ISSN 1440-9828
                                                                                   No 312






Irving Describes Near-Escape from Thought Police in Vienna

The following commentary, written by David Irving exclusively for American Free Press, details the events that led up to the arrest, prosecution and jailing of the historian in Vienna for comments made on Austrian soil 18 years ago. AFP, Issue #4, January 22, 2007


Human memory is like an onion, I have decided. Once you have peeled off one skin and written it down, you realize the next time you look that there was another layer of forgotten memories just beneath it.  As I lay one night in my two-foot-wide cot alone in Cell 19, in “C” Block in the notorious “Landl”, the grim Josefstadt prison, built in the center of Vienna in 1839, listening to the dim sounds of the hausarbeiter [janitor] cleaning the tiled corridor on the other side of the six-inch-thick strongroom-type door separating me from the outside world, I found I had suddenly recalled the next tranche [block] of names in my class list at Brentwood School, nearly 60 years before.


It must have been 3 a.m. I had no clock or watch, or radio or television, with which to judge the time. Just blank walls, with a few snapshots of my children. I still had each name’s corresponding face in my memory, but the faces have also aged so I would not recognize them instantly today.


Four months had already passed since I arrived in Austria for two days in November 11, 2005, to talk to a Vienna student body—the powerful Burschenschaft, or student fraternity, “Olympia”—about the secret watch kept on Joel Brand’s negotiations with Adolf Eichmann by British intelligence and our codebreakers. My trial in the country’s biggest courtroom— to accommodate the world’s media—would begin on Feb. 20, 2005.*


Apart from three visits lasting a few hours each in 1991, 1992, and 1993 I had not been in Austria since 1989, for which latter visit I was now condemned to serve three years in jail, charged with expressing illegal opinions on World War II history. Yes, I should have stuck to the consensus view—the kind of history that the conformist historians peddle. Everybody said that; the judge, the jury, the Austrian and German press, even my own lawyer Dr. Elmar Kresbach said that. Then I would not be languishing in jail like this. My own fault entirely. “However,” consoled Kresbach, smiling an oily Vienneselawyer smile, and referring to the blanket coverage he had won for himself in the international press, and even in the less free world like China, North Korea, Iran and Russia, “you are now undeniably a martyr.” “That was not my intention,” I said bitterly. “I just wanted to speak to those students and go home.”


I had taken [my daughter] Jessica, 11, to the Saint James’s Park tube station for school before setting out for Heathrow airport in my rental car. Did I suspect that many moons would pass before I saw her and [Jessica’s mother] Bente again? I wrote as much in my diary; I prudently left that in London, with my laptop, before flying over to Basle in western Switzerland.


From the airport I phoned my good friend the playwright Rolf Hochhuth, but he was in Berlin, so dinner with him was out. He had just left Basle after his wife’s death, he said, he sounded very cast down, and had not even received my letter. In another rented car I drove east all night through Zürich and into Austria. I had decided not to risk flying direct. These are all police states now, with state police—Staatspolizei like the Gestapo with which we historians are familiar.


After 900 kilometers I was in Vienna by 8 a.m. As soon as it was decent, I phoned Christopher V., my student host, from the West Railroad Station.  “Rendezvous A,” I said, without identifying myself. “One hour from now.” We had prearranged the details six months earlier. Security like this was necessary. The last time I spoke in Vienna, on Nov. 6, 1989, the Jewish, communist and far-left organizations had brought 5,000 demonstrators out into the capital’s streets, and 500 riot police had had to put a ring of steel around the big Park Hotel.


The rendezvous was inside the ticket hall. It was not ideal; the hall was 500 yards long, but it had a long balcony where I positioned myself looking for any signs of trouble—the odd furled banner, or any gathering of the unwashed. I knew what signs to look for. Five minutes after the hour I strolled outside to check whether anybody was prowling round the car.


A young student in his 20s emerged from the station and we made eye contact. I nodded with my head toward the car and we drove off down the Ring [boulevard], with him at the wheel. I wanted to check him out before we went further.

“Let’s get a coffee at the Café Landtmann,” I suggested, in a fit of nostalgia. That was where I was first arrested at a press conference on the orders of the Minister of the Interior Karl Blecha in 1983. It cost him dearly; we were awarded heavy damages. It seemed like yesterday. You’re speaking at 6,” the student said. He agreed that I could put my head down at the Burschenschaft building for three or four hours first.


Still half suspecting that the function might not take place, I asked him to grab a snapshot under the Landtmann’s canopy as proof that I was in Vienna. It would certainly irritate some folks back in London. The Board of Deputies of British Jews had written in June 1992 to the Austrian government, livid at hearing of my recent visit to the country, and demanding my immediate arrest the next time. Some “Britons”!

I had obtained a copy of their letter during a court action against the prime minister of Australia, no less. Strange, the things that turn out to have been going on all along unseen, unheard—like the termites gnawing at the woodwork of a rotten building. Not that they are an international conspiracy, of course—they have always denied that. They are the great hypocrisy-deniers.


Finishing his lemon tea at the Landtmann, Christopher, a law student, picked up his cell phone—which they call a “handy” here, in that German mania for inappropriate English—and said: “I’ll tell them you’ll be over for a nap right away.”


I was uneasy. Mensch, I thought, phoning? On a mobile? Das kann nicht gut gehen.


He expected 200 or 300 to come. “Are you sure it is secure?” I asked, and he nodded dismissively. “Our folks don’t talk.”


Perhaps 25 minutes passed between his phone call and our reaching the building.


We parked two blocks away behind it. Instinct made me think ahead. “Is there a rear exit?” I asked. He shook his head. Not good.

Still visualizing what could go wrong, I slipped him the car keys: “If we get separated, you drive off,” I said, anticipating Red violence otherwise and costly damage to the car. “And I’ll phone you later.”


We turned the last corner. I saw three burly goons peel off the wall on the other side of the otherwise empty street across from the entrance.


Phrases from Raymond Chandler skidded through my brain. What would Philip Marlowe have done?


In their early 40s, they were stubble-faced and wearing weatherproof jackets—they were hard to place. There was something about them that reminded me of the thugs with baseball bats who smashed up my Chicago dinner in September 2000. After a moment’s hesitation, they crossed the street diagonally toward us.


Ignoring them, we walked right through them. “Mahlzeit,” I nodded: good afternoon. “Let’s drop into that Kneipe,” I murmured—the bar on the next corner.


“Too late,” said Christopher, dropping the car keys furtively into my hand. “They’re following. I recognize one. Staatspolizei!” I doubted it. How could he know the Stapo by sight?


This was no time for “The Long Goodbye.” We split at the corner. Briefly out of sight, I quickened my pace. The Ford Focus was out of sight round the next corner. One of the goons was following me, a hundred yards behind; two were pursuing Christopher.


Round the final corner I speeded up again, walking briskly in the middle of the street, not visibly aiming for anything. I pressed the remote, and heard the soft answering clunk of the car doors unlocking. I ripped open the front right-hand door and dropped in and locked the door. The goon was 90 yards away, and began to trot. Suppose he took out a gun?


My hands reached for the wheel—it wasn’t there. It was not a British car. I was on the wrong side. Jeez, I’m getting senile, perhaps just exhausted. Impossible to climb across. Fifty yards. I leaped out and hurled myself into the other side, displaying as much nonchalance as I could, commensurate with the urgency of the moment. The engine started first time, the man was 20 yards off, then 10, but with wheels skidding in the gravel I was already moving. I caught a glimpse of him in the mirror, and it was not good. He had a pad in his hand, and he was writing. So he was Staatspolizei, as Christopher had said.


An Israeli newspaperman later learned from his contacts that a senior, older, member of the “Olympia” had tipped off the police—a dueling offense if ever there was one. So I was on the run from their secret police, and this was Vienna. It was not a happy moment. I am a professional, and I have never let down an audience yet. In the prison yard the old hands told me, “Yer should’ve dumped the car right then, Dave.”


Easily said. I could have phoned [car rental company] Sixt and told them where their car was. I had only 40 euros on me ($50); the students owed me a lot of expenses, but had not had time to pay; 40 would not have gotten me far.


I stuck with the car and traveled fast. I took the next four corners on two wheels. It would be easy to submerge myself in Vienna. I could not get this zither music out of my head. The “Harry Lime” theme. I wanted to put distance between myself and those burly gentlemen, because in this scenario they were definitely not the good guys. I parked back at the rendezvous point, and cautiously phoned Christopher.


“Shall we meet in an hour’s time,” I suggested, “at that place you took the photo?”


“I don’t think that would be advisable,” he said in a strained voice.


“You can’t speak?”



In Staatspolizei custody, but it puzzled me that they had left him his mobile, his “handy.” The inappropriate name still irritated me, the more I thought about it. Handy? Handy for whom?


Home therefore, and don’t spare the horses. London via Basle, and calling at no stations in between. I assumed that all routes due west would be watched, if they were really looking out for me. It seemed hard to believe, after 16 years. After all, these are the much-vaunted “free democracies.”


I bought a map book, checked the freeways and decided I could still get back to Basle in time for my return flight next day if I drove nonstop south, west through Italy, and then north, adding perhaps 1,000 kilometers to the normally 900 kilometer journey.


It was time for the “Third Man” to make his final getaway —from Austria’s new “democratic” Stapo. I waited until darkness fell and the Ring was choked with rush hour traffic; I figured I could just make it. I set off down the A2, the southern freeway, toward Italy. I was glad I carried no mobile phone myself; they now all have built in GPS chips as an aid—to the authorities.


I gassed up, and put the tape recorder on the seat next to me, so I could dictate over the next few hours. As the lights of Vienna fell behind me, the “Harry Lime” theme began to fade too.


After an hour or so my gaze fell on the instrument panel:

“You are on the A2, 140 km south of Vienna,” the satellite navigation screen told me—and whom else, I suddenly wondered. There seemed to be no way to switch off the treacherous instrument. But it was a Swiss car, I reasoned, and the Stapo were Austrians.


After another hour I settled down to a steady 110 kilometers per hour, and there was now a police car some way in front. It obviously was not chasing. After another hour, a second police car showed up in my mirror, and I was not so sure.


They both maintained my exact speed, no matter how I modestly slowed or accelerated. Using the standard “box” maneuver—a simple “please” would have sufficed—they suddenly forced me off the freeway at speed, and halted me on the hard shoulder in a cloud of dust and gravel.


As the other cars sped past inches away in the darkness, eight uniformed cops jumped out and began running toward me, shouting hysterically.


I do so hate unpleasantness. I reached for my tape recorder. It glinted on the passenger seat next to me. I saw that the running cops thumping on the Ford were all carrying drawn automatics, nine-millimeter Glocks, and they were actually pointing them at my head. It was a most uncivil sensation.


I decided that it might be unrewarding to point something metallic at them after all. The recorder slipped from my nerveless fingers—that’s how Chandler would have put it.


It was now evident to me that I would not be seeing London, Bente, and Jessica anytime soon after all.


* Accused under a catch-all Stalin-era law of “revising National Socialism,” Irving was sentenced to a three-year jail term. On Dec. 21, 2006 the court of appeal ordered his release.

American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003




The Trial of Germar Rudolf in Mannheim District Court

Day 6, 10 January 2007

Reported by Günter Deckert. Translated by J. M. Damon

Scheduled for 9 o’clock, the trial began at 9:29.  No reason was given for the delay.  Seven policemen and one policewoman were on hand with a police car visible in front of the entrance.   The security procedure was the same as usual except that it was speedier, more efficient and was not accompanied by bullying.

Present in the courtroom were:  

1. The usual members of the Court, Judge Schwab presiding; 

2.  District Attorney Grossmann;

3.  The two lawyers for the defense, Stolz and Bock;

4.  1 “Stachu” (Staatschutz) or state police agent, 1 bailiff and 2 uniformed policemen, all armed;

5.  Media: Once again, no representatives of the media were present.

Are they officially discouraged from covering the proceedings?   Boycotting of their own volition?

6.  Visitors: Initially 50, increased to 60, including Frau Haverbeck of Collegium Humanum in Vlotho/Weser, Dr. Rolf Kosiek of Grabert Publishing House and Lady Michelle Renouf from London.  After noon the “Stachu” agent did not return and the uniformed policemen were relieved by two others.

Germar Rudolf appeared at 9:17, some time before the Court officially convened.  Today he was not brought into court in chains. 

The proceedings took place in the large chamber, which has seats for 80 visitors and 48 reporters.  When Germar entered, the visitors rose in greeting and respect.  This was ignored by the police, who usually warn the visitors against showing support for the defendent.

At the beginning of the session Judge Schwab announced his ruling on the materials to be included in Germar’s testimony, saying he would allow him to read only such material from his book “Lectures on the Holocaust” as was relevant and written in German.  This is because German is the language of the Court.  The judge then asked members of the Court if they had read the book.  The two female judges as well as the district attorney answered in the affirmative. 

The male lay judge said he had read 543 of the 571 pages while the female lay judge had read 494.  Attorneys Stolz and Bock had of course read the whole thing.  German agreed to proceed with his presentation, thus avoiding interruption or delay, even though the two lay judges had not read the entire book.

Attorney Stolz then objected to Judge Schwab’s ruling of 6 December concerning the Selbstleseverfahren (reading into the record) of Germar’s Lectures on the Holocaust.  The Court adjourned for several minutes to consider the matter, then Schwab reported that, in view of the book’s number of pages, the Court stood by the ruling.

Germar then resumed his presentation, discussing the portions of his Lectures that had been included in his indictment.  He explained that the key issue was the question of whether he had denied National Socialist “genocide” of the Jews and specifically the precise figure of six million victims, as well as problems connected with “atonement” as well as the concepts of “Holocaustism” and “Revisionism.”  Other issues included the question of how photographs of piles of shoes and hair should be interpreted, as well as the fabled “lampshades of human skin” and “Jew soap;” the expressions “Permanent Solution,” “Deportation” and “Evacuation;” the concepts  of “Uniqueness” vs. “Relativization;” and whether he was denying human rights to Jews by using the expression “Holocaustism.”  Germar repeatedly succeeded in demonstrating that the District Attorney had deliberately misrepresented him, mostly with deletions but also by taking sections out of context.  He pointed out that the prosecutor did this in order to arrive at the “desired destination” of using Section 130 of the Penal Code (“Incitement of the Masses”) in the indictment.  The results of the prosecutor’s misquotations and misapplications were deliberate falsifications that distorted the meaning of what Germar had written.

He also pointed out that his book was written in dialog form, in which the opinion of the author was never stated.  Germar referred to the prosecutor as a “historical nonentity” who was malicious as well, and stated that the prosecutor himself should be indicted for his misdeeds. Germar then reached the end of Part 3 of his presentation and

Judge Schwab announced a short pause until 11:30.

After the pause Germar introduced Part 4 of his presentation, saying that he would now take up the case of Fridjof Meyer and after that, in Part 5,  he would deal with the rulings of the Bundesprüfstelle für jugendgefährdendes Schrifttum (Federal Bureau for Testing Literature that Could Endanger Youth.)  At 11:35, after inquiring about the length of Germar’s next presentation, Judge Schwab  ordered a noontime pause until 2pm.  After noon, Germar had Attorney Bock distribute visual aids to accompany Parts 4 and 5 of his presentation.

While Bock was doing this, Germar informed the Court that a human rights organization in Italy had officially designated him as a political prisoner.  Beginning his presentation,  Germar discussed the article by Spiegel editor Fridjof Meyer that appeared in the May 2002 issue of the magazine Osteuropa.  He described its positive evaluation by two prosecutors, the Bochum District Attorney (in the Horst Mahler indictment) and the Stuttgart District Attorney in the Günter Deckert indictment, which likewise took place May of 2002 (and which was not acted upon for almost 18 months!)  Germar pointed out that Meyer’s conclusions are much closer to those of Revisionists than of the “court historians” favored by the German government.  He emphasized that since Meyer was considered a mainstream historian, the government referred to his research as a “scientific investigation” while calling Germar’s research “incitement of the masses.”

Moving into Part 5 of his presentation, Germar next discussed decisions and reports of the so called “Federal Testing Bureau” that had led to his “Indexing” and his designation as “dangerous to youth.”

The sections taken as authority by the Testing Bureau flatly contradict Article 5 of the Basic Law, which guarantees freedom of scientific investigation.

Specifically, this concerned the following works:

1. Jürgen Graf’s and Carlo Mattogno’s Konzentrationslager Stutthoff bei Danzig - Concentration Camp Stutthoff near Danzig.

Germar pointed out that worldwide, this is the only scientific investigation of the subject, thus the Testing Bureau’s indexing was based on false pretenses.

2. Graf’s and Mattogno’s Konzentrationslager Majdanek - Majdanek Concentration Camp.

Here again, these authors were the first to scientifically investigate the subject.

3. Jürgen Graf, Riese auf tönernen Füßen -The Giant With Feet of Clay

This is a critique of the book by Raul Hilberg,  a Viennese Jew who became a  professor at a university in the US.

Hilberg’s book, The Destruction of the European Jews, became a classic of pro-Holocaust literature.

Even the title of Hilberg’s work is misleading, since 80% of the book deals with other matters.

Germar explained how Graf disproved Hilberg’s thesis by critically examined the testimonies of eyewitnesses, since Hilberg did not consider primary sources in his investigation.

4. Several articles from VffG Vierteljahresheft für freie Geschichtsforschung - Quarterly Publication for Free Historical Research - that he publishes.

In this case according to the Federal Testing Bureau, the basis was “too short and not comprehensive enough,” 

5. Germar’s Expert Report on Auschwitz.

6. The Hoax of the 29th Century by the American Professor Arthur Butz. The Federal Testing Bureau objected to this because, among other things, it does not include all subsequent verdicts arising from the various National Socialist trials.  Germar pointed out that where history is concerned, judges are laypeople, consequently their verdicts correspond to their personal opinions.  Those who write the verdicts of the Testing Bureau likewise have no knowledge of scientific research in general and historiography in particular.  This is evident from the very composition of the Testing Bureau: it does not include a single scientist. 

The Federal Testing Bureau is intellectually incompetent to judge scientific research.  Like the “Ministry of Truth” in Orwell’s prophetic work 1984: it is the bureaucracy that determines official truth for the almighty State.

In Part 6 of his presentation Germar presented a large number of quotations of world famous defenders of freedom of speech and scientific research.  He spoke very eloquently of Articles 5 and  20 of German Basic Law

These concern basic freedom and civil disobedience, the struggle for justice and the citizen’s duty to resist censorship, repression and governmental usurpation of citizens’ rights.

Germar demonstrated that Article 130 of the Penal Code (“Incitement”) is a very exceptional law since it does not protect the state, but rather damages the constitutional foundations of democracy. See

For this reason Article 130 is inherently unconstitutional.  Germar said that he does not acknowledge the authenticity of this “Special Law” which is ascribed to “German history,” meaning the Jewish policies of the Third Reich.  He assumes the right and duty to freely express his opinion in both the spoken and written word.

The origin of the repressive and unconstitutional Article 130 is pure politics, with misapplication by the judiciary.  He asked: what would happen if more Germans refused to submit to censorship and the deprivation of their human rights?  For example, what if German historians finally said “Enough!  We do not believe in your so-called “Holocaust!”  He observed that German historians lack the the courage of their convictions.  In this regard he referred to his dealings with Professors Maser and Topitsch, specialists in the life of Hitler. 

The government persuaded them to  abandon their research. 

He also mentioned the Austrian witch trial of Prof. Pfeifersberger, which finally drove him to suicide.  In his view most German historians are cowardly liars.  He has to agree with David Irving in this respect.

Germar then gave examples of how the German media also participate in the official “concert of lies,” including several selections from the book So lügen Journalisten! (See how journalists lie) written by former Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung reporter Udo Holtkötte.

He included a disclosure in BILD Magazine as well as a press statement released by District Attorney Grossmann in the summer of 2006 in which Grossmann wrote that Germar had also been charged with anti Semitic activities, although nothing written by this same Grossmann was to be found in the indictment.  It was clear for all to see how this revelation affected Grossmann.  He attempted to distract himself by juggling with his pencil, but did not succeed as it fell to the floor several times.  The judge stared at him but said nothing.  Afterwards Grossmann made no comment on Germar’s revelations.

Germar explained that in the countries where he had lived for the past ten years, historical research and revision were not punishable offenses, whereas German laws are similar to those of China and North Korea.  The appropriate measure for dealing with controversial historical research and publication is argumentation, not coercion and violence.  He pointed out that he cannot possibly be “resocialized” in prison, that is, “re-integrated into society.”  On the contrary, the government is doing everything it can to destroy him, his family and his reputation.  At 16:10 he ended his testimony with the observation that “Violence always brings forth counter violence!”

Germar did not appear to be in top form today.  His voice was hoarse, suggesting that he might have a cold.

Judge Schwab announced that the following should be entered into the proceedings:

1. VHO website issue for 29 June 2004;

2. VHO website issue for 2 July 2004;

3. Stuttgart District Court Verdict of 23 May 1995, which concerns the 14 months that he has now been incarcerated on account of an entry in his Auschwitz Expert Report that he allegedly did not write, but rather the “Remer Circle,” to be entered by oral testimony.  Attorney Stolz objected to the ruling and requested a decision by the Court.  The Court adjourned briefly and denied the motion because “unneccessary.”  Today’s session ended at 4:15pm.


The next session will be at 9:00am on 22 January, 2007 with additional sessions on 29 January, 12 and 13 February, and 5 and 20 March 2007. 


Günter Deckert




10 January 2007.


A friendly request of whoever uses or circulates this report: please be so kind as to mention my name in conjunction with it.  Thanks! G.D.



"Why does the Tehran conference have ominous significance? Because Duke, who managed to get 43 percent of the vote in his unsuccessful 1990 U.S. Senate campaign from Louisiana, will now be able to tell students at colleges in heartland America with a straight face that his contention that there were never any gas chambers has international academic and institutional support. And because the noxious views emanating from the podium in Tehran are hardly unique."


Menachem Z Rosensaft, The Morning Call, Pennsylvania, USA, January2,2007.,0,256813.story?coll=allnewsopinionanotherview-hed



Press Release:


January 14, 2007

Cincinnati, Ohio (1/13/2006) -- The civil liberties claims of Ernst and Ingrid Rimland Zundel will be heard January 24, 2007 by a three-judge panel in Cincinnati, it was announced today by Zündel’s' lawyer, Bruce Leichty.

Ernst Zündel is the controversial German-born publisher whose views on the "Holocaust" have put him at odds with mainstream historians and prompted his detention and prosecution in Germany, where he faces a prison term of up to five years for his speech.

The appeal to be heard in Cincinnati is not legally related to the German trial but may still send an important signal about whether Zündel should have ever been exposed to prosecution in Germany in the first place, says Leichty.

The Zündels and Leichty contend that Zündel was effectively kidnapped by U.S. federal agents in February 2003 and that his deportation to Canada without a court hearing was illegal under U.S. law, especially since he was awaiting processing for U.S. permanent residence as the husband of a U.S. citizen, Ingrid Rimland.

Ingrid Rimland has compared the seizure of her husband to the experience of seeing her father seized by Stalinist secret police when she was a young girl growing up in the Mennonite community of Halbstadt in the Ukraine. Rimland later wrote a fictionalized account of her post-war sojourn as a refugee to a Mennonite colony in Paraguay, The Wanderers, and spoke to a number of Mennonite audiences about her experiences in the 1980's.

"Because of the lack of any genuine authority for Mr. Zündel’s arrest and removal, it is clear that he was targeted for his unpopular beliefs and for daring to publicize them," says Leichty.

"Mr. Zündel can best be understood by Mennonites as a type of heretic that the Western world bitterly fears and is not prepared to allow. In our culture, theological heresy is no longer regarded as a threat, but an increasingly vocal minority in the West wants to make political heresy or `hate speech' a crime."

A number of European countries criminalize speech that departs from certain officially-approved accounts of the "Holocaust" and World War II. Besides Zündel, two other historians, Germar Rudolf and David Irving, were held behind bars in Germany and Austria for crimes consisting solely of speech. [Note: Irving has since been released.]

Leichty notes that all of Zündel's conduct and speech was and is considered legal in the United States, and that he was cleared of suspicion of any criminal activity by the FBI in an investigation concluded shortly before the illegal arrest in 2003, but that powerful forces acting within the U.S. government or to influence the government were obviously "hell-bent" on expelling Zündel from the U.S.

Comparing Zündel’s kidnapping to the "extraordinary renditions" by the CIA of persons of mostly Arabic origin, Leichty said, "The Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will be asked to ensure that a political figure like Zündel cannot simply be taken from this country without the constitutional protections that residents of the United States have always enjoyed--including their day in court." Zündel filed a petition for habeas corpus in Tennessee before he was removed, but the federal judge in Knoxville handling that case denied his petition without a hearing.

After another Cincinnati panel told the Knoxville court in 2005 that the Knoxville court had to at least consider Zündel’s petition, a hearing was held in Knoxville in October 2005 at which Leichty and Ingrid Zündel appeared, but the Knoxville court still ruled that it had no "jurisdiction" over Zündel’s habeas petition since Zündel had waived his right to any such relief upon entering the United States under a program known as the "visa waiver program."

Zündels have pointed out repeatedly in their legal papers that Ernst Zündel’s last entry into the U.S. was not in fact under the visa waiver program--indeed that the authority of the Attorney General to admit anyone into the U.S. under the visa waiver program had lapsed as of the time of Zündel’s last entry--but that even if Zündel had entered as a "visa waiver" entrant, a federal court must have jurisdiction under the United States Constitution to hear habeas claims of someone in his position who is suddenly detained.

After he was deported to Canada in 2003, Zündel spent two years in solitary confinement in Ontario while he was subjected to a trial to determine whether he was a risk to the national security of Canada. Zündel spent almost all of his adult years in Canada, where he established a successful business as a graphic artist and became interested in politics. His activism for German causes brought him into conflict with prominent Jewish groups in Canada and he spent years litigating with the Canadian government over his speech, before moving to the U.S. in 2000 to marry and live with Ingrid Rimland. His earlier trials in Canada were the first trials where claims about the Holocaust were subject to testing and cross-examination, and have in turn been the subject of a number of books and videos.

His latest "national security" trial in Canada during the years 2003-05 allowed the government to introduce secret evidence against him, and was presided over by a former counsel to the Canadian national intelligence service. At the conclusion of that trial, Zündel, a lifelong pacifist who has had numerous associations with controversial dissidents, was labeled a racist and white supremacist leader, and was declared a risk to Canada's national security. Ernst and Ingrid Zündel have denied that they are racists or white supremacists, although they acknowledge they are advocates of the virtues of European culture.

Ingrid Zündel and Leichty plan to speak to supporters and persons wishing more information about the case at a meeting to be held in Cleveland on: 

Monday, January 22, at 7 p.m. 

at Ampol Hall, 4737 Pearl Road, 

Cleveland, OH, USA.

A documentary about Zündel’s activism will also be shown. Admission is FREE. Contact: Ingrid Rimland Zündel, USA: 865-774-7756; fax: 865.774-7758.



‘Holocaust’ Legislation on the move …

Germany to push EU to introduce jail terms for Holocaust deniers

The Associated Press, Sunday, January 14, 2007

DRESDEN, Germany — German Justice Minister Birgitte Zypries said Sunday her country will push the European Union to adopt tough new rules to criminalize incitement of hatred and acts of racist violence within the 27-nation EU — including denying the Holocaust.

"I am optimistic that over the next six months we will manage to get a result," Zypries told reporters on the eve of two-day justice and interior ministers talks in the eastern city of Dresden.

Zypries and German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, who are hosting the meeting, have put the issue on the agenda of the two-day talks and of Germany"s six-month EU presidency.

She urged EU nations to agree on new common rules to combat racism and xenophobia within the EU as soon as possible, including the introduction of minimum EU-wide jail terms — which she said should be between one and three years — against those who purposely incite racist violence or hatred, or those who deny the genocide of Jews during World War II.

Efforts two years ago to set minimum jail terms ended in failure, however, after ministers were unable to agree. Several countries, notably Britain, Italy and Denmark, see such tough measures as overstepping the rights of expression under their national laws.

EU nations have been at pains to agree on common rules to combat racism and xenophobia in recent years, amid heightened ethnic and cultural tensions across Europe. EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini said, however, that a compromise could be reached to ensure that personal freedoms were not encroached upon.

"While preserving freedom of expression, I think we have to criminalize concrete incitement," Frattini said. He added the German proposal, which will be presented in the months to come, would leave it up to member states to decide what racist incidents constituted a punishable crime.

"It means the lengths of terms of prison are to be decided at state level," Frattini said.

Many EU nations already ban denials of the Holocaust including Germany, France, Spain, Austria and Belgium.

Austria last year jailed British writer David Irving for questioning the Holocaust in a book published there.


Should UK Ban Shoah Denial?

Thursday 4th of January 2007

Totally Jewish

Britain should hold a debate on whether to introduce a law banning Holocaust denial, a senior government minister said this week.

Police and Security Minister Tony McNulty, was speaking exclusively to the Jewish News less than two weeks after Holocaust denier David Irving arrived back in Britain after serving 13 months in an Austrian jail.

Irving was arrested in 2005 on a warrant dating back to 1989 relating to comments he made in a speech and interview during a visit to Austria in which he claimed there had been no gas chambers at Auschwitz. While Austria, Germany and France are among countries to have laws against Holocaust denial, there is currently no law outlawing this in the UK.

However, McNulty said: “David Irving is one to watch. There is a debate to be had on a Holocaust denial law, especially in terms of incitement to religious hatred or anti-Semitism. But there is a danger of people becoming martyrs to the cause.”

Lord Janner, Chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, welcomed McNulty’s views. He said such legislation would be “great”. However he was pessimistic over the chances of such a law being introduced. “Holocaust denial is worse than libel, but it won’t happen. The chances of getting it in the UK are nil.”

McNulty, the MP for Harrow East, insisted those who deny the Shoah should be challenged and added his voice to the chorus of criticism of ultra orthodox group, Neturei Karta, after members attended the recent Holocaust conference in Tehran.

He said: “It’s strange to see orthodox Jews sitting side by side with Iran. Anyone taking part should be treated with contempt they deserve.”

Meanwhile, the Muslim Council of Britain has said that it will consult members of the Muslim community about whether to participate in January’s Holocaust Memorial Day for the first time. The organisation has not participated in the annual event since it was founded in 2001, arguing that it is too exclusive and does not lend enough weight to other tragedies.

But following a following a meeting last month, a posting on its website said: “MCB's elected Central Working Committee discussed whether or not to accept the invitation to this year's Holocaust Memorial Day. A vote was held and it was decided to undertake a wider consultation of British Muslims on this issue.”

The Holocaust Educational Trust’s Karen Pollock said she was pleased the MCB are considering whether to take part. “Let's hope this next step will reverse what has always been in my opinion a misguided decision” she added.  McNulty added: “The MCB is wrong to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day, whatever they feel about other events in history, it misses the point. For all the other atrocities in history, the Holocaust was so mechanised, so formal in a way we have not seen before and happily not since.”



Germany vows to erase Nazi symbols from across Europe

David Charter in Berlin, The Times, January 15, 2007

Germany intends to introduce a Europe-wide law banning the display of Nazi symbols and making denial of the Holocaust a crime to fulfill its “historical obligation” 62 years after the liberation of Auschwitz.

Brigitte Zypries, the Justice Minister, will today outline plans to punish with up to three years in prison anyone in the European Union who publicly rejects the Nazi slaughter of six million Jews.

Germany’s programme for its six-month presidency of the EU also revives the idea of criminalising the flaunting of the swastika, which gained momentum after publication of photographs of Prince Harry in Nazi uniform at a fancy dress party.

A previous attempt to ban Nazi symbols was blocked by several governments, including Britain, while Holocaust denial was halted on the grounds of freedom of speech by Italy, which then had the post-fascist National Alliance in its ruling coalition. The Italian Government has now changed, giving the Germans hope of EU agreement. But there will be extra pressure from former Soviet-bloc countries for a ban on the provocative use of the communist hammer and sickle.

Ms Zypries will appeal to them at a meeting in Dresden today and tomorrow to build a European criminal code on racism and xenophobia.

“We have always said it cannot be the case that it should still be acceptable in Europe to say that six million Jews were never killed,” she said. “There is some controversy about that under ‘freedom of expression’ but we believe that there are limits to freedom of expression, and the limits are there when it is offensive to other religions and ethnic groups.”

Laws banning the denial of the Holocaust already exist in 10 of the 27 EU states and Latvia and Estonia ban the display of communist symbols.

The move would need the unanimous support of every country to have legal force.

Britain maintains that its laws banning incitement to hatred provide sufficient cover. The revisionist historian David Irving escaped prosecution until he proclaimed his scepticism in Austria and was jailed for 13 months. A British government spokeswoman said that a specific offence of Holocaust denial “would sit uncomfortably with existing freedom of speech legislation”, but did not dismiss the German plan.

Price of denial

Austria 10 years

Belgium 1 year

Czech Republic 2 years

France 2 years

Germany 5 years

Lithuania 10 years

Poland 3 years

Romania 5 years

Slovakia 3 years

Spain no maximum

*maximum penalty for denying the Holocaust.,,13509-2547826,00.html


Holocaust disputer can't find a lawyer

Pia Akerman and Richard Sproull

The Australian, January 17, 2007

HOLOCAUST revisionist Frederick Toben is unable to find a lawyer to defend him against allegations he has raised "serious doubt" about the Holocaust on his Adelaide Institute website.

In a subpoena served on Monday night, Jeremy Jones - the former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry - asked the Federal Court to jail Dr Toben for breaching four-year-old court orders because his website suggests "it is unlikely that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz".

Mr Jones also alleges the website imputes that Jewish people who were offended by Holocaust denial or challenged Dr Toben's theories were "of limited intelligence".

It also claimed that some Jewish people "for improper purposes including financial gain have exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II and the circumstances in which they were killed".

The subpoena calls for Dr Toben to be imprisoned for contempt of orders made by Federal Court judge Catherine Branson in September 2002.

But Dr Toben said he was working on his own defence ahead of the February 6 hearing in the Federal Court in Sydney.

"I am faced with the situation that I can't find a lawyer to defend myself on this issue," Dr Toben said.

"(Mr Jones has) got two folders full of pages, nearly 1000 pages, all from the Adelaide Institute, proving that I have contravened each one of those (orders). In other words, it's a total free expression matter. This is serious."

Dr Toben, who set up the Adelaide Institute in 1994 to pursue his cause, spent seven months in a German prison in 1999 for inciting racism.

The retired Adelaide high school teacher said he would not follow the example set by British Holocaust revisionist David Irving and defend himself in court.

Mr Irving was recently released from an Austrian prison after serving an 11-month sentence for Holocaust denial.

Dr Toben has recently returned from Iran, where he was a speaker at a two-day conference on the Holocaust and dismissed as "mere puffery" historical evidence proving mass killings of Jews by the Nazis' deadly Zyklon-B gas.

He also told an audience that evidence of the Nazi gas chambers was "the products of a feverish pathological mind filled with pure hatred, mostly directed against Germans and anything German ... the product of an appalling state of ignorance of natural and chemical processes".

Dr Toben met Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, among senior Iranian government officials attending the conference.

The presentation was condemned as obscene anti-Semitism by Jewish leaders.,20867,21072034-5006787,00.html




Jewish Power on Display Australian Zionists demand Töben's imprisonment

Note that this Notice of Motion, below, was originally scheduled to be heard on 5 December 2006 - lucky for Töben because by this time he was already in Iran, out of reach of Zionist hands. Had he been there, then it would certainly have meant that Töben's Passport would have been confiscated, thereby preventing his attending the Teheran Holocaust Conference.



NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY                                                                  No. N327 of 2001






 The applicant respondent will at 9:00 am on 6 February 2007 at Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney move the Court for Orders:


1. That the respondent be found guilty of contempt of this Court for failing to comply with the order made by her Honour Justice Branson on 17 September 2002, in that the respondent did publish or republish to the public by himself or any agent or employee, on the World Wide Web or otherwise, any material which conveys the following imputations or any of them:

A There is serious doubt that the Holocaust occurred;

B It is unlikely that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz;

C Jewish people who are offended by and challenge Holocaust denial are of limited intelligence;

D Some Jewish people for improper purpose including financial gain have exaggerated the number of Jews killed during World War II and the circumstances in which they were killed.

2. That the respondent be punished for contempt including that the respondent be committed to imprisonment for disobedience of the said order of this Court and that a warrant be issued accordingly.

3. That the Sheriff be directed to bring the respondent before the Court before taking the respondent to the place of imprisonment.

4. That the respondent pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to this motion.

5. Such further or other orders that the Court thinks appropriate.

Date: 16 November 2006


Steve Lewis                                                                                 DX 1163 Sydney

Solicitor for the applicant                                                         Tel: 8267 0626 

Slater & Gordon Lawyers                                                          Fax: 8267 0650    

Level11, 51 Druitt Street                                                          Ref: SL:KW:283157

Sydney NWS 2000










The abovenamed Respondent will at 9:00 am on the 6th day of February 2007 at Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney NSW move the Court for Orders that:

1. The matter be transferred to the Adelaide FCA Registry, or alternately that the matter be heard per video link as was done for some hearings before Justice C Branson.

2. The matter be stood down until the Respondent can secure competent legal representation, something that he failed to do when Justice Branson heard the matter.

3. The Court extends protection to members of Respondent’s family.

4. Such further or other orders as the Court deems fit.

DATED: Adelaide, 17 January 2007


                                                                                                                     Dr Fredrick Töben


To: Jeremy Jones

Slater & Gordon

11/51 Druitt Street

Sydney 2000









On 17 January 2007 I, Fredrick Töben, of Wattle Park, in the State of South Australia, retired teacher, say on oath:

1. I am the Respondent, and I received notification of this matter per process server, Mr Kevin Moffatt, on 15 January 2007, at 20:30 hours. Owing to my attending the Teheran International Holocaust Conference on 10-12 December 2006, I was not informed in time that there was to be a 5 December 2006 hearing before this court. Process Server Moffatt advised on 15 January 2007 that he first visited my residence on 29 November 2005. Colleague, Mr David Brockschmidt, advised that the formal court notice arrived in an open envelope in the residential mail box on 5 December 2006, the day on which the hearing was set down. Mr Brockschmidt then advised Mr Joshua Goldshaft, Senior Coordinator, Service Centre, FCA, Sydney Registry, that I was attending the conference in Teheran. I view this matter as being a failed legal ambush because the tone and demands set down in the Applicant’s 16 November 2006 Notice of Motion would have most probably prevented my attending the conference with my passport being forfeited on the false pretext that I would refuse to attend court and possibly flee Australia. My response to such proposition is that the world is my prison! Please be advised that ASIO, Adelaide office, is well informed of my movements at any time. Annexed hereto and marked A is a copy of the letter I wrote to the FCA Registry immediately upon my return to Adelaide.

2. That this matter be transferred to the Adelaide Registry of the FCA on account of the alleged offence having been committed in Adelaide. I view the fact that the Applicant had originally been granted Sydney as the place to be a deliberate attempt to impose financial difficulties upon me. It is well known that I do not have the financial resources to make such trips. If it is stated that I seem to have the financial resources to travel, then it must be remembered that those who invite me to conferences also pay for my travel costs. I do not think Mr Jones will pay me my travel costs to attend his initiated court hearings in Sydney. In the alternative I request that I be permitted to attend court per video link-up as was done on a number of occasions when the matter was initially heard before the FCA.

3. I have had problems – as have others who have been brought before the courts by Zionist Australians – to find competent legal representation. The current proceedings began in 1996 before the HREOC where Jeremy Jones refused outright to conciliate. This authoritarian and absolutist mindset has accompanied the proceedings to this day. I canvassed over twenty legal firms operating Australia-wide, and could not find a single one that would help me at the fact-finding stage of proceedings. I even tried individual counsels, as I had done during the early 1990s when I won an appeal before the Victorian Appeals Court, but only because I had a prominent QC, from NSW, write up my Appeal.

i. HREOC – after Commissioner Kath McEvoy handed down her decision that I delete offending material from our Adelaide Institute Internet website, I did more than that. I deleted all material, and I began again.

ii. FCA – when the matter reached the FCA I failed to gain legal representation and Justice Catherine Branson suggested I read books, etc. and present my own defence, advice that sounded odd to me. I then decided to remain silent because I knew that a judge cannot rely on material presented by an unrepresented defendant. On 17 September 2002 Justice Branson then handed down her Summary Judgment, wherein she essentially confirms the HREOC decision. The alleged offending material had already been removed from the website, but I again deleted all the material on the website, and I began again – this time adding a disclaimer. In 2006 I also enrolled myself in the Law Faculty, University of Adelaide. It did not surprise me that I failed by 4 marks the subject controlled by Kath McEvoy, former HREOC commissioner. My journey into becoming a law student soon made me realize that Justice Branson was wrong when she implied law was easy because to be successful in this monopoly law business means hard work.

4. I seek court protection from Jeremy Jones and his Zionists who wish to harm me by mentally raping me through their action. I view this action as legal and mental terrorism where the matter of free expression is at stake – and only a competent legal mind can mount a competent defence. I have also been advised that this matter is becoming political, and that members of the Howard Cabinet expect me to ‘cool it’. How can I ‘cool it’ when this legal action remains alive? Likewise it has been stated that there will be consequences for my siblings because I dare ‘take on’ the Zionists.

Sworn by Deponent at Adelaide on the 17th day of January 2007                                    ………………………….......

                                                                                                                                  Deponent’s Signature

Before me:…………………………


Top | Home

©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute