now he has succeeded in silencing me to some extent. He did state some time ago, though, that it was his desire to stop me "from functioning". Well, he may not have quite succeeded in that because thanks to the Internet which he still has not yet controlled.
It seems to me that Jones is a control freak who is constantly freaking out because whenever he thinks he is in control of people and matters, then he has to worry about losing control. It is like those who suffer from any persecution complex - they are either suffering it at the moment, have just emerged from it or are anticipating another bout of persecution. I think that's a sign of something seriously going wrong in the mind.
When the proceedings began in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC), I welcomed the opportunity of speaking with the Complainant Jeremy Jones. I was prepared to discuss the matters and listen to his objections. Then Commissioner, Zita Antonios, refused to initiate reconciliation meetings because Jones had refused to participate.
Yet, when he obtained the judgment he wanted from Commissioner McEvoy, Jones even had the audacity to ask that I seek counselling, a kind of sensitivity training for those not quite conversant with what it is like being a 'racist'.
Commissioner McEvoy had already showered him with everything he asked for: written apology to be put on our deleted website. Imagine, the Dean of the law faculty at the University of Adelaide, McEvoy, ordered that we delete the whole website. This, of course, enabled her to blanket condemn our work in the most general terms - just right to get the shut-up words up and running.
Interestingly, the fact that I did delete the website, that we placed a warning sign on our second site, was not honoured by Justice Branson.
Is this Jones' attitude an example of what the opponents of Talmud mean? Am I now to read the books I have not as yet read to find the understanding as to what makes Jeremy Jones tick?
Is it time for me to read The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Must I begin to read Mein Kampf?
Will these classic texts explain to me why Jeremy Jones has behaved so badly towards me, why he has ignored and rudely snubbed my attempts at discussing our dispute, as any civilized individual would welcome?
If he lacks basic manners, is this because Jones is one of Australia's top Zionist politicians?
I called this Jones approach 'mental rape', and now I can think of nothing better than to describe it as intellectual terrorism.
So, let the war on intellectual terrorism begin and may the Internet serve as our weapon of mass instruction!
© free 2002 Adelaide Institute