Theater in Paris
Robert Faurisson's 2 April 2007 Trial
Report by alexandervL@gmx.net
Translated by Dagmar Brenne email@example.com
It is well known that it is not only in Germany but also in France where the courts are busy with Revisionists. On Monday, 2 April 2007, in Paris such was once again the case, but this time a little different than usual.
The Star of the worldwide Revisionist movement, Professor Robert Faurisson – born 25.1.1929 – stood before the court of the 17th chamber, in the Palace of Justice situated in the Île de France, that is, the heart of the French capital city. But this time not as defendant, but as an accuser.
Listen and be amazed, professor Faurisson's defendant was none other than the highly regarded French politician and legal expert and his name-sake, Robert Badinter – born 30.3. 1928 – a Jew and socialist, a former star barrister, ex-minister of justice under the French president François Mitterand and formerly president of the French Constitutional Court. Truly a heavyweight of the French establishment.
To understand the importance of this and to duly appreciate the spectacle played out here on this Monday, we have briefly to delve into the history of the court case, and then follow this with the report of the actual proceedings.
On the 18th of July 1981 Robert Faurisson was ordered to pay the penalty of ONE (!) Franc, because he had disputed the existence of gas chambers in German concentration camps, which were for the killing of people, in particular of Jews. Apart from that, he also disputed, that Hitler had ever given an order for people to be exterminated simply for the reason of race or religion. At that time he was accused of ''falsification'' of history by, among others, the French organisation LICRA – International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism – which was represented by Robert Badinter.
Now an aside:
Immediately after the court case Badinter was nominated as the French minister of justice by Mitterrand. The court at that time, failing to find a real case of criminal activity, condemned Faurisson nevertheless for moral reasons, so to speak, and cited his method of historical research as reason for the verdict handed down. Yet he was not convicted as a ''falsifier'' of history, because the court neither dealt with questions pertaining to history, nor felt competent to do so, and besides, there was no such criminal act in existence to date. 1983 was the professional case of the verdict verified, but the court also emphasized the scientific and ''clean'' work of Faurisson.
It was only in the year 1990, owing to the instigation of LICRA and the Jewish Prime minister Laurent Fabius, that the so-called ''Gayssot-Law'' was released, which, similar to the paragraph 130 StGB in Germany places under severe penalties the denial of the Holocaust or the playing-down of the deeds of the NAZIs, the agitation of racial hatred and the enmity towards foreigners.
It happened that on the 11th of November 2006 Robert Badinter was interviewed by the French-German radio station ''Arte'' in one of their programs in connection with the topic ''Freedom of Speech''.
At the end of his several expostulations he said that his last achievement as a lawyer, before he became minister, was, to convict Robert Faurisson as a ''falsifier'' of history. This is now the very reason for Robert Faurisson's indictment of Badinter, namely as a libel suit with a demand of €15,000 in compensation.
The first hearing in this court case took place on 12 March 2007. Faurisson repeated his claims in court and once again stated, without fear or favour, his well-known opinions in regards to the Holocaust and the gas chambers. Badinter defended himself by pointing to the fate of several of his relatives, who allegedly had all perished in German concentration camps. The defence of Badinter had also invited 8 witnesses, each of whom described the history of the Holocaust from their own perspective and all maintained that Faurisson was a notorious falsifier of history. Some witnesses went so far as to say that Faurisson was not really a University professor, which was corrected by another witness, who himself was a professor.
Because the first hearing took too long to enter a plea, the hearing was adjourned to a second hearing for 2nd of April 2007.
The events and sights that took place there are the topic of the following report:
It is 8:20AM, in front of the ''Palace of justice'' in the center of Paris, the île de France, next to the Cathedral of Nôtre Dame and the Metro station Cité are people queuing up to get to the spectator's entrance of the building. The sun is shining, it is a spring day and there is not much traffic as yet.
In the foyer of the ''Palace of justice'' to gentlemen of the ''Gendarmerie'' are controlling the guests with metal detectors, in the same way as at airports, all casual and without undue pressure. Most of the visitors are middle aged or elderly, followers of professor Faurisson. After moving along lengthy corridors and up a massive staircase to the first floor one reaches the actual court room, whose doors are guarded by several ''gendarmes'' - police.
Inside the court room are already some 50 persons, seated on fairly comfortable, upholstered wooden benches. The court room is panelled in timber, whose square panels show allegoric motifs pertaining to justice. One reads about ''Justice and Truth'' and sees among other things the scales of justice, a sword and a sceptre, wound about with a snake.
The courtroom is oblong, approx. 50m long and 20m wide, at the front of which is the slightly raised bench of the judge. To the left are the employees of the court with a video camera.
The defence requested that the entire court case should be filmed. This is a rare exception in France. Apparently, from the perspective of the defence, the malice and falsification on part of Faurisson must be enshrined for future reference.
At the right is the seat of the public prosecutor, next to the media, where there are already about 15 younger pen pushers, some typical social-critically sloppy, others smartly dressed for the occasion- only Leftist papers like ''Le Monde'' and ''Libération'' are reporting the court case.
To complete the scene, in the front row to the left, at a discreet distance from the seat of the judge are the bannistered rows of benches of the prosecution – in the first row is Faurisson, behind him his lawyer Maître Delcroix.
To the right is the side of the defendant, at the front sits Badinter, the defendant, behind him two of his lawyers, behind them another four lawyers. Behind them a bench with middle-aged women and men. The ladies are of the type, where atonement is written all over their faces, haggard, sunken cheeks, the world's misery on their shoulders.
Minute by minute the visitor's chamber fills more, several young, Jewish-looking persons seat themselves in the back row, the kind of ''refined and prosperous''. Among them, the followers of Faurisson. In total there would be about 100 spectators to the right and to the left, watched by the police at the entrance door. The residing judge is around 40 years old, with short, dark hair, and a snarly appearance. To his right, that is, the spectator's left is a matron of about 50 years old with an ample hairdo. Also to his right is another woman, around the 40 years old, the sporty type, with longish blond hair. All are white-skinned, dressed in black robes.
Softly, but determinedly, the chairman invites all to be seated.
The stage is set, the show can begin
But before Faurisson's lawyer can start to speak a unkempt looking man of 30 years of age hurtles toward the judge's bench demanding for people to take Faurisson's side and condemn Badinter. A gendarme takes care of him and leads him out of the court room without much resistance. Apparently, so is explained later, this man is a crazy Jew, who already gave a sensational display the last time. Cross it off.
Maître Delcroix, the lawyer of Faurisson takes his notes, gets up, clears his throat and begins with his plea. He reiterates the reason for the court case. Badinter stands accused for a comment he made to ''Arte'', and only that is the issue of the case. It is not a matter of history, nor a question whether Faurisson be a falsifier of history or not, but solely the question: was Faurisson indicted as falsifier of history in the verdict of 1981? Since this is evidently not the case there could be now no other verdict handed down than to condemn the defendant. Besides, it appeared like an absurdity on part of the defence to present several witnesses, who may feel they have some things to contribute about more recent history and have certain opinions about Faurisson, but have nothing to offer in respect to the court case concerning the ''Arte'' program or the verdict of 1981. He pointed out, that it is remarkable that in all murder trials in France the murder is always minutely investigated forensically, especially in regards to the murder weapon, which is something that does not happen when the topic is the Holocaust. Besides that, it is well known that statements of witnesses are often un trust worthy evidence of facts.
All this he says while walking back and forth between the first row and the banister of the judge, mostly reading from his sheet, but at times speaking freely, in well audible voice. Sometimes he stutters a bit and it is obvious that Faurisson gives him the occasional advice, which he only infrequently takes up. After half an hour his plea is finished. Badinter should be condemned because of his slanderous statement and be made to pay 15,000 Euros for the damages and pain inflicted.
It is now the turn of the defence. Before any of the main lawyers starts a lawyer from the backrow of the defendant's benches walks to the front, a Michael Friedman type, around 50 years of age, and of course in a black robe. Eloquently, sometimes loudly, sometimes quietly, he plays the part of, „I am only small and know only very little''
He wants to remind the court that basically for any verdict to be reached in the present case the wording of the verdict from 1981 needs to be consulted, and also it has to be clarified what the true meaning of the word ''falsifier'' would be.
For the latter it is only necessary to take a dictionary, even the small Larousse is already sufficient and in it is written that to falsify comes from lying and that this means to present something untrue, leaving out important facts, a mixing up of different elements that do not belong together. All this is written in the explanation of the verdict of 1981.
The court did not use the word ''falsifier'' of history, but the accompanying text of the verdict clearly brings the sentiment out that the court had concluded that Faurisson is a falsifier. Of course the listener naturally asks why the court did not in fact spell it out.
It became very amusing indeed when the lawyer explained that a verdict is always only relative. Because by the laws of the time there did not exist a criminal clause of falsification of history, yet by the measurement of today it is another matter.
And because one has to apply justice today one has to take this into consideration in regards to the verdict of yesteryear. If yesteryear were today, well then! With this breathtaking dialectic the listener is truly bowled over.
After about half hour this lawyer sits down once again in his back row, friendly glancing at his fellow combatants and watching out for agreement, which he duly receives. It is now time for the main lawyer, Maître Jouanneau to have his day. He is a man in his mid seventies, perhaps even eighty, white hair border, breathing heavily for is very overweight, the type of a walrus.
In regards with this gentleman we need to know that he has been fighting for over 30 years against Faurisson, had been trying time and again to drag him into court, that he is the main lawyer of LICRA and is married to a Jewess. The aim of his life is clear, fight against Faurisson, fight against anti-Semitism, and also to fully support and retain the remembrance of the dead of the Holocaust.
It is a superhuman, but absolute necessary task, seen from his sight. And accordingly he delivers his plea. Sometimes quiet, sometimes loud, than almost crying, then pleadingly, he pulls all registers. Also his mime, his gestures are impressive, sometimes he leans on the bannister of the judge's bench, then on the one of his own bench. He looks up from his paper to the left, then to the right, then diagonally to the left forward where he knows the camera to be situated. One feels he doesn’t want to miss his Television debut.
His litany is endless. What a scandal without equal that this liar, falsifier, yes, the very embodiment of evil, namely Robert Faurisson would cite the most just of the just, namely Robert Badinter before the court of justice. When it should be exactly the other way around.
Besides it is clear, that the utterances of Badinter at the ''Arte'' interview were not meant to be taken seriously, seeing it was at the end of the interview, without any prior announcement. Furthermore Faurisson had been convicted and whether the word „Falsifier of history'' was found in the verdict, it really does not make the least bit of a difference.
The longer this Mr. Jouanneau talks himself into a trance the more theatrical becomes his delivery. One cannot help the impression that despite his obesity he will soon float away. Faurisson becomes annoyed and bored with it, so he just gets up and walks to the back of the courtroom. Of course some people are astonished, as is the bench of the judge, but the advocate is not fazed and continues with his song.
As he begins to repeat the accounts of the witnesses in all their epic grandeur even the judge is beginning to show signs of discomfort, for he asks now if after 2 hours he would not come to an end. He himself had announced it.
Maître Jouanneau is not amused and says that exactly now are going to come the most important passages and it would not be right to deprive the court of these -and indeed the world at large. The judge is not to be impressed anymore and the good man has to find an end, even though only after several more lapses of rhetoric.
The case is clear: Faurisson was, is and always will be a notorious falsifier of history, who besides that, is driven by a deep anti-Semitism to disgrace the honour of the dead Jews. Amen
In the meantime: Faurisson returned to his seat at the end of the speech of Maître Jouanneau, no without friendly grinning at him. It was reported in the edition of „Libération'' the following day, that Faurisson pushed the defence lawyer on his return, which was most certainly not the real fact. It only shows how the media handles the Truth. But who would be surprised.
The second main defence lawyer now has his turn. He is also an elderly gentleman, around the end of 60, Maître Leclerc. He concentrates on the Thesis that it must be clear to all, that Faurisson is one of the basest Anti-Semites and a bad twister of words. It must not be permitted, in fact it would be a catastrophy for the republic if an agitator like Faurisson would win out against the just Badinter.
Where would it all end? The bench of the judge has to be aware that this court case could give a signal to society, which cannot be estimated strongly enough. In order to underscore the vileness of Faurissons's theses he reads several lengthy passages from a book of Shlomo Venezia, who from his accounts was employed in a special work team at Auschwitz and who had to execute gassings on a daily basis, which he describes in his book in all its hues and phraseology.
The defence lawyer apologises several times that he has to read the passages, he had thought deeply about it if he would do this, and had decided to go for it. The spectators are touched by it or amused, according to their inclination.
The dear man does not miss the opportunity to give a masterpiece in rhetoric, it is a truly most impressive show. It is his desire to make clear, lastly and for all to see that Faurisson is the most evil of anti-Semites, for he had alleged in his famous sentence of 60-words, that the Jews invented the lie of the gas-chambers solely for the purpose of financial profit.
This of course is once and for all the evidence what to think of Faurisson. It is obvious that there can be only one verdict, to acquit Badinter and hand out the severest penalty to Faurisson. The inclined listener naturally asks himself, how can it come to such a process, since normally the accused is indicted and not he accuser? But that is a theme for another time.
By this time it is 12o'clock, noon and one would think the mass is being read, when at the front to the right the public prosecutor rises, François Cordier, proxy public prosecutor of Paris. In France it is so that the public prosecutor himself does not take part in civil court cases but is entitled to give his opinion about the subject matter of the process. One is immediately aware that right now the ''Finale Furioso'' is brewing.
The tall and lanky about 50 year old ''procureur'' takes up position, swings his black bands about, which are ending in white bushy pompoms, throws them onto his back, rolls up the sleeves of his black robe and off he goes. He is like a Stuka in flight as in attack after attack he dives against Faurisson with ear splitting noise .
Seen from the side he almost appears like an agitated stork, who has to continually bend forward to be near the microphone, while he verbally hacks Faurisson to pieces like a madman. It is more than adventurous to see the travesty of justice played out. Faurisson is known as a liar and falsifier of history, that is for all who care to read it to be seen in the verdict of 1981. The fact that it is not spelt out word by word does not alter the conclusion of the verdict in the least, as it speaks volumes. Paragraph by paragraph he picks apart the verdict of 1981.
It is his chance of a star performance of a lifetime. His eyes are moving to Badinter, who sits in front of him to the side, to the defence lawyers, again to the bench of the judge. Of course the camera is not forgotten either. He goes on minute after minute, one wonders when will he finish. At last after almost 45 minutes he ends.
The office of the public prosecution of Paris is now able to punish the impertinence of Faurisson with all severity to having cited this great Frenchman Robert Badinter before the court of justice and there can only be one clear verdict: Faurisson is a falsifier of history, which was already the conclusion of the court case in 1981. In the back row an elderly man jumps up and applauds loudly. As it turns out it is one of Faurisson’s followers. What irony!
The presiding judge announced hardly audible that the judgement will be spoken on 21. May, everyone rises, the judges leave the chamber through the back door, the show is over. What a spectacle!
Professor Faurisson voiced in a small circle that he has no hope about the verdict. Furthermore he informed that he has an appeal hearing on 30. May on account of the conviction in regard to the interview which he gave to the Iranian broadcaster SAHAR. Additionally he received a subpoena regarding his speeches in Teheran two days ago. It is clear to him: they want to run him down. He said correspondingly: a man has to be a Man. A phenomenon!
D: Für eventuelle Fehler im Bericht bitte ich vielmals um Verzeihung. Ich habe es nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen niedergeschrieben.
F: Je vous prie de m’excuser que le texte ne soit qu’en allemand. Peut-être quelqu’un a envie de le traduire en français. Je m’excuse aussi en avance pour toutes les fautes que je puisse avoir incérées dans le compte-rendu. J’ai essayé de le faire aussi bien que possible.
GB: Please apologize that it is only in German. Perhaps someone likes to translate it into English. Also apologies for mistakes, which might have slipped into the report. It was to the best of my knowledge
An Australian student at the US college where a gunman killed 32 people has told of seeing students running out of campus buildings with their hands up during the deadly rampage. Victorian Eleanor Brentnall, 19, is in her freshman year at Virginia Tech on a basketball scholarship. Her dorm is just metres away from where the first person was shot on Monday by a 23-year-old South Korean man identified as Cho Seung-Hui, a US resident and Virginia Tech student. Cho then turned the gun on himself after the spree, the worst shooting rampage in US history.
Eleanor said she only found out about the shooting after police cars started showing up on campus and she asked another student, who told her that someone had been shot and it was thought the gunman was still loose on campus.
"There were so many police there, they were everywhere, it was crazy," she told AAP from her dorm on campus on Monday night. "I was with one of my friends. We walked across the drill field to get away from it all. "As I was standing on the other side I saw all these people running out with their hands up and screaming and the police were yelling and that's when I didn't hang around. "I was going back into the dorm when a policeman came out of AJ (West Ambler Johnstone Hall) and started yelling at me and my friend to run and get into the building. "I did that and turned on the news and that's when I found out the full extent of what had happened." Eleanor said some memorial services had already been held on campus for the victims. "They have just started releasing names of people who died," she said. "There have been memorials held around campus and we are having a big one today. "I think people are still in shock and can't believe it's happened here."
Eleanor said she had no thoughts of returning to Australia. "It's like a little country town, nothing much happens and there's not a big crime rate or that kind of thing," she said. "It's usually really peaceful. I'll stay here because I really don't feel like it's a dangerous place. It's just unfortunate it (the shooting) happened here."
Top | Home
©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute