ISSN 1440-9828
November 2002
No 178

Conspiracy, coincidence, or merely bureaucratic stuff-up?

Subtle Elimination Process

By Fredrick Töben 24 September 2002

Throughout my wanderings I met a number of individuals who have impressed me by their candid, fearless and refreshingly honest approach to life. They had constructed for themselves a world view within which I could breathe easy. There was no envy, no excessive pursuit of any material possessions, but a determined will to see that justice and mercy prevailed. They were no angels either, but they had not lost their humanity, something I find so lacking in those individuals who now attempt to silence me because I seem to pose a threat to their held world-view.

Interestingly, the following Australians all topped that proverbial three score and ten years by another decade at least, and remained mentally alert until they passed on.

Sir James Darling was an educator who practised what he preached; Sir Edward Barber was a practising legal eagle whose sense of justice and compassion benefited many individuals. It was Sir Edward who managed to get a small settlement for the then widow of former University of Tasmania philosophy lecturer, S S Orr; Sir Douglas Wright was a man whose moral and intellectual integrity remained in-tact.

When in September 1990, The University of Melbourne Gazette, celebrated its own Sir Douglas, I wrote the following:

"In 1961 Sir Douglas Wright wrote a Prologue to the disturbing W H C Eddy book Orr. This Prologue has provided many victims of conspiracies with much-needed moral support because it offers a succinct analysis of this subtle elimination process.

Sir Douglas identified its elements thus:

1. Defame the victim's professional competence, mental balance, truthfulness, etc.

2. Reward collaborators from the victim's group.

3. Weld together the pack of prosecutors.

4. Proclaim authority of the corporation.

5. Spread defamation through the victim's personal links and loyalties.

6. Isolate the victim by giving him the silent treatment.

7. Usually this leads to the victim's resignation which is taken as proof of guilt. Dismissal occurs if the victim refuses to resign.

8. A strong victim highlights the moral standards of society.

9. People in authority perpetuate their own types because no one wishes to be shamed by his successor.

10. Employees are as courageous as their security of livelihood and reputation permits.

11. A governing body of an institution devoted to truth and justice is corrupt if it obstructs enquiry into its stewardship.

Sir Douglas concluded his analysis with a timeless warning: 'Such state of affairs is the antithesis of democratic processes and places the society in imminent danger.'

It is in this sense that I personally ask: Where are our present-day Wrights?"

When I reflect on the legal process that gave rise to the 17 September 2002 Federal Court of Australia judgment, then it is clear to me that there is a great dearth of 'Wrights' within the legal profession, and elsewhere within our community.

Mention the 'Holocaust' and individuals go to seed. Some years ago, Australia's grand-daddy of Revisionism, lawyer John Bennett, walked along a Melbourne street and a QC, later to become a judge, came towards him and spat on the ground before Bennett's feet.

[Notice that we have deleted the judge's name for the sake of avoiding legal action. But anyone wishing to know the name, is welcomed to ask.]

Only recently, the fellow who operates www.crikey.com.au/ was quite pleased to run an add for John Bennett's Your Rights, a valuable legal primer that has passed the 20th edition mark. Admittedly, Bennett paid for this service, but was surprised that an offer came his way that the add would be run twice more without charge.

Then suddenly, it all stopped. The gentleman operating the website didn't want to know Bennett anymore. He had received emails that defamed Bennett with the usual shut-up words: 'hater', 'Holocaust denier', 'antisemite', 'racist', 'neo-Nazi'.

Here we have another example of a man who bends to the Zionist pressure without exercising his moral and intellectual integrity to the full.

Yet, in all fairness to those who do bend, as Professor Robert Faurisson pointed out to me, imagine the pressure under which our public figures are to tow the line on this 'Holocaust' nonsense.

I have now begun to talk about the heap of feces that has been placed in my lounge and that I have been poking a stick at these past nine years, failing to dislodge it.

Recently workmen broke into my home and put this heap of feces in a wooden box, then nailed this box firmly to the floor. There is now a notice on the box that says I must never touch the box, let alone attempt to remove it.

I think I have to move house!

The political Zionists are at work persuading Australian law enforcers to act against us. The pattern of attack is pre-determined, and the following example from Sweden will soon become a part of Australia's political landscape.

On 7 September, 16.30 hours, eight police officers gained entry through a window of Ahmed Rami's apartment in Stockholm and took away his RADIO ISLAM computers and other items relevant to Mr Rami's work.

In a newspaper report Justice Minister, Thomas Bodstrom, stated that the government must stop Ahmed Rami's Internet activities. Minister Bodstrom stated that he was angry with Rami and demanded he be jailed for four years.

Sweden's Public Prosecutor stated to a newspaper that Swedish police have had Rami under surveillance for many years.

On Friday, 5 September - a day before the police raid - the Swedish Jewish newspaper, Expressen, wrote that Ahmed Rami is "a criminal because he compares Zionism to Nazism".

The newspaper said this statement is defamatory against the Jewish newspaper because Zionism is Expressen's nationalism and the Jewish paper's liberation movement.

On 11 September, Ahmed Rami stated to Adelaide Institute's Fredrick Töben that Zionism is today's Nazism "because all characteristics which Jews accused Hitler to have had now apply to Zionists' activities in Palestine and in the whole world - racism, expansionism, occupation, jungle law and arrogance".

Mr Rami stressed that Zionism is a criminal ideology which must be restrained by international law because it is a danger to world peace, justice and international law.

Mr Rami likens the confiscation of his computers to the behaviour of US President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Sharon towards the Iraqi people - to resolve all problems with force.

"And now all Muslims stand accused as being guilty because they refuse to support Sharon and Bush's policies," said Mr Rami. "Proof of innocence is if you support Sharon and Bush! "This is a part of the Jewish humour because the Jews are occupying Palestine, and Zionism will, according to them, liberate the Jewish people from all moral and international law, and from the mutual respect and equality between peoples.

"Now the Swedish Justice Minister wants to resolve the problem through violence by sending the police to take away Radio Islam's computers," said Mr Rami. "But like in Palestine, all occupation provokes resistance. I am only a part of the Palestinian Intifada and instead of stones, I am only using words. The Muslim peoples will never capitulate to the Zionist occupation, jungle law and arrogance."

We continue to monitor the matter. Please use Google to find out more about this as it has received extensive newspaper coverage in Sweden.

Contact Mr Rami at: Tel.: +46 - 708 121240

Update: 25 September 2002

Mr Rami advises that he expects the legal process to begin very soon. He sees parallels with what is happening to him and to Fredrick Töben. In both instances the media spokespersons for the persecutors talk about safeguarding freedom of speech and democracy

So, we have reached the level of total hypocrisy - and the questions that need to be asked are: Freedom for whom?, and democracy for whom?

The answer is clear. Let us hear your suggestions.

Contact Mr Ahmed Rami: radioislam@usa.net http://abbc.com/islam/

Letter to the Editor, US NEWS, 1050 Thomas Jefferson St NW, Washington, DC 20007-3837, USA

From: Dr Charles E Weber, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74114.

10 September 2002

“On 16 September 2002, US NEWS points out that anger is missing in the wake of September 11. It wants us to be angry. The explanantion (“nonjudgmentalism”) in the article is wrong.

Informed, just, rational people capable of independent thinking and observation, however, put the painful events into their proper perspective. I, for one, recall the boast in 1991 that our airplanes had ‘bombed Iraq (our former ally) into the stone age’. A reasonable conjecture might be that our bombing (not to mention subsequent economic measures) killed some 100 000 people in Iraq. That would be some thirty times our losses. Do we have a right to be angry at the 19 young men, soldiers in a sense, who were willing to make the supreme sacrifice to avenge the Arabs who have suffered as a result of our misguided, unjust or even corrupt foreign policy.

I cannot banish from my mind the image of Palestinian children throwing rocks at the tanks we Americans furnished their arrogant, ethnocentric oppressors, who, by the way, tried to sink the Liberty, the well marked American naval vessel in 1967, and who bombed Iraq without provocation in 1981.

The tragedy of September 11 intensified my uneasy awareness that many people throughout the world hate us Americans greatly. For me, a veteran of the Second World War who has witnessed some of the realities of war, a profound disturbing thought is that the hatred has a considerable justification.

Doe US NEWS want G W Bush to lead us into another swamp like Vietnam? What should be the essential task of our armed forces, the protection of our own national borders or those of the Jewish state in Palestine? We supposedly do not have the forces to keep out a flood of illegal Mexican immigrants.”

A matter of resources?

The Middle East conflict in miniature?

From: Mrs Fran Johnson, Cranbrook, BC V1C 6H3, Canada.

To: Premier Gordon Campbell, Parliament of British Columbia, Victoria, BC V8V 1X4, Canada.

Written without prejudice

August 25, 2002

Honorable Minister Campbell

Re: Highway 3-9 Private property held within Crown Grants Lots 297, et al.

Refer To: Provincial Ministries Files & Letters dating from 1978

Social Credit Premier Bennett to New Democratic Party 2001

Property information update:

Your Highway Ministry has begun construction this week on n3-95 without regards to this private property. In 1977-78 Sullivan type minerals were discovered. Gallium and germanium elements were found beneath our Lots 297 and 2798.Premier Bennett began by setting up BC Investment Corporation. We called upon world mining companies for an offer, including Noranda, now controlled by World Jewish Congress head, Bronfman. We were to learn that this was our death sentence.

The Federal Royal Canadian Mounted Police laid frivolous charges against Premier Bennett, and this was the end of our BRIC Silicon gallium arsenide Valley. Now similar frivolous charges have been laid against Premier Glen Clark who wanted to utilize there minerals and Grants for the benefit of BC citizens. Bronfman wants these exotic minerals for the Silicon Valley of Israel, and with no royalty payment.

We have been driven from our land. Like the Palestinians, we found that what the Zionists want, they take, then cry holocaust. What a horrible excuse for thieving others’ property! After many frightening ‘happenings’, and to save our lives, we legally and with sound mind, transferred these mineral titles to others.

WJC Bronfman does not approve. His wish is that I be incarcerated for the mentally insane and the title transfer cancelled. Our children will be held responsible. This I believe was attempted on July 1, 1997, in collusion with Medical Services of BC; Ambulance Services of BC (ref.#9242JOH); Trail Hospital Administrator; Dr S D Benzer #08466; Dr S Naicker #23079; three RCMP vans with uniformed officers abducted me on a public highway, took my purse and car, gave me a hypodermic injection and drove me to this mental institution. I presume they will use these same collaborators again next time. ’Fear of the Jew’ is pandemic in Canada, preventing anyone from questioning Prime Minister Chretien’s carte blanche use of Federal RCMP as mercenary chemical terrorists for the benefit of Bronfman. At the present time they are spraying, night and day in a ferol frenzy; chemical aerosols, that when allergic and taken into the lungs they hit at almost every body organ, muscle and bone. They hope to have me incarcerated before they lose Chretien’s beneficentia. They do not care whom they contaminate. In our Seniors Willowbrook residence or the children at Moyie Shores. They actually brought into Cranbrook benzene contaminated milk stamped CBK on the plastic jugs. No one questioned that children also love milk! Where in God’s Holy name do we train our RCMP.

We sent the Ottowa Citizen publisher Russ Mills a copy of a letter describing the new Federal RCMP citizen monitoring and surveillance facility on our Theatre road, built for the benefit of Bronfman. He was fired by Asper’s Can West Global. This demonstrates the controlling power of the Zionist-Jewish media in Canada. Free speech is lost. But what does it mean for our democracy when they can simply remove our provincial Premier’s for no just reason, using the power of this media and a mercenary RCMP?

We believe, Premier Campbell, that the Government of British Columbia should take control and responsibility for these property Crown Grants for the benefit of the citizens of BC.

Sincerely

Mrs Frances Johnson.

German Racism?

Blonde seeks her Mr Reich

The Australian/AFP, 27 September 2002

Vienna: Women. Do you find the world is populated by too many pinko, lefty greenies and not enough real me? Are blokes scared by the swastika on your apartment wall?

Help is at hand. GermaniaFlirt is a website for far-rightists, neo-Nazis and German nationalists from Austria, Switzerland and Germany who want to find that special someone.

Julia-Alexa, a 19-year-old blonde waitress from Vienna, is looking for her "Mr Reich" on Germania Flirt.

"Nineteen-year-old girl seeks nationalist-minded bloke from Vienna who is not just looking for one thing," her lonely heart advertisement reads.

She votes for the Freedom Party and her favourite singer is Frank Rennicke, described by the Austrian Resistance Archives research institute as "the singing neo-Nazi".

"Seeking a Germanic-Nordic girl aged 18-28 from the southern German region," writes 28-year-old Andreas,who has short blond hair and grey-green eyes.

"You should be a German nationalist or right-wing and have a certain class (no skinhead birds please)," says Andreas, who is shy, romantic, intelligent, active and chivalrous, with a wide range of interests.

Fifty-two men and 20 women are currently looking for love on Germania Flirt.

[Note the irony of the German word's two meanings: Reich = empire; also 'rich'!]

Jewish groups are keeping an eye on convicted Perth arsonist Jack Van Tongeren, who stepped out of Albany Prison last week after serving a 12-year sentence for fire-bombing Chinese businesses in the 1980s.

With a record of anti-Jewish slurs and contributions to the Adelaide Institute website of Holocaust revisionist Dr Fredrick Toben, Mr Van Tongeren, 54, was described this week by Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Jeremy Jones as "a man with a 19th-century racist agenda living in the 21st century."

But Mr Jones said nothing would be done about him unless he violated federal racial hatred legislation that became law while he was in prison.

"What his release has done is it's reminded all of us that Australia not that many years ago was the scene of a small organisation which was using violent action to carry out a racist agenda," he said.

Mr Van Tongeren, a former forklift operator, was one of a small group of extremists who "all think they can save Australia".

The newly-elected chairman of the B'nai B'rith Ati-Defamation Commission, Dr Paul Gardner, said that while Mr Van Tongeren had not made any antisemitic utterances since his release from prison last week, he had a record of anti-Jewish verbal attacks prior to his incarceration.

Dr Gardner said Mr Van Tongeren, the Perth Spokesman for the Australian Nationalists Movement (ANM), also had links to far-right group called the Sydney Forum.

WA Premier Geoff Gallop said on ABC Radio last week that he would not tolerate any unlawful behaviour by the ANM, which was terrorising the Chinese community. "It's not acceptable and we'll make sure it doesn't happen again."

During the ANM's campaign against Asian immigration, Chinese restaurants in Perth were fire-bombed and the city's Asian community vilified.

Dr Gallop, who is also WA's minister for multicultural interests, said supporters of the ANM are a small minority.

A Canberra man of Chinese descent had stalked a mixed-race couple and assaulted them because they were "watering down the race", the ACT Magistrates Court heard yesterday.

The man had also stalked another woman, attempted to break into her home, accused her father of failing to "control your daughters" and assaulted her neighbour.

Phillip So, 30, of Lyons, pleaded guilt to a number of charges, including stalking with intent to harass, assault causing actual bodily harm and burglary with intent to steal.

Police alleged the married couple had been walking through Woden but interchange on October 21, last year, when they were approached by So, who they had seen on a bus earlier.

Police said So had said something to the woman like, "you are a slut, not sleeping with Chinese men", and told her husband he was "raping our women" and "watering down the race'.

So had again confronted the couple at the interchange the next day, repeatedly slashing a knife through the air close to the man and cutting apart his grocery-bag.

Earlier that year, a woman had complained to police about a man who had been following her around the interchange and appeared to resent her being with people who were not of Asian descents.

Police said So had been stalking this woman for more than two years before he punched her neighbour and confronted her father outside the woman's home on June 1 this year.

At various times since May 2002, So had confronted the woman, often on buses or at interchanges, and had once accused her of "offending his dignity".

In June last year he had sat near her on a bus and she had moved seats and informed the bus driver of the situation. So had then struck her in the face and ran out the door.

Exactly a year later, on June 1, 2002 the woman's father had caught So attempting to break into the family home. He recognised So as his daughter's stalker.

Police said So suggested the father "control his daughters" and swung a punch at him. They missed.

When a neighbour became involved, So had produced a wooded baton and struggled with the neighbour, punching him in the eye.

Police arrested So after an anonymous tip-off following the publication of So's photo-fit in the Canberra Times on October 28, 2001.

He was remanded in custody to undergo a psychiatric assessment before sentencing.

By Peter Wertheim, a partner in Geoffrey Edwards & Co, was Mr Jones' solicitor in both matters. He is also immediate past president of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies

A well-loved Jewish joke defines someone who hates Jews more than absolutely necessary.

Of all the persecuted minorities in the world, the Jewish people have retained a unique capacity to laugh at themselves, as well as others. Gentle, mocking humour which makes use of racial and other sterotypes has always been part of everyday social discourse.

Having to listen to someone else give vent to their darkest prejudices in the course of a private conversation is unpleasant.

But the same sentiments expressed in public can rip the delicate fabric of Australian society, in which people from scores of ethnic backgrounds live and work together, for the most part harmoniously.

[FT: With the exception of those who were on the Axis side during World War Two, who have to endure the 'war criminal' slur and suffer the 'Holocaust' slur without defending themselves against such unjust and highly offensive statements and behaviour, in this case also based on German racial hatred.]

It was for that reason that the Racial Discrimination Act was amended in 1995 to include provisions prohibiting offensive behaviour, in public, based on racial hatred.

The behaviour must be offensive in an objective sense, not merely on the say-so of the complainant. The legislation also exempts certain categories of speech and behaviour if they are done "reasonably and in good faith" and are "for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest".

Although numerous complaints of racial hatred have been lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) since the amendment was passed, only two complaints have been successfully litigated before the Federal Court.

In Jones v Scully and Jones v Töben, Jeremy Jones, current president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, complained that Olga Scully and Fredrick Töben contravened the legislation by disseminating grossly antisemitic material to the public. Scully's material took the form of leaflets which she letterboxed and tried to sell at a market. Töben's material was placed on his internet website. Neither Scully and Töben disputed that they had disseminated the material.

The leaflets and the website contained the standard antisemitic canards denying that millions of Jews had perished in the Holocaust and blaming most of the world's economic and social problems on a global "Jewish conspiracy".

[FT: Such generalities are difficult to refute, except we have always gone to great pains to point out, 'Don't blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure'. Even the current push for a US war with Iraq rests on Israel's shoulders — but not only. There are other forces interested in a war in the Middle East, the most likely contender is the faltering US economy.]

Both Jewish and no-Jewish people complained that they had been offended by the material.

[FT: A robust democracy must of necessity incorporate such 'offence', so long as it is done in a civilised way.]

Both Mr Jones' complaints had previously been upheld by the HREOC, but the HREOC's decisions did not have the same legal force as a court order and were ignored by both Scully and Töben.

Mr Jones commenced separate enforcement proceedings against each of them in the Federal Court. The Scully case was heard by Justice Peter Hely and the Töben case came before Justice Catherine Branson.

Like the HREOC, both judges found much of the material to be in breach of the legislation. In the two judgments, all the rationalisations put forward by Scully and Töben in their attempts to defend their actions are stripped away.

[FT: When HREOC's commissioner McEvoy rejected most of my 25-odd witness statements, I realised that the whole matter had a pre-determined outcome. I submitted a defence, but it was not properly drawn up, and I failed to find any legal person willing to assist. So Wertheim's not quite being honest here. See below how Professor Arthur Butz summed it up.]

They each contended that they did not intend to defame Jews generally, but neither judge accepted this. An analysis of the offending material left no doubt that it attacked Jews as a group.

They also tried to argue that the offending material was permissible because it merely discussed matters of genuine public interest, but that argument was rejected.

[More shame on the judges because anyone aware of the issues canvassed in court, realizes that on a daily basis we get 'holocausted' by the media mercilessly pumping out material — always the same 'Holocaust' theme. It is of public interest to correct this imbalance of what is pushed into society through the media and education systems.]

Justice Hely's devastating conclusion after an exhaustive analysis of one of Mrs Scully's leaflets was that: "The publication was not made for any genuine purpose in the public interest, but as a result of the respondent's anti-Jewish prejudices."

[FT:It's only a person's judgment, but Mrs Scully certainly felt she was fulfilling an educative role by distributing material that corrected "the lies they are telling our children".]

Scully and Töben both sought to attack the law itself, arguing that the legislation violates the constitutional right to freedom of political debate. That argument also failed. Justice Hely concluded that the legislative provisions "provide an appropriate balance between the legitimate end of eliminating racial discrimination and the requirement of freedom of communication about government and political matters required by the constitution."

Scully and Töben both complained that the legislation makes no provision for "truth" as a defence, and suggested that there is therefore something sinister about the legislation. In fact, the opposite is true.

[FT: Not so because elsewhere we have an article where the matter is called 'Lying by legislation'; and the Zionist push to get this through parliament is public knowledge. That the legislation is also following a world pattern, is obvious. Canada, Germany, et al, have similar legislation, primarily to stop 'racial hatred' but actually specifically to eliminate open debate on the 'Holocaust', something that is now against the law. So much for democracy.]

If Scully and Töben had been required to prove the truth of their views concerning events that took place decades or centuries ago, they would have been faced with an almost impossible evidentiary burden.

[FT: Here Wertheim is not telling the truth. It is for Jones to prove the allegations he levels against the Germans, and what they are supposed to have done to European Jewry. To date no court in the world has actually accepted forensic evidence that may have supported the Jones view of history. All attempts are designed to place the 'Holocaust' topic off-limits on account of it being 'hate-race-antisemitic' speech, something that is an absurd notion. What does Jones fear?]

In fact, Justice Hely found that "the respondent has not established the truth of any of the imputations.

[FT: I state elsewhere how Mrs Scully was not given the opportunity to address the court on this matter while she sat in the witness box.]

To make out a valid defence Scully and Töben only had to satisfy the court that their dissemination of the offending material was done "reasonably and in good faith" and for a "genuine purpose in the public interest". These requirements are far less stringent than having to prove the "truth" of their material.

[FT: Wetheim is waffling here. The pressure placed on Mrs Scully and myself in this matter is considerable. Imagine the pressure that academics, politicians, et al, are under to toe the 'Holocaust' dogma line!]

In the Töben case a practical issue arose about the possible futility of any orders the court might make, given the ease with which others could publish similar material on the internet.

[FT: One order from HREOC was even rejected by the court, the request for a written apology. Most individuals capitulate to Jewish-Zionist power, and sign an apology. Mrs Scully and I refused because it is not our intention to hurt individuals, but merely to correct a perverted view of history.]

After hearing submissions from Mr Jones' counsel, Stephen Rothman SC, Justice Branson decided that this was not a sufficiently strong reason to decline to make orders against Töben.

[FT: The fact that I could not get legal representation, enabled Justice Branson to hand down a 'summary judgment', without a contest. And this is a precedent case! That's bad law.]

She cited with approval a Canadian decision which referred to the symbolic and educative value of having on record a court decision which publicly denounces the offending material.

[FT: And it also gives anyone the freedom to continue to libel individuals of German descent with a most horrible accusation that has never been tested in open court.]

Justice Branson's decision also creates a significant precedent by establishing that Holocaust denial and similar public expressions of antisemitism offend against the legislation.

[FT: Imagine, an important part of our history is now merely labelled 'antisemitism' and placed off-limits by a court decision. Gulag Australia is alive and kicking. This is exactly what the Soviet Union and other eastern European countries did with their state-dictated historical views. We are entering a new era, where Zionist Jews can deflect critical comments by crying out 'antisemitism'. That is bad for our moral and intellectual integrity.]

The approach taken by both judges was similar to that of a defamation trial. Proving unlawful racial hatred is not easy and should not be undertaken lightly. it has taken six years for Mr Jones to obtain these decisions and the cases were as arduous and exacting as any defamation proceedings.

[FT: What nonsense this prattle from Wertheim is. See Professor Butz's comments elsewhere, where he indicates that nothing has to be proven, except that the material may hurt someone's feelings. And on that basis all Revisionists are guilty because our work will upset and offend. Anyone who has believed in something for many years, then is informed that his information is factually wrong, will usually blame the messenger. See Terry Lane's article on this point.]

Apart from their intrinsic jurisprudential value, the judgments in Jones v Scully and Jones v Töben have a nwider significance at a watershed moment in Australia's social history.

[FT: Indeed. It gives Jews a special status on account of their 'racial' status. But being a 'Jew' is a religious category, and it has nothing to do with 'race'. Similarly, being a Moslem or a Christian cannot be reduced to a racist category. Such intellectual work is sloppy and colloquially it's pulling a swifty.]

After taking a battering in the last few years, Australia's reputation as a tolerant and fair-minded society has been reaffirmed.

[FT: And it's open season on Germans and Australians of German descent, legally sanctioned. Both Judges have re-affirmed the racist laws enacted by Hitler's Nazis in 1935, which defined 'Jews' as a race. And Australia has become a racist country.]

Other minority groups in Australia, less well established than the Jewish community, can also take heart from these decisions. The legislation has been tested and it works.

[FT: Only for the Jews who wish to place off-limits the 'Holocaust' upon whose foundation the state of Israel rests.]

Scully and Töben have been ordered to stop disseminating their material and they were also ordered to pay Mr Jones' legal costs. If they continue their activities, directly or by proxy, they risk being dealt with for contempt of court. Both decisions demonstrate that the law can be used effectively to protect members of minority groups from poisonous campaigns of racial hatred that impinge upon their daily lives and the full enjoyment of their rights and freedoms under law.

[FT: "poisonous campaign of racial hatred" is indeed what Jones and his 'Holocaust promoters indulge in. On a daily basis Australia's media pumps 'Holocaust' material into the community. That is an evil because it distorts the factual record of what happened during the Second World War. This period of history has become a caricature, summed up in the following: 'Hitler hated the Jews so much he killed them all'.]

French writer Michel Houellebecq has been on trial in Paris this past week, charged with insulting Muslims by calling Islam a "stupid religion". M Houellebecq has been ordered to apologise or face a sentence of up to a year in prison.

And Adelaide historical revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben was ordered by the Federal Court on Tuesday to remove from his website all claims that there were no gas chambers at German concentration camps and also any suggestion that Israel uses the "myth" of mass extermination of the Jews to win sympathy and stifle criticism.

Houellebecq expresses an opinion, and how the spiritual heirs of Voltaire think they can stamp out an opinion by imprisoning the person who holds it beggars belief. Töben asserts a fact, and that is a different matter. Assertion of fact can be tested and the argument can be won by the party with the more convincing evidence. Töben should not be censored, he should be debated.

It is not surprising that some people think that the extraordinary steps taken to silence Töben suggest there is something someone would rather we did not know about. An e-mail came from a reader this week in response to my defence of Dr Töben's right to be wrong: "Thank you for speaking out against the curb. I agree with you. However, what I seek is not published criticisms of the judgment against the Adelaide Institute website but in-depth presentations for and against the position by Fredrick Töben and others like him."

In other words, just to defend his right to speak without dealing directly with the content of his speech is a cop-out. So, was there a program of mass extermination of Jews and others in which gas was used? The answer is an unequivocal yes.

How do we know? Because amongst others, we have the testimony of Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz.

In his deposition to the Nuremberg court Höss says that in 1941 his executioners were being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of Russian prisoners sent to him to be murdered. Shooting was inefficient.

Höss knew that gas was being used at Treblinka to kill Warsaw Jews, so he went to inspect. He found gas was, indeed, a more efficient method of mass-producing death, but he was not impressed with the carbon monoxide that was being used. It was too slow.

At Auschwitz he began his first experiments with Zyklon B, a form of crystallised hydrocyanic acid. The first experiments were crude, and involved herding prisoners into a room and throwing in a Zyklon B cylinder and slamming the door. Guards and witnesses wore gas masks.

Later, when Jews started arriving in huge transports, large rooms were pressed into service and some improvements were made to the delivery of the gas through holes in the ceiling. Höss describes murdering Jews in a chamber that held 2000 people — every day, even on Christmas Day.

As the Allies approached, efforts were made to eradicate the evidence of mass murder. Togo looking for "gas chambers" now — as though they were some sort of large-scale equivalent of the American execution chambers — is ridiculous.

As is the suggestion by the historical revisionists that autopsies should have been carried out at Auschwitz, Treblinka and Majdanek to determine of the corpses carried signs of gas. Autopsies in the charnel house of 1945 Europe?

Revisionists go to absurd lengths to discredit Höss' evidence, proposing that it was beaten out of him. Höss was tried at Nuremberg and again in Poland and was executed at Auschwitz in 1947.

If Töben were given space here to put his case he would be aggravating his offence and The Sunday Age would be breaching anti-discrimination laws. That is outrageous. The tranquility of society is not disturbed by argument, but rather by the silencing of those who hold improper opinions.

Jeremy Jones, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, has a sticker on his car showing a dog using a computer. The caption reads: "On the internet nobody knows I'm a dog."

The successful prosecution of revisionist Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben by Jones under the 1995 Racial Hatred Act in the Federal Court has caused some disquiet about the limits to free speech on the internet.

There are sound arguments for not pressing ahead against Toben and the Holocaust deniers. It is argued that Toben's bogus claims, similar to David Irving's, should be publicly exposed. And although Toben obviously doesn't like Jews, unless he incites action against Jews he shouldn't be prosecuted. Holocaust denial, despite the distress it causes survivors and their families, is not a specific crime in this country.

Still, by appealing to the Federal Court after the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission order was ignored, Jones has succeeded where a lot of others have tried and failed.

The reason for this goes beyond the problem of ignorance and historical revisionism. It has to do with the special significance

attached to that particular event, which is summed up by the very name Holocaust, a burnt offering, and what this has come to represent.

As a particular event it echoes down two generations of grandparentless children but, beyond the immediate tragedy, the Holocaust has a broader significance. Theologically, it is somewhat akin to the Christian idea of martyrdom. But on a more temporal level it has a special ideological niche. It has become the ultimate symbol of racism. Jews were killed in Germany as a race, not just as a religion. By accepting this idea, under the Racial Hatred Act, the judge accepted the idea that Judaism has a racial historical past and Holocaust denial, because it denies the defining experience of the race, is a specific form of racism.

In Australia this is sometimes of a new idea. We tend to think of Jews as just another religion. Unless you were brought up in the eastern suburbs of Sydney, and meet a lot of Orthodox Jews who dress in a distinct way and sometimes speak Yiddish, Jews are ethnically indistinct from the rest of the population.

Ironically, the judgment against Toben has encouraged distinctions on racial grounds where none existed before. Hence even among Jews, particularly secular Jews, there is some ambivalence about prosecuting Holocaust deniers.

But despite other massacres and persecution of other races, the Jewish Holocaust seems to be regarded as somehow different. Christopher Hitchens, writing in September's Vanity Fair, asks: "What other ethnicity has ever had to witness the destruction of perhaps one-third of its entire membership?"

Well, the Armenians for a start, and the numerous indigenous groups who were massacred, including the aborigines of Argentina and Tasmania.

In fact, the ideology of the Holocaust has been extended so that if historians question massacres like some of the more dubious events in Australia, they can be virtually accused of Holocaust denial.

And this brings me to something about which most commentators don't want to talk: the problem of gentile guilt. Nowhere is this better displayed than in Germany, where Holocaust denial is a crime. It allows the overblown Hitchens's view, which calls anti-Semitism "not like any other prejudices ... and a kind of venomous distillation of all this conspiracy mania" — which sounds in itself pretty conspiratorial.

Unfortunately, it allows a rather banal modern dichotomy: on the one hand racist conspiracists and on the other the guilt industry. Any connotations of racism prompt irrational apologias (which have nothing to do with contrition) and the Holocaust ideology is extended to any critical treatment of other ethnic groups, from rightly aggrieved indigenes to black Americans (a dubious case), right through to our own illegal immigrants — and exonerated child chuckers who apologists such as Marcus Einfeld insist as being kept in "concentration camps by SS guards".

This sort of thing was indulged in without any thought of the overtones by correspondents during the the post-Tampa debate. It cheapens and vulgarises a terrible event in Jewish lives and history.

To return to Jones's internet-savy dog, it is a cliche to say that not just children but many journalists and commentators are affected by the dumbing down caused by using the internet —a problem of blogs, not dogs. Rational intellectual movements that are unfashionable and unpopular, are intertwined with ideology, prejudice, emotionalism and downright wackiness. Jones convincingly pointed this out in an article in the Australia/Israel Review in 1996 when he traced Holocaust denial through several quite respectable link sites.

Serious intellectual endeavour is often lumped in with plain old conspiracy. But is that dangerous? Some would say yes, particularly for the impressionable, ignorant young. Perhaps we should remember that during the controversy over Toben's Holocaust denial website, the S11 website —a virtual blueprint for violent protest and a breeding ground for the most bizarre conspiracists — flourished. And despite the violent protests at the World Economic Forum, the police were unable to shut it down.