Australia’s Democracy still in-tact?
Newsletter No 267 featured Adelaide Institute’s submission to the Senate Enquiry into the proposed Terrorism legislation – and what a battle it was do have the Senate committee accept the submission from Adelaide Institute.
Although it was one of the first submissions received by the committee before the cut-off point on 11 November, not until 25 November was it accepted for publication, under the proposed number 106.
The whole democratic process of calling for submissions and of having public hearings was steam-rolled, in indecent haste. Public notices were to have been placed in Australia’s newspapers on the weekend of 5-6 November 2005, but in South Australia the local Adelaide Advertiser was forgotten and instead the only national newspaper, The Australian, carried the information needed by those who wished to make a submission.
Fredrick Töben had Adelaide Institute’s submission emailed to the committee on 10 November 2005 – which was acknowledged by Marina Seminara, assistant to the secretary of the committee, Mr Owen Walsh.
Töben watched as the list of accepted submissions was published on the government site. It grew from day to day, but there was no sight of Töben’s submission at:
Days passed and the number of submissions reached the 200s. What to do?
Luckily, Töben received an invitation from Amnesty International to attend a public meeting about this proposed terrorism legislation to be held on 18 November 2005 at the Norwood Town Hall.
He attended, and the following is the pertinent extract from that evening’s session:
Condemn terror …not our human rights
Torture | Ill-treatment | Abu Ghraib | Guantanamo Bay | Secret detention centres
18 November 2005-11-24
Norwood Town Hall – 6:15pm.
Patrick Frost – MC
ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope
Terry Hicks (Father of David Hicks)
NSW Senator Kerry Nettle (Australian Greens)
MLC Kate Reynolds (Australian Democrats)
SA Senator Linda Kirk (ALP)
The audience of about 150 individuals who attend the public forum was receptive to what was being discussed, and the question session at the end of the meeting was orderly and exhaustive. Töben took the opportunity publicly to air his concerns about the proposed terrorism legislation.
Dr Fredrick Töben – Adelaide Institute
My name is Fredrick Töben – I’m a dissident, and I was very pleased to receive the Amnesty International invitation to come here because I’m also known as a so-called right-wing, hater, Holocaust denier, neo-Nazi, racist, and whatever. But for that I have suffered, I have been in prison, not like David’s [Hicks] fate but rather milder and I am speaking, or I have to be careful in what I say because I am working under a gag order from the federal government, or the Federal Court of Australia
What I would like to ask the team is, and it’s significant.
If you go to our website Adelaide Institute you’ll see that in the last week or two four prominent Revisionists have been imprisoned in Germany and in Austria. The latest one was David Irving. Most Australians know him as, again, an extreme right-wing or whatever you want to call him, someone who refuses to believe in the Holocaust.
Interjection: What’s the question, please?
The question is, especially to the Senator, I made a submission to the Senate, and my submission was one of the first ones before you had a hundred up I was already there. I have now been informed that it is still being looked at, and this worries me because what I am saying is what you’re worrying about here today, or tonight, is what I’ve been through in the last five to ten years – and this is mental rape where somebody forces on you to believe something without giving you a right of reply, without giving you an opportunity to explore the issues within a democratic process, and in a civilized way.
And what you are going through here, as I said, it’s going to get far worse. The sedition matter is so vicious that if -
Interjection: Question please! – the woman then demonstrably walked out of the hall.
- if the parliament makes a decree, for example, declaring there’s going to be a Holocaust holiday, then anybody who questions this will be in trouble. So – thank you.
[A positive round of applause]
South Australian Senator Linda Kirk (ALP)
Thank you Mr Toben. Yes I’m aware of the submission that you’ve put into the Senate enquiry. As I indicated we had some 300 submissions to the Senate enquiry. All of them have been made available to all of us Senators for us to read. They’re also all available on our website.
I mentioned to you that we had only two-and-a-half days to hear witnesses, so that meant that we had to go through and select those who would be appearing in Sydney. It was only Sydney that we held hearings and I, I was trying to do a total, I think we probably were able to have about twenty witnesses only during the course of those two days.
Like I said, today we only had the Attorney-General’s Department so in the two days we could fit in twenty witnesses out of 300. So, you know, it’s a matter of going through and trying to select those people who are going to bring as much as possible to the table. Like I said, we had Amnesty, we had HREOC, and we had Muslim groups, we had a wide variety of individuals.
So, please, rest assured that your submission has been received by the secretariat and by senators.
[Transcribed from 2-CD set Condemn Terror …. Not our human rights
Radio Adelaide: Email: firstname.lastname@example.org www.radio.adelaide.edu.au – and this CD cost $38.- and will be broadcast sometime in 2006 on account of prior scheduling of programmes, i.e. when it get aired it is stale news!
After this meeting, still nothing was happening and so Töben advised each of the six senators on the Committee about what had happened.
1. From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2005
Subject: Terrorism submission
Dear Senator Kirk
In view of the fact that my submission has as yet not been listed, I sent the following to the committee secretary.
Could you look into the matter as per your comments below, please?
Dr Fredrick Töben, Adelaide.
2. From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2005
Subject: Terrorism submission
Dear Senator Bartlett
I understand you are on the committee reviewing the terrorism submissions. As I was one of the first to make a submission at such short notice, I note that mine still has not been listed. This is contrary to what Senator Kirk advised me last Friday.
Could you please look into this for me because my view-point is unique and it ought to be held on record. I refuse to believe in the Holocaust and the terrorism legislation is a decoy to hide the fact that it will hunt dissenting minds - and force the Holocaust belief on to all of us.
Dr Fredrick Töben
3. From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2005
Subject: Terrorism submissions
I understand you are on the committee overseeing the submissions - and as mine was submitted on 10 November - and still has not been listed - I would be pleased if you could look into this for me.
My viewpoint is unique in that - for the record - I contend the terrorism matter is a ploy to hide the true nature of the proposed legislation
to hunt down dissenting minds - such as mine which refuses to believe in the Holocaust.
The following is what Senator Kirk stated publicly stated to me last Friday at Norwood, and more information about the hunt for Revisionists can be read at:
Dr Fredrick Töben
4. From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2005
Subject: Terrorism submission
I am writing to advise you that my submission was received by the secretary before 100 had been received - on 10 November 2005. I note the submissions have now almost reached 300 postings - and mine still has not appeared.
In view of the fact that my submission raises a unique viewpoint, I request that you support mine for listing.
Also, as soon as the Terrorism legislation becomes law I expect to be the first dissident to come before it - because I refuse to believe in the Holocaust. The terrorism matter is a mere decoy to hide the true nature of this legislation - to get the dissidents who refuse to believe in the Holocaust.
Just recently a world-wide hunt and imprisonment of Revisionists has occurred.
Dr Fredrick Töben
5. From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2005
Subject: Terrorism submission
A week or so ago I contacted your Sydney office concerning my submission. In view of the matter below, could you please look into it.
The number of submissions has risen and most have been listed - from individuals and associations. However, my view, as it is unique, should also be filed for the record.
My claim is that the terrorism matter is a decoy to enable pure persecution of dissenting views - such as mine about the Holocaust - I refuse to believe in the Holocaust.
It should at least be placed on the Senate submission record that I expect to be the first to be hounded by the new legislation.
Dr Fredrick Töben
6. From: Adelaide Institute
Sent: Friday, 25 November 2005
Subject: Terrorism submission
I understand that you are on the committee overseeing the processing of submissions received.
I seem to be having a problem with my submission getting listed - this in spite of mine getting in on 10 November and being one of the first 100-or-so received by close of day on 11 November.
As my viewpoint is unique in that not one of the submissions has mentioned my view - that the terrorism matter is a ploy to hide the true nature of this proposed legislation = to hunt dissenting minds that refuse to believe in the Holocaust - I would be pleased if you could ensure that my submission at least gets listed so that the record is authentic.
Dr Fredrick Töben
A phone call to Mr Walsh, just before the end of business on Friday 25 November, conveyed the good news that although the committee did not recognise the relevance of the submission, it was cleared for publication.
That’s what it was all about – to get it on the PUBLIC RECORD that the Terrorism legislation merely hides the true intent of this legislation – to stifle dissent, to persecute free thinkers, to destroy our democracy, to enforce the HOLOCAUST RELIGION on to Australian minds.
Now is the time to watch the Jewish pressure exerted on the above Senators for having permitted this submission to see the light of day – not tomorrow, not next week, not even next year – but in years hence, decades.
Then bear in mind the Newsletters for January that detail the Judaic attack on the non-Jewish world – and we are in for interesting times.
Anyone who cannot defend their world view – Weltanschauung – may as well just slip into hedonistic predatory consumerism – and switch off while they get mentally raped by those who cannot tolerate another viewpoint because they identify themselves through the negative, the determined scapegoat: HATER, HOLOCAUST DENIER, ANTISEMITE, RACIST, NEONAZI, XENOPHOBE, etc.
And now watch how those who refuse to believe in the HOLOCAUST are treated by those who want you to believe in the HOLOCAUST.
It is a moral and intellectual duty to oppose anyone who propounds the HOLOCAUST RELIGION because that is ethnic cleansing, it is extermination of Germans – the extinguishing of the German mind.
The Human Factor in REVSIONISM
From: Adelaide Institute
Date: November 22, 2005 2:14:27 AM EST (CA)
Subject: Patriot letter: Irving TÖBEN Birdman - Right of Reply
What's Walter Mueller smoking? Just asking! Do I want some of that? Guilt by association is an infantile attitude! Read below what John Bryant and Walter Mueller argued about.
From: Walter Mueller
Sent: Mon, 21 Nov 2005
Subject: PATRIOT LETTER: DAVID IRVING -- M -- MONIKA -- FRITZ -- AND MORE
Dear Fellow Patriot!
Frigga's Day 2005-11-18:
Birdman editorial: From: John Bryant mailto:email@example.com
Reports say that David Irving has been arrested in Austria for 'Holocaust denial'. All I can say is GREAT! Irving deserves every bad thing he gets. Irving is a thief, crude, uncooth, insensitive, ungrateful, a boring writer, a lousy historian, probably a document forger, probably an adulterer, probably a pedophile who likes young black males, and quite a few other unpleasant things.
And on top of all this he isn't even a revisionist, except in the mildest sense of questioning a few details of the Orthodox Jewish Version of the Holohoax! And worst of all, he is a Jew who is probably an operative for Organized Jewry, whose prime function is to draw off contributions from whites which might otherwise be used to ends of which Organized Jewry does not approve.
So I say to you, don't give Irving any money, or contribute to any 'defense fund' or anything of the kind -- it will just go down the rathole of David Irving's high-living pockets. In fact, I wouldn't
be surprised if this whole arrest business wasn't a hoax intended to revive Irving's dying career, by making him out to be a co-equal of Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel and other genuine heroes of the Movement who have been the targets of abuse from Irving's co-ethnics and their shabby goy gofers. This man is poison -- let the muthafukka rot in Hell!
PS: If you want documentation of the above charges, go to the Net Losses section (accessible from the Table of Contents on the home page), and scroll down to the ten or so articles on Irving, particularly the first.
Now this comes from the Internet pervert "The Birdman." A friend and close associate of Dr. Fredrick Toben, revisionist from Australia. Check it out again and then compare it to what I have said about Germar Rudolf.
David Irving is not a nice person, however, he is a brilliant writer. I have almost all of his books and can tell you that The Birdman is full of it. It is his books who should be used to lay out birdcages.
Before the Lipstadt trial, David Irving was the world's most respected historian. And guess what, he had several bestsellers.
Let's guess how many books The Birdman has sold?
As for Germar Rudolf, his claim to fame is a remake of the Fred Leuchter Report. Otherwise, Germar Rudolf is a lousy business man and a bad decision maker.
And as expected, "kiddy porn lover" Birdman uses foul language to describe his feeling about David Irving.
Fredrick Töben Responds: For the Record - 22 November 2005
1. I once associated with Walter Mueller, but then he adopted a mindset that I have been opposing for a life-time: he wrote nastily about Germar Rudolf, making all sorts of wild allegations - and gloating at a time when Rudolf was in distress. It was a classic case of Schadenfreude where no empathetic understanding has a home.
2. I recall how I had to override Walter's objections to having Zionist Barry Chamish attend our 2004 Sacramento conference. My justification that we must have a representation of all viewpoints, i.e. if we wish to call the conference International, was brushed aside by Mueller who claimed that most Revisionists are Christians. My definition of a REVISIONIST is that any thinking person is a REVISIONIST! Also, I can feel for the Israeli settlers who have been misguided into invading Palestine; I can feel their anguish in having to uproot - justifiably - their existence. The anguish generates empathetic understanding for both the settlers and for the ethnically cleansed Palestinians. The pain motivates to look for a resolution of a seemingly impossible situation - simplistic scapegoating will not make the pain go away.
3. Such reflections, such anguish bypasses Walter Mueller's awareness and he remained dogmatic. The current matter develops into a moral issue where such basic things as heterosexuality and monogamy play a role - but I shall resist the temptation to travel along this road - for the time being.
4. When Walter published his criticism of Germar Rudolf, he did not give Rudolf a right of reply thereby offending against Natural Justice - his otherwise hard-working enterprise and often well-justified criticism in effect became a little gossip shop. This is the tactic used by significant Holocaust believers, and others, such as Professor Deborah Lipstadt who publicly prides herself in not giving Revisionists a right-of-reply by never debating any of them.
5. Walter also commits the silly-immature error of adopting a dependent mindset by accepting the principle 'guilt by association'. Independent thinkers refuse to fall into this trap and will stand by what they themselves represent. How can you understand a contentious issue without moving into the so-called enemy camp? I visited a German public prosecutor with the aim of understanding his mindset - and on the second visit he arrested me. Some claim I was silly in doing this I claim it was an experience well worth the effort. There is little to be gained by not having overcome the fear of fear -and fear of death.
6. If I applying the guilt-by-association principle to Walter, then he has associated with all sorts of individuals in the past, and does that mean he is guilty of associating with the mindset that such individuals brought with them? I could then call Walter all sorts of names - but that would not clarify any issues, except that I would slip into the emotional quagmire of gossiping about Walter. In the past Walter has raptured glowingly about a number of individuals that he met through joining the Revisionist bandwagon. He spoke glowingly about me - and I recall sending him an email requesting him to tone it down. Why? Anyone who raptures about anything or any person can, when the rapture wears down or fades, actually become deflated to the extent - like a drug addict's exhilaration and becoming sober - that the once-loved individual becomes a mortal enemy. The above process is an immature one that can best be labelled scapegoating!
7. What is of interest in all this mud-slinging amongst Revisionists is that it is all so normal human nature at work. You find it amongst the Jewish communities, you find it amongst politicians. A number of defamed individuals have the money to protect themselves by throwing writs at anyone who criticised their enterprise. This is what fraudster Uri Geller does to those who point out that he is a trickster and does not possess any supernatural powers. The writs protect him because he claims that any criticism of his work leads him to suffer in his business enterprise - and so the Trades Practises Act protects his fraud. Magicians, who are honest in their trade claim they are tricking their audience, while Uri Geller claims he has supernatural powers; one group is honest, the other is lying. James Randi exposed this fraud on Australian television during the early 1980s by bending spoons before an audience and informing them that it was indeed a trick. Siegfried Verbeke then offered to expose the homicidal gas chambers as a fraud to James Randi Education Foundation - http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Verbeke/verbeke_randi.htm but the only way M Kramer, JREF Paranormal Claims Dept., reacted was by heaping abuse at Verbeke. It predictably shied away from touching the homicidal gas chamber fraud.
8. What Walter is now doing is rather sad - and it seems to me he is attempting to become a prophet - the obnoxious overtly emotional and noisy attitude of mind that claims: I TOLD YOU SO, or as the Germans say: Rechthaberei. This kind of behaviour does not clarify and further the issues around which the Revisionist enterprise swirls. Only such an immature mindset can state that The Rudolf Report is a re-make of The Leuchter Report. That's dumb! - and your words of advice to me?
Now, back to work! Dr Fredrick Töben
Edmund Burke, who declared the tyranny of bad laws, was a deep political thinker and a ferocious polemicist. In 1777, he wrote to the Sheriffs of Bristol that the true danger to freedom was when liberty was nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts.
We should wish that 1777 is now, and that Burke was writing to our prime minister. Perhaps then John Howard would be less reckless in his pursuit of additional security powers and more concerned about the damage his legislation will do to important traditions of free association, opinion and debate.
I declare, therefore, that I write the following with open, seditious intention.
The Federal Government proposes to amend the Crimes Act 1914 so as to be able to jail any body of persons, incorporated or unincorporated, which by its constitution or propaganda or otherwise, advocates or encourages the doing of any act having or purporting to have as an object the carrying out of a seditious intention.
Seditious intention means an intention to bring the sovereign into hatred or contempt; or to urge disaffection against the constitution; the government of the Commonwealth; either house of the Parliament; to urge another person to attempt, otherwise than by lawful means, to procure a change to any matter established by law in the Commonwealth; and to promote feelings of ill-will or hostility between different groups so as to threaten the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth.
Just so it is clear, I urge all Australians to hold the sovereign and her heirs and successors with hatred and contempt. Lecherous, callow, adulterous; inbreed, exclusive and foreign; they remind us that, by them, we are made no democratic people. Because they are appointed by bloodline, and because talent, accomplishment and merit enter not into the question of their position and the prominence accorded to them, they exist as proof that government can be degraded by the powerful in service of their own interests. As such, they deserve our democratic hatred and contempt.
I openly urge disaffection with the constitution. Concerned with matters of commerce, and gerrymandered to protect states instead of individuals, the Australian constitution serves a reduced purpose poorly. Under this constitution a High Court can rule that a man, charged with and guilty of no crime, can be locked up indefinitely. Under this constitution, rights are left to the mercy of predators such as Howard and expedient windbags like Beazley. The Australian constitution enables the government to spend without constraint to serve its own political interest. As such, it deserves the disaffection of decent, democratic people.
I openly urge disaffection with the Government of the Commonwealth. Its leaders behave with the morality of the gangster. They are shameless in their pursuit of their own self-interest and in the efforts they make to maintain their control on power. They plunder the public purse to benefit their own careers and to maintain their own grip on power. They reward incompetence and cruelty; they themselves behave incompetently and cruelly.
Moreover, they work not to strengthen democratic practice but to strangle it. The good health of a democracy depends on the engagement of informed citizens. In turn, a citizenry is made informed by public debate, between parties of opposing views. John Stuart Mill, who once was precious to the Liberal Party, made it clear that diversity of opinion was not an evil, but a good. This gang, however, chooses to debate laws bearing on matters of our freedom behind closed doors, and then ambush a compliant parliament.
I openly urge disaffection with both houses of the Parliament. They have become an imperial court, tending to their own affairs before and above all else. Indifferent to matters of good policy, they are focused on the gaining and distribution of positions of power. Houses of Parliament? - our democratic houses are now foul, muddy and stinking - no better than sties. Our Parliament also deserves the disaffection of decent, democratic people.
I have read the proposed anti-terrorist bill and see that reference is made to sayings and acts done in good faith. I make as clear as possible, in terms as unambiguous as possible, that in urging disaffection - and hatred and contempt - I am motivated by no sense of good faith whatsoever.
Instead, I am prompted by a sense of malice and ill-will and seek to create a maximum level of public discontent, disorder and disturbance.
Because I do not want to see liberty nibbled at, I urge an association of Australian men and women to act mightily, with seditious intention, against the sovereign and against the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Chas Savage is a Canberra writer and outlaw. -
The UN Decides a Universal Ban on Revisionism
On November 1st, unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 nations making up the UN adopted — or let be adopted — an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust”. Moreover, the resolution “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part”. Historical revisionism thus sees its existence acknowledged by the whole world, a fact proving that it has some life in it, but, at the same time, this decision means that the revisionists find themselves struck with the reprobation of all the countries of the world. As for the “State” of the Vatican, which has no seat at the UN, it had, as early as in 1992, declared: “There is no historical revisionism that can call into question the inhuman abyss of the Holocaust” (« Non c’è revisionismo storico che possa rimettere in discussione l’abisso disumano dell’Olocausto ») ( L’Osservatore Romano, 7 November1992).
The history of human societies and religions is rich in prohibitions, bannings, excommunications but, whereas, up to a recent past, the victims could, at least in principle, hope to find a refuge outside of their land or group of origin, here the condemnation is, for the first time ever, of universal character. It is thus confirmed that historical revisionism is a phenomenon of exceptional nature and also that the Jews, yet once more, have been able to obtain exorbitant privileges.
A sleight of hand by the Jews
It was through a sleight of hand that the Israeli delegation succeeded in getting this resolution passed. It proceeded in a manner like that of certain associations which, in France, under cover of a campaign against paedophilia, have obtained a law prohibiting, on the Internet, communication relating to paedophilia and … to revisionism! To begin, they asked: “Is paedophilia not a horror in itself?” The response was “yes”. Their second step was to add: “Is paedophilia on the Internet not to be banned by a specific law?” The response, there again, was “yes”. As a third step the associations concluded: “Let’s fight, accordingly, to obtain a law against paedophilia and … revisionism [which they called ‘negationism’]”.
For his part, the President of the General Assembly, the Swede Jan Ellasion, had the deftness on November 1st to ask orally whether anyone was opposed to the resolution aimed at commemorating the “Holocaust”. No hands being raised, he declared, without prior recourse to a vote of any kind, that the resolution was thereby adopted, the text of which contained in one of its provisions the condemnation of any form of “Holocaust” revisionism.
The draft was approved by the United States in utter disregard of the guarantees of freedom of opinion provided by the first amendment to its constitution. And, most remarkably, this Israeli text was accepted by the Arabo-Moslem countries, including Iran.
All those present approved, or let pass with soft verbal restrictions, a resolution originating from the Jews that goes so far as to condemn the right of free research on a historical subject. The UN act assumes only a political and not a juridical character. Still, since it provides that the Secretary General will have to report on the measures subsequently taken within the framework of the resolution, the revisionists will have reason to fear consequences for themselves of a judicial or administrative nature, for instance, as regards border and airport police, authorisation to enter and stay in certain countries or the issuing of visas.
The resolution will serve morally to justify and facilitate extradition measures taken against revisionists. Precedents are not lacking, what with
1) the European arrest warrant;
2) the virtual handing over of revisionist René-Louis Berclaz by Serbia to Switzerland;
3) the handing over of revisionist Ernst Zündel by the United States to Canada, then by Canada to Germany;
4) the handing over of Belgian revisionist Siegfried Verbeke by the Netherlands to Germany;
5) the handing over of revisionist Germar Rudolf to Germany by the United States.
6) In Austria, on November 11, the semi-revisionist David Irving, a British citizen, was arrested by traffic police on a motorway and is now in detention in Vienna.
For any noted revisionist it is already risky to leave the confines of his home country. In doing so, he exposes himself to a request for extradition made to the country of transit by either Israel or Germany. There is at present a bill in committee at the Knesset that will authorise Israel to demand the handing over of any revisionist in order to bring him before a court, sitting in Jerusalem, that will apply the 1986 Jewish antirevisionist law against him.
The Jewish State’s Offensive
A fortnight ago, Philippe Bolopion, United Nations correspondent for Le Monde, wrote a particularly informative article on the successes achieved at the UN by the Jewish State since June 2004 (“L’offensive de charme d’Israël à l’ONU rencontre un certain succès”, Le Monde, 4 November 2005, p. 3).
He listed six recent accomplishments of that State:
1) in June 2004, Kofi Annan called for an acknowledgement “that the United Nations’ record on anti-Semitism has at times fallen short of our ideals”;
2) in October of the same year, a resolution including a condemnation of antisemitism was adopted;
3) in January 2005, a special session of the General Assembly marked the 60th anniversary of “the liberation of the death camps”;
4) in June, an Israeli ambassador was elected vice-president of the General Assembly — the first Israeli in fifty-three years;
5) in September, on a visit to the UN for a gathering of heads of state and government, Ariel Sharon shook hands with Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf, while the Israeli delegation made numerous new contacts;
6) in October, the Security Council was quick to condemn the Iranian calls, which were nothing new, for the Jewish State to be erased from the map.
The Jewish State’s incomparable gall
These successes are all the more striking as no nation in the world has made fun of the UN like “Israel”, a state that, however, owes its creation to … the UN. The Jewish State, with an incomparable gall (in Jewish parlance: chutzpah), has thrown a record number of United Nations “resolutions” straight into the bin. In violation of international law, this State, founded on the colossal lie of the “Holocaust”, practises colonialism, racism, apartheid, military occupation and torture. We may add that it possesses an arsenal of atomic weapons and on this score has, for example, in the last few years been supplied by Germany, free of charge, in the name of the said “Holocaust”, with three ultra-modern submarines fitted out for nuclear armament. The collusion between, on the one hand, the Jewish State and armed forces and, on the other hand, the German State and armed forces has become such that the German mail service has just released a stamp, for the most regular rate of postage, depicting, on the left, the Israeli flag, then, on the right, the German flag and, finally, linking the two, a strand of barbed wire, symbol of the perpetual “Holocaust”. Germany is becoming the Jewish State’s “Guantanamo”.
On October 5, 2003, Israeli ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman had warned the Security Council members that the God of the Jews was “watching” them and, on July 16 2004, annoyed at the behaviour of some Arab states, flung the remark at his colleagues in the General Assembly that things had “reached a point where the inmates are running the asylum”. On the other hand, on October 31 of this year, he said that he was “moved” when presenting the “Holocaust Day” text, his country’s first successful draft resolution ever. He declared: “I feel moved and privileged to present this historic resolution today, as an Israeli, a Jew, a human being and a child of a family of Holocaust victims”. That is understandable. The next day, the “adoption” of his resolution marked the triumph of the “Holocaust” sham. For the occasion, one may say that as far as gall, dishonest procedure, spirit of domination and intolerance are concerned, the Jewish State has outdone itself.
This extraordinary UN resolution also constitutes proof that historical revisionism is a reality that can no longer be bypassed, denied or played down. Its notoriety has become global. Still, let us take care to recognise that the revisionist researchers who remain active are now but a handful and, with each passing year, their future grows darker.
War accused too sick for extradition: family
Mr Zentai, who turned 84 last month, appeared fit in July when he was photographed striding out of court and dragging two large bins out of his Perth house.
But the retired nurse's family claimed yesterday that his health had taken a turn for the worse since then, saying he had been forced to give up driving and could now walk only short distances.
They said he could only get around with his four-wheel electric scooter and had to keep his skin covered to avoid aggravating a skin condition.
Mr Zentai's son, Ernie Steiner, said his father would present evidence from medical specialists, to avoid becoming the first accused war criminal to be extradited from Australia, when he appears at Perth Magistrates Court on February 13.
"I know some people are going to be cynical about it but Dad really is very ill," Mr Steiner said.
Mr Zentai's medical defence was predicted by Simon Wiesenthal Centre director Efraim Zuroff, who has pursued the case against the former Hungarian soldier.
"This is a syndrome that we refer to as Wiesenthal-itis or Zuroff-itis. It happens in every case like this," he said when Mr Zentai was arrested in July.
Specialists will outline the heart attack survivor's long-term health problems, including heart disease and peripheral neuropathy, an incurable and potentially paralysing nerve condition that has reduced his ability to walk and forced him to stop driving his car earlier this year.
Mr Zentai has suffered several cerebral ischaemic attacks, which have left him suffering temporary speech and memory loss. He is also suffering clinical depression.
Medical evidence has been a common ploy in previous extradition hearings, including that of Latvian-born accused war criminal Konrad Kalejs, who died in a Melbourne nursing home before he could be extradited.
Mr Steiner believes there is one other compelling reason why the widower must not be forced to face trial in Hungary: "He is innocent."
The agricultural scientist has spent the past year immersed in wartime history in a search for documents to prove his father did not take part in the fatal beating of 18-year-old Balazs in Budapest on November 8, 1944.
Four months after Mr Zentai's arrest, neither his lawyer nor his family knows the extent or exact nature of the case against him because they have been denied access to witness statements and other court documents. "I haven't given up," Mr Steiner said. "(Dad) was a conscripted soldier who was never a Nazi."
The family maintains that Mr Zentai left Budapest the day before Balazs was killed.
Australia's national sedition law (Crimes Act 1914, ss24A-24F) is a grotesque relic of the tyrannical era of the Court of Star Chamber. It should be abolished, not refurbished.
Prompted by the 1917 Bolshevik revolution and, to a lesser extent, Ireland's Easter rebellion of 1916, the Commonwealth Parliament amended the Crimes Act in 1920 by criminalising seditious speech, conduct and enterprises.
The Anti-Terrorism Bill (No. 2) 2005 suggests strongly that the Howard Government has a keen historical eye when it comes to muzzling allegedly subversive dissenters.
The following cautionary lessons demonstrate that a make-over of the archaic law of sedition has no role in whatever strengthening of the criminal law to prevent violence is justifiable in response to the scourge of contemporary terrorism.
Sedition laws have only ever served to suppress dissident speech and highly unpopular groups. With the Cold War deteriorating rapidly, the Chifley Labor Government was panicked into prosecuting the Communist Party officials, Gilbert Burns (1948) and L. L. Sharkey (1949), for making pro-Soviet remarks, the former when participating in a public debate in Brisbane, and the latter in telephone conversations initiated by a Sydney Daily Telegraph journalist.
When a journalist asked a West Australian communist official, Kevin Healy, to comment, he endorsed Sharkey's remarks and was charged.
In a remarkable achievement given the prevailing atmosphere of anti-communist hysteria, Healy represented himself and was acquitted by a Perth jury.
Burns and Sharkey were less fortunate. The High Court declined to overturn their convictions, and they were imprisoned.
The Parliament sought to prevent misuse of sedition prosecutions by requiring the Commonwealth attorney-general's prior consent (s24C), a requirement replicated in clause 80.5 of the pending bill. Although superficially attractive, it is an illusory safeguard.
Extraneous political considerations dominated 20th century prosecutions. For example, the public debate that undid Gilbert Burns was a set-up by the Queensland People's Party to trap a communist official into making a public statement of loyalty to the Soviet Union, paving the way for prosecution.
The Chifley government disregarded its unanimous legal advice, including that of the solicitor-general, the Crown solicitor, and a leader of the Brisbane bar, that Burns had committed no offence. The acting attorney-general, Senator N. E. McKenna, instructed the Crown solicitor to prosecute Burns, and a deputy Crown solicitor was then told that despite the legal situation, he was to lay as many charges as possible, and to make the case as big as possible.
In the early Cold War years, the struggle between the Soviet Union and the United States for postwar mastery in Europe and Asia generated acute international and domestic tension.
There was constant talk of looming world war and, notwithstanding the Chifley government's resolute crushing of the communist-inspired coal strike in 1949, no shortage of fanciful allegations that Australia was imperilled by an imminent armed communist revolt.
But any suggestion that the 1948-1949 prosecutions were a genuine response to a threat is risible. The Chifley government prosecuted the communists because of an imminent election, and the damaging anti-communist campaign led by Robert Menzies, a campaign buttressed by ruthless pressure exerted on the government by the American and British governments. The government was desperate to prove that it was not "soft on communism".
The new Menzies government immediately implemented its systematic program for extirpating the communist menace. After the UN intervened to repel the North Korean invasion of South Korea in 1950, the communist W. F. Burns was prosecuted for uttering the words: "Not a man, not a ship, not a plane and not a gun for the aggressive imperialised war in Korea."
The law of sedition has been an effective political weapon in chilling dissenters, partly because it rests on impenetrably vague language. The existing provisions have been cut down over the years (most recently in 1986), but what remains is an affront to the rule of law because it is impossible to ascertain in advance of speaking what is lawful or unlawful.
And, even if doomed to failure, the laying of a sedition charge enables law enforcement authorities to raid citizens' homes and workplaces and conduct sweeping searches. The Communist Party and communists - real and imagined - were regular targets in the quest for evidence of allegedly subversive conduct.
In the coronation year, 1953, the Menzies government unsuccessfully prosecuted J. N. Bone, Adam Ogston and H. B. Chandler for publishing an article, The 'Democratic' Monarchy, a lacerating attack on the British monarchy, in an obscure journal, Communist Review. At the same time, ASIO (as it informed the prime minister in 1953) was tailing a Soviet diplomat, Vladimir Petrov, as part of a long-standing investigation of Soviet espionage, in which Chandler was thought to be implicated.
Chandler threw in the towel after a decade trying to bring the government to account for turning his family's house over.
The alleged dangerous tendency of seditious speech to provoke violent upheaval supposedly supplies its justification. Who could possibly object to that? The flaw is that the existing criminal law specifically protects us against violence (actual and threatened), and sedition's reliance on abstractions such as tendency, incitement and disaffection imposes an irrebuttable presumption that the remotest supposed tendency will produce the direst of consequences.
In fact, the law of sedition is entirely self-defeating: once the charge is laid in court, the media (and anyone else) are free to publish the dangerous words as part of an accurate court report. This has always occurred, and yet our Commonwealth endured.
Originating in a far-off time when any criticism of the monarch was a serious crime, the remnant law of sedition is inherently anti-democratic.
The statutory defences requiring the accused person to prove good-faith conduct, which reflect the view that freedom of expression cannot extend to highly offensive or profoundly unpopular opinions, turn our most fundamental liberty on its head.
Laurence Maher is a Melbourne barrister. This article draws on his detailed archival studies in the Sydney Law Review (1992) and Adelaide Law Review (1994.
Top | Home
©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute