Another hackneyed Auschwitz “revelation”!
See Newsletter
423
November 9, 2008
Prof Robert Faurisson
The
latest issue of the German mass-circulation daily Bild announces the recent
discovery of new documents on Auschwitz, writing, in particular, that one of
them seems to prove the existence of a homicidal gas chamber in that camp.
In Berlin, Hans-Dieter Kreikamp, head of the Federal Archives, thinks that
in this “discovery” he has found the way to silence the revisionists.
In
reality, there is strictly nothing new about this type of document, and the
building plans of the “gas chamber” in question – Gaskammer, fully
spelt out – are
those of a simple “delousing facility” – Entlausungsanlage, fully
spelt out as well.
Besides,
a passage in the Bild article demonstrates the unease of our fraudsters.
Here it is in German, followed by an English translation:
“Dass
in der 11,66 mal 11,20 Meter großen „Gaskammer“ nicht Kleidungsstücke
mit dem bei der SS üblichen Blausäure-Mittel entlaust, sondern Menschen
vergast werden sollten, muss als sehr wahrscheinlich angenommen werden.”
“It
must be considered very likely that in this 11.66 by 11.20-meter ‘gas
chamber’ it was not garments that were deloused in the SS’s usual way
with hydrogen cyanide, but that it was human beings who must have been
gassed.”
The
reader will have noted: “It must be considered very likely […] that it
was human beings who must have been gassed.”
This
passage was left out of the articles in the French or English-language press
which have, so far, come to my attention and which claim to quote Bild.
I
shall permit here myself to remind readers that I was the first in the world
to publish the building plans for the Auschwitz crematoria supposed to have
housed homicidal gas chambers; the spaces in question were actually either
morgues, an air-raid shelter, or some other innocuous rooms. I discovered
those drawings in 1976 in the camp archives and began publishing them with
an article in the Spanish magazine Interviu,
February 1979, a piece carrying a photo of me holding a sheet with
crematorium plans altogether comparable to the ones now shown in Bild.
In the nearly thirty years since then, I have never ceased going over the
conclusions to be drawn from those plans and from a number of other
elements, like the inspection of the purported crime scenes at Auschwitz,
or, on the one hand, the scientific bibliography regarding delousing,
disinfection or anti-infestation methods using Zyklon B and, on the other
hand, the procedure for executing a condemned prisoner with hydrogen cyanide
gas as followed in certain American penitentiaries.
Invented
shortly after the first world war and still in use today under another name,
“Cyanosil”, Zyklon B is a hydrogen cyanide-based substance.
From
then onwards, nearly all the revisionist researchers – Fred Leuchter,
Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno and many others – have made extensive use of
those plans or of others still, which Bild
discovers today just as someone might discover the moon or the Loch Ness
monster. Indeed the anti-revisionists have also, at their end, had to
publish these plans and then attempt, though in vain, to challenge the
obvious significance thereof.
Such
was precisely the case with the French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac.
I’ll recall that he, after having deployed the formidable means put at his
disposal by the Klarsfeld couple to uphold “the Holocaust” argument in
general and that of the alleged homicidal Auschwitz gas chambers in
particular, wound up writing that, all things considered, those arguments
were fit only “for the rubbish bins of history” – Valérie Igounet, Histoire
du négationnisme en France, Paris, Gallimard, 2000, p. 652.
In
the end, the Bild reporter has
done nothing but recycle an old rumour.
It
remains to be seen whether the Jewish authorities find fault with his
clumsiness or, instead, congratulate him for being so willing to help with
their propaganda.
_______________________________________
New
police raid at my house
Robert
Faurisson November 13, 2008
Today,
Thursday, November 13, at 6:15 AM, two investigators from the Police
Judiciaire in Paris, having arrived in Vichy yesterday evening, burst into
my house accompanied by three uniformed policemen, not without deliberately
making a great deal of noise. This caused a severe nervous shock to my wife,
who, at 77, suffers from a heart condition; I now fear the possible
consequences.
For
the next hour and a half the armed policemen kept her, her brother and his
wife (the couple had happened to be spending the night at our house)
confined in a room, forbidding them to leave it. The police’s loutish
behaviour was all the more inadmissible as the two investigators (officiers
de police judiciaire – OPJ’s) knew of my wife’s poor state of health.
They had already visited us last January 24.
That
morning, upon reporting at Vichy police station to answer a summons, I was
immediately placed in custody. When told that, after a questioning session,
the policemen would be taking me back to my house and carrying out a search,
I’d informed the OPJ’s that, as my wife had a weak heart, I had kept the
matter of my summons a secret. I told them that at a certain time soon my
wife would be leaving the house, and requested that they wait till then to
show up for their search. However, they paid no heed to my warning and, with
their untimely arrival, they had already given my wife a cardiac trauma.
This
November 13 I hauled them over the coals. I told them what was what. And
they calmed down.
The
three men in uniform went away at 7:30 AM. The OPJ’s, a young woman and a
youngish man, performed their search from 6:20 to 10:30.
I
refused to answer their questions. For nearly thirty years I’ve been in
the habit of responding to all questions from the police with the words:
“No answer”, even if the questions are harmless ones. I refuse to
collaborate with the French police and justice system in their repression of
historical revisionism.
Once
again, my two OPJ’s drew a blank. Once again, they found neither the
computer nor the documents sought.
They
came bearing five (!) warrants, the most important of these concerning my
participation at the Tehran conference of December 11-12, 2006. The charges
originated with then President Jacques Chirac and an essentially Jewish
“anti-racist” organisation.
I
ask indulgence of my correspondents beforehand should they find that, for a
certain period, I leave their messages or letters unanswered. I am once more
entering a time of turbulence. I have still not found a lawyer to replace
Eric Delcroix, who has retired. By the way, I shall also ask my contacts not
to come forth with recommendations of this or that reputedly courageous
lawyer: there are in fact only cowards and inveterate swaggerers.
A
model of the type: Jacques Vergès. It pains me to note how few people have
seen through the act he puts on. His pet artifice, clumsy as can be, is
anti-racist one-upmanship. “Barbie a racist? You must be joking! No one
was ever more racist than the French colonialists or the Australians,
exterminators of the Tasmanian race.”
In
France as elsewhere at this moment, the Jews are demanding a greater
crackdown on revisionism. As long as the State of Israel persists with its
repeated provocations of the Palestinians, it will be putting itself in
growing danger and, eventually, bringing about, whether it likes it or not,
the Zionist regime’s disappearance. For the time being, that regime must
at all costs safeguard its number one propaganda weapon: the lie that is the
religion of “the Holocaust” with its alleged homicidal gas chambers.
We
may expect to be treated like Palestinians. For my part, I will not give in.
People sometimes find fault with me for forgetting, in my struggle, that a
man’s first duty is to preserve the safety of his wife and children. But
that, perhaps, is only a man’s second duty. Perhaps the first duty of a
man is to be a man.
I
do not lose sight of the fact than my lot remains enviable when compared
with that of a good many other revisionists such as, for example, Ernst Zündel
and Germar Rudolf in Germany, or Wolfgang Fröhlich and Gerd Honsik in
Austria, or Fredrick Töben in London. I also think of the heroic Frenchman
Vincent Reynouard, his wife and their seven children.
_______________________________________
Fredrick
Töben’s 40th day in custody: why no outcry?
G.
Nichols, November 9, 2008 majxxn@tiscali.it
Despite
the long-running open controversy in Britain over the government’s 42-day
preventive detention scheme for suspected terrorists, that country quite
obviously has no need of a new Act of Parliament to detain a person
indefinitely without charge – something that has always been considered
most un-British, denounced as a feature of “foreigner-style” justice.
It’s
enough for that person to be a historical revisionist or, as the media call
Australian citizen Fredrick Töben, a “suspected Holocaust denier”.
His
German arrest warrant may have been thrown out of court on October 29, but
he has been kept in his cell – for want of a cash deposit of £100,000
(sic), with the media saying nothing at all and no outcry coming from any
quarter.
Strange?
Hardly, for as one of his “defenders” puts it, Töben himself is, after
all, an odious (sic) individual. If people in the public eye – including a
prominent politician and some journalists – are willing enough to discuss
the principle of applying the European arrest warrant in certain
circumstances, there is in practice nearly no one to take the trouble to
speak out against the more than month-long detention without charge of an
odious individual – an avowed Holocaust denier: they don’t come any
worse than that; terrorists and paedophiles pale in comparison for
odiousness.
It
boils down to this: with very close to 100% of the population firmly
persuaded that a “Holocaust denier” can only be odious, Töben, arrested
on October 1st and held, still today, by virtue of an invalid warrant –
it’s a British judge, not I, who has called it so – will
just have to sit out the appeal/counter appeal process in a prison cell, and
no one will get very worked up about it.
That
might not be the case if those Englishmen in the know and with the means –
David Irving and his clique of lawyers etc. –
had brought revisionism – “denial” in mediaspeak – and
its solid, sober argumentation out into public, as the law in Britain still
allows.
They’ve
instead preferred to dabble in drivel, for the most part talking in harmony
with the media.
Too
bad for Töben whose case, all told, is that of just another odious
criminal.
________________________________
Does Britain have a
Holocaust denial law?
The arrest of Frederick Toben could have implications
for freedom of expression in the UK, says Padraig Reidy
On
Wednesday, Frederick Toben, a convicted Holocaust denier, was taken
off a plane at Heathrow airport by Metropolitan Police officers. He had
been on his way to Dubai. The Met officers were carrying out a European
Arrest Warrant put out by German authorities, charging Toben with
disseminating materials of an ‘anti-Semitic and, or, revisionist nature’
that ‘play down above all the mass murder of the Jews, planned and
implemented, by the national socialist rulers’.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/02/secondworldwar.australia
This
was in compliance with Section 130 of the German criminal code, which covers
crimes that do not yet exist in the United Kingdom. While, in 2007, the EU
adopted a directive making ‘publicly condoning, denying or grossly
trivialising crimes of genocide’ punishable by law, the UK (along with
Ireland and Sweden) has chosen, as is its right, not to create statute
reflecting this.
So
why, if Holocaust denial, or ‘trivialisation’ is not a crime in the UK,
was Toben arrested by UK police?
Anti-EU
campaigners claimed, when European Arrest Warrants were introduced, that
they would destroy the notion of dual criminality, whereby a person could
only be extradited if they were charged with an offence that is a crime in
both countries. Were they right?
The
framework decision on European Arrest Warrants recognises 32 offences for
which dual criminality does not have to apply — these include racism and
xenophobia. As yet it is not clear whether the German authorities intend to
charge Toben for broad racial incitement (which is a crime in the UK), or
specifically Holocaust denial (which is not).
In
2003, the Daily Telegraph
reported Home Office Minister Lord Filkin as saying ‘If someone went to
Germany and stood up in Cologne market place and shouted the odds, denying
the Holocaust, and then came back [to Britain], they would be subject to
extradition under the European arrest warrant.’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2003/02/18/nxeno18.xml
This,
it would seem, has come to pass.
If
Toben is extradited after his hearing on Friday at City of Westminster
Magistrates’ Court, it may put us in the peculiar position where Holocaust
denial is acknowledged as a crime by the UK courts, without actually being a
crime under UK law. Index on
Censorship will be following the story.
___________________________
11.
Comments
1. Posted 02Oct08
at 19:16
Michael Santomauro
Dear Editor,
What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to
seek the truth?
I wish to express my outrage that the Holocaust, unlike
any other historical event, is not subject to critical revisionist
investigation. Furthermore I deplore the fact that many so-called democratic
states have laws that criminalize public doubting of the Holocaust. It is my
position that the veracity of Holocaust assertions should be determined in
the marketplace of scholarly discourse and not in our legislatures bodies
and courthouses.
Let’s end ‘thought crimes’ in the twenty-first
century. Dr. Toben’s thoughts cannot be killed by his imprisonment.
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
2.
Posted 03Oct08 at 12:17
Frank
Fisher: Humm.
“racial incitement (which is a crime in the UK)” well no, not really.
Incitment to racial hatred is an offence - I don’t think it should be, and
I wonder what your views are Padraig - but racism, pure and simple, isn’t,
nor is persuading others to adopt racist views etc. If the German charges
relate to simple publication or dissemination of racist views, then there is
no dual criminality.
Regardless, this is a damn outrage - who makes the law
here? There is no law forbidding holocaust denial in the UK, because there
is no demand or support for such a law here. Do *you* support such a law?
When Irving was jailed the british government could keep quiet and pretend
it was nothing to do with them - they cannot do this now. If they extradite
him they are complicit in this outrage.
Oh, and yes, they have abandoned our sovereignty into
the bargain.
3.
Posted 03Oct08 at 14:36 |
Permalink
Geseke: Frederick Toben lives in Australia. Why was he flying
from the United States to the UK, to get to Dubai? Why didn’t he take a
different route since he surely knows the EU laws? This is like David Irving
going into Austria to give a lecture when he knew that there was a warrant
for his arrest in Austria.
4.
Posted 03Oct08 at 23:58 |
Permalink
Sophia: Perhaps Dr. Toben was visiting in Aerica before going
on to Dubai. More interesting is why do YOU choose to
make an issue of the itinerary of his trip?
He did not leave the plane so it needs asking how he
could he of any threat to Britain. It is mind boggling that he could be
arrested while awaiting the next phase of the trip and had nothing to do
with Britain or Germany. What insanity is this?
How huge are the lies that require such extreme
measures to keep hidden? Sophia
5.
Posted 04Oct08 at 06:01 | Permalink
Syd
Walker: The
Zionist lobby is clearly seeking to persecute its ideological enemies, using
inside connections in Britain and Germany to seek application of laws
overtly introduced to fight terrorism and serious crime.
In Australia, more than 20 new ‘anti-Terrorism’
laws have been enacted in recent years, greatly constraining our civil
liberties.
An example is a law which made providing Hezollah with
‘material support’ punishable by staggering jail sentences. It meant
that, during the 2006 Israeli assault on The Lebanon, Australian relatives
of people defending their homeland from external agression risked
imprisonment in Australia for sending flowers to a funeral! By contrast,
when Israeli-Australian dual nationals fighting in the IDF were killed, it
was an Australian national tragedy, judging by mainstream media coverage.
It’s clear where the major push against freedom of
expression is coming from - who gains and who loses.
I believe the Zionist lobby is grossly overplaying its
hand in this latest case.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right and will be
vigorously defended, even by people who usually find other ways to spend
their time. The greater the push to criminalize beliefs, the greater the
resistance. Truth does not require legal props.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
is unambiguous:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and
expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
any media and regardless of frontiers.
It could reasonably be objected that The Holocaust is
not a matter of opinion, but rather of a quasi-religious nature, given
restrictions on free enquiry and dissent.
Even so, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has
that covered too.
Here’s Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change
his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with
others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in
teaching, practice, worship and observance.
6.
Posted 04Oct08 at 06:04 |
Permalink
Syd
Walker: Please
correct spelling if you publish my previous letter. Hezollah > Hezbollah
7.
Posted 04Oct08 at 06:15 |
Permalink
Rowan
Berkeley: Hard cases make bad law, and Jewish international
politics are largely about cultivating hard cases, so as to impose bad law.
8.
Posted 05Oct08 at 10:20 |
Permalink
Llloyd: Excellent that Index on Censorship is treating the
Toben case as a censorship issue, even making it the main story. I wish I
could say the same for Amnesty International that actively campaigns to have
revisionists imprisoned. Not even Orwell could have imagined that.
9.
Posted 11Oct08 at 01:55 |
Permalink
Gncarlo: The world grows weary of the Jew and his political
movement posing as a religion, relentlessly attacking any who don’t share
his delusions of being “God’s Chosen”, but crying “religious
persecution” and “anti-semitism” whenever his victims object to the
lies and eternal warfare against the rest of mankind. There is hope for a
brighter future though: 1. the internet offers hope that the world’s
people may continue to freely exchange ideas and experiences and get at the
truth despite the efforts of the Jew’s puppets in the world’s
parliaments, and 2. America is beyond bankruptcy. When the world realizes
this, the imperial pretensions will be dropped and the troops will have to
come home. We’ll see how many of her sons and daughters Germany will be
willing to imprison without an American army of occupation, and we’ll see
what Israel does without the yearly tribute from the West. We live in
interesting times…
10.
Posted 22Oct08 at 10:00 |
Permalink
Paulina: Thanks for writing this.
11.
Posted 30Oct08 at 13:48 | Permalink
Balder:
A
case which could have similar implications as the Gerald Fredrick Töben
Saga is going on in Denmark right now.
Here some people accused by Germany of distributing
‘Nazi-music’ are demanded extradited by the Zionist controlled regime in
Germany. This is not a punishable offense in Denmark, but a court has
ordered for the extradition under the European Arrest Warrant to proceed.
The victims have appealed.
The treacherous Danish press which has a
disproportionally large number of Jewish journalists in important positions,
has not printed one discussion about the implications, and only very
sparingly reported about the trial.
The Danish press has not wasted one word on the Toben
case either. They purposely keep the silence of the grave while our local
legislation and our nations sovereignty is undermined by Brussels and
Zionist controlled Germany.
Help me break the silence and spread the word about
this very similar case as well, we cannot let these controlled journalists
get away with the crime of not reporting extensively on such important cases
and the implications of this legislation..
The latest news about the Danish case:
October 23, 2008 - Denmark: Alleged
Nazi-music distributors extradition case in court in Elsinore
http://blog.balder.org/?p=512
Here my index
of articles about the Danish case and the Toben case
One Trackback
By CW
3100 Creative Industries: Censorship « RHUL Creative Writers Weblog on
22Oct08 at 09:20
[...] How far should freedom of speech extend?
What, for instance, do you think of David Irving prosecution as a holocaust
denier? Or the recent arrest by UK authorities of Frederick Toben?
[...]
Crown
Prosecution Service lawyers will put the case on behalf of the German
authorities tomorrow that Fredrick Toben, an Australian doctor, should be
extradited for offences allegedly committed in Germany. The case is the
latest example of the global reach of criminal laws - and of their impact
between one European country and another. The extradition request is being
made under the European Arrest Warrant, a fast-track procedure to allow
criminal suspects to be sent between European states.
The
warrant, which came into force in January 2004, abolished the principle of
“dual criminality” that existed under old extradition laws. This means
that someone in Britain can be extradited for something that is not a crime
here - as long as it is a criminal offence in the state requesting
extradition.
The
reform was rushed through in part as a response to terrorism after September
11. Ministers also argued that it would speed up a cumbersome and slow
extradition process, helping criminals to be brought more swiftly to
justice.
Critics
pointed out, however, that people could find themselves charged with an
offence they did not know existed because racism or xenophobia, for example,
can be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. The spectre of
“thought crime”, a person facing trial for broadcasting xenophobic or
racist remarks such as denying the Holocaust on an internet chatroom in
another country - as alleged against Dr Toben - was the very criticism
raised against the warrant before it took effect.
At
the time ministers undertook that if such “offences” took place in
Britain, the perpetrators would not be extradited. However, in defence of
the European Arrest Warrant it is argued that a country cannot ask for
someone to be extradited on suspicion of committing a far-fetched offence
that would never be a crime in most states.
Lord
Filkin, then the Home Office Minister, said when the legislation went
through Parliament that no one would be extradited for conduct that was
legal in Britain.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4863800.ece
____________________________________________________
Remember 2003?
Britons face extradition for 'thought crime' on net
By Philip Johnston, Home
Affairs Editor, Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 18/02/2003
British citizens will be
extradited for what critics have called a "thought crime" under
a new European arrest warrant, the Government has conceded.
The Government has
undertaken that if such "offences" take place in Britain
the perpetrators would not be extradited - but it will be for the
courts to decide the location of the crime.
This opens up the prospect
of a judge agreeing to extradite someone whose observations, though
made in Britain, were broadcast exclusively in a country where they
constitute a crime.
Legislation now before
Parliament will make "xenophobia and racism" one of 32
crimes for which the
European arrest warrant can be issued without the existing
safeguard of dual criminality. This requires that an extraditable
offence must also be a crime in the UK. Alongside the arrest
warrant, EU ministers are negotiating a new directive to establish a
common set of offences to criminalise xenophobia and racism.
Countries such as Germany
and Austria have crimes such as denying the Holocaust which
have no equivalent in Britain. Under current laws, if a British
citizen committed this offence in Germany and returned to the UK, he
could not be extradited.
However, this will change
when the arrest warrant becomes law next year. Lord Filkin, the Home
Office minister, told MPs: "If someone went to Germany and
stood up in Cologne market place and shouted the odds, denying the
Holocaust, and then came back [to Britain], they would be subject to
extradition under the European arrest warrant."
Holocaust denial laws are
in place in seven EU countries but
they would be a big departure for Britain, where a risk of
fomenting public disorder is needed before a thought becomes a
crime.
A German historian who
claimed that Auschwitz prisoners enjoyed cinemas, a swimming pool
and brothels was sentenced
to 10 months in jail. [=
Toben in 1999]
Lord Filkin has insisted
that no one would be extradited "in respect of conduct which
has occurred here and which is legal here". But when he was
asked by the European scrutiny committee of the House of Commons
whether comments originating in Britain but carried abroad on
television or through an internet chatroom would be extraditable, he
said: "It will be for the courts to decide."
While he was adamant that
a British citizen would not be extradited for a xenophobia or racism
offence if part of the conduct took place in the UK, the committee
asked whether this principle would be made clear in the
Extradition Bill now before Parliament.
The proposed EU directive
would extend the offences of racism and xenophobia to include
discrimination on the grounds of religious conviction - something
that was dropped by the Government more than a year ago following
fierce opposition.
Britain has negotiated a
deal under which the offences will only apply when they involve
incitement to violence. Lord Filkin said this was in line with
current UK race laws.
However, Britain has been
forced to concede a review after two years at which point the
directive could be extended to opinions that are simply considered
offensive and not just those likely to incite violence. Agreement on
the directive has been held up because some EU countries want a
"low threshold for criminality on these issues".
Philip Duly, campaign
manager for the Freedom Association, said the Government should
protect citizens from extradition for what he called "thought
crimes". He added: "The Government has previously
maintained that no one will be extradited for conduct which is not a
crime in the UK. But here we have Lord Filkin admitting that there
are circumstances which will be decided not by ministers but by
courts."
|
_________________________________________________________________________
A
Visit with Sylvia Stolz at Heidelberg Prison on 10 November 2008,
by
Gerard Menuhin – Translated by J M Damon
Following is a remarkable
account written by a prominent Jewish anti-Zionist Germanophile, the son
of one of the greatest concert violinists of all time, who has been
savagely attacked by Zionist Jews.
As
he enters the Heidelberg Justizvollzugsanstalt (prison complex) the visitor
first comes to a counter protected by bulletproof glass, where he has to
surrender his personal identification and visitor’s permit.
[Translator:
Justizvollzugsanstalt literally “justice-carrying-out-institution:” who
says German-Orwellian Newspeak lacks fantasy?]
Then
the visitor has to hand over his mobile telephone, and everything is locked
away in a drawer. After that he is led upstairs into a narrow waiting room,
where his overcoat and wallet are locked in a storage compartment. Finally
he is led through another room and into the visiting room.
The
matron in charge is correct and even sympathetic as she sits down at her
little table in the corner. In a little while Sylvia Stolz enters the room,
wearing a dark skirt.
Her
appearance is familiar from numerous photos I have seen in newspapers and
TV. Her open countenance, youthful bearing and clear girlish voice also seem
familiar. On the surface she appears calm and unperturbed. After a quick
handshake we sit down on opposite sides of the long table.
Again
a thought occurs to me that everyone should keep in mind: this German woman
has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison for uttering unlawful
opinions -- sentenced by a German judicial system that imposes milder
sentences on foreigners who murder German citizens in Germany.
In
an interview, Attorney Stolz once observed: “Germans are not inclined to
chastise others.”
In
view of the anti German propaganda that the Zionists and Gutmenschen
(hypocritical moralizers) spin out like prayer wheels, it is enlightening to
place Silvia’s observation in its historical context.
Sylvia,
a vegetarian, cannot bear to see animals suffer. She
came to politics by way of her observations and convictions in protecting
animals.
Her
sympathy for tormented animals led her to protest their cruel treatment in
experimentation and mass breeding. She has to admit that mere protest and
argumentation have not been successful in putting an end to such practices.
The same is true of the struggle for a legitimate constitution and human
rights (such as freedom of opinion and research.)
Sylvia
thinks that in the liberation struggle against the repression of historical
truth, the best target for attack is the criminal justice system, since that
is where official repression begins.
Tangible
and concrete arguments are essential. In her opinion, there is not much
point to representative parliamentarianism, since present so-called
democracy serves to repress rather than liberate.
She
points out that present day political parties are exposed to tremendous
pressure.
The
parties are similar and interchangeable, and they have little interest in
anything other than holding on to patronage and power. They are unable to do
the right thing even when they perceive what the right thing is.
Thus,
the constant threats of banishment have deformed the NPD until it is barely
distinguishable from the other national parties.
Sylvia
sees little hope for change in the much-ballyhooed American elections, which
were followed closely in Germany.
In
her opinion, Obama is nothing but a puppet.
[She
is right: he is a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine backed by
“big money.”
His
creators shrewdly observed that by nominating an “opportunist with a
suntan” they could consolidate the vote of racial minorities, whereas the
white vote would be split along class, political and regional lines. The
Democrats and Republicans are but two sides of the “Demublican” coin.
Interjected by your translator, who apologizes for the intrusion.]
When
I ask her about her personal predicament, she shrugs the question off, as
though it has no significance. She is reluctant to talk about herself, but I
find it interesting that in her enforced leisure she enjoys composing Bänkellieder
(old-timey, melodramatic “organ-grinder” ballads.)
This
genre of songs from as far back as the 16th Century deals primarily with
Moritaten (popular moralistic themes), but it also deals with contemporary
political commentary.
Bänkellieder
relate stories of bloody murder, true love, betrayal, catastrophes and
controversial political events. Bertolt Brecht’s “Three Penny Opera”
is an example of this enduring literary genre.
Silvia
is also writing a book about animal protection. And what does she read?
Hegel! That’s all she can get.
The
food at Heidelberg “Justice-Carrying-Out-Institution” is catastrophic.
The menu sounds appetizing enough, but the food is barely edible. For
example, today’s menu promises carrot salad, but it is so highly seasoned
that it has to be washed down with oceans of water containing high
concentrations of chlorine.
Does
she get any fruit? Yes, but the apples have a shiny coating of chemicals
that has to be washed away with hot water. It is indeed a criminal act by a
criminal government to incarcerate someone – in this case a woman –
under inquisitorial opinion laws and then endanger that person’s health as
well. Such a situation is infuriating, unacceptable.
Anyone
can put together a proper carrot salad with a little vinegar and oil – it
requires no expertise, so special facilities.
It
seems the kitchen staff are deliberately preparing repulsive meals or, as
has certainly been the case in the past, profiting from selling the higher
quality food items instead of serving it to the prisoners. A dead mouse was
recently found in a prisoner’s food.
Sylvia
is on good terms with most inmates, many of whom need legal advice. She
would like to help them but she is forbidden to give anyone legal advice,
even pro bono, for a period of five years.
Does
she consider herself a martyr for Germany’s sake? Her
answer: “If the price of struggling for Germany’s liberation is
incarceration, then it is worth the sacrifice. Germany’s freedom is so
important to me that I am prepared to sacrifice my own personal freedom.”
Would
she take the same path again, if she could do it over?
With
iron resolution that seems incongruous in such a vulnerable woman, she
answers: “Whatever happens to me: prison has merely strengthened my
conviction.”
Besuch eines Ausländers bei Sylvia Stolz, Heidelberg, 10 November 2008
Betritt man die Justizvollzugsanstalt, wird der Besucher an einer mit
Panzerglas geschützten Theke nach seinem Personalausweis und der
Besuchserlaubnis gefragt. Auch das Mobiltelefon muss abgegeben werden. Alles
wird in einer Schublade verschlossen. Dann wird man eine Treppe hinauf in
einen engen Warteraum geführt, wo Mantel und Geldbeutel in einem Schließfach
deponiert werden müssen. Durch einen Zwischenraum wird man schließlich ins
Gesprächszimmer geführt. Die zuständige Beamtin ist dabei korrekt, ja
vielleicht sogar sympathisch. Sie setzt sich an ihr Tischchen in eine Ecke
des Raumes.
Kurz darauf betritt Sylvia Stolz, deren Aussehen mir durch die inzwischen
zahlreichen Abbildungen in der Presse geradezu vertraut ist, in einem
dunklen Rock den Raum. Das offene Gesicht, die klare, mädchenhafte Stimme.
Dem äußeren Anschein nach erscheint sie ganz ruhig und ausgeglichen. Ein
kurzes Händeschütteln, dann trennen wir uns beidseitig des langen Tisches.
Unwillkürlich muss ich wieder daran denken, und jeder sollte es sich vor
Augen halten: hier wird eine Frau wegen der Äußerung verbotener Gedanken für
dreieinhalb Jahre inhaftiert. Von einer deutschen Justiz, die sich nicht
scheut, selbst bei Totschlag - wenn er denn von Ausländern an Deutschen
begangen wird - eine deutlich mildere Strafe zu verhängen. In einem
Interview hat die Rechtsanwältin Stolz sich dazu folgendermaßen geäußert:
„Die Deutschen an sich neigen nicht dazu, andere zu quälen.“ Angesichts
der von Zionisten und deutschen „Gutmenschen“ gebetsmühlenartig
verbreiteten antideutschen Propaganda lohnt es sich, über diese Meinung
auch im geschichtlichen Zusammenhang nachzudenken.
Das gleiche gilt auch für Tiere. Frau Stolz, eine Vegetarierin, ist über
ihre Erfahrungen und ihre Überzeugungen im Bereich des Tierschutzes zur
Politik gekommen. Ihr Mitleid für die gequälte Kreatur führte sie dazu,
den grauenvollen Umgang mit Tieren, die Tierversuche und die Massenhaltung,
anzuprangern. Inzwischen hat sie eingeräumt, dass Argumente dagegen bislang
leider nicht geholfen haben.
Wenn man gegen die herrschende Unterdrückung der historischen Wahrheit kämpfen
möchte, dann ist das beste Angriffsziel die Justiz, da die Unterdrückung
bei der Justiz anfängt. Hier sind handfeste Argumente das Wesentliche.
Frau Stolz ist der Meinung, dass der repräsentative Parlamentarismus keinen
großen Sinn hat. Denn die (angebliche) Demokratie diene der Unterdrückung,
nicht der Freiheit. Die Blockparteien stünden unter einem großen Druck.
Sie seien untereinander vollkommen vergleichbar und austauschbar und nur
noch daran interessiert, an der Macht zu bleiben, nicht aber zu tun, was sie
für richtig hielten. Die ständige Bedrohung durch ein Parteiverbot
deformiere sowohl die NPD als auch alle anderen nationalen Parteien. Zu den
Wahlen in den USA hatte Frau Stolz wenig zu sagen. Obama sei doch nur eine
Marionette.
Fragt man Sylvia Stolz zu ihren persönlichen Lebensumständen, so wiegelt
sie ab, als ob dies ohne Bedeutung wäre. Über sich selbst spricht sie fast
unwillig, aber es darf hier doch angemerkt werden, dass sie in ihrer
erzwungenen Freizeit gerne Bänkellieder komponiert. Diese aus dem 17.
Jahrhhundert stammende Liedform befasst sich in Versen mit Moritaten, aber
auch mit zeitkritischen Inhalten. Man hört dort von schauerlichen
Geschichten, von Mord, Liebe, Katastrophen und auch aufregenden politischen
Ereignissen. Außerdem schreibt sie zur Zeit ein Buch über Tierschutz. Und
was liest sie? Hegel. Mehr ist nicht zu bekommen.
Das Essen in der JVA Heidelberg ist katastrophal. Der Speiseplan liest sich
noch ganz angenehm, aber in Wirklichkeit ist die Nahrungs fast ungenießbar.
Auf dem Papier gibt es z. B. einen Karottensalat, in Wirklichkeit aber ist
der, vielleicht durch einen Geschmacksverstärker, so scharf, dass Sylvia
Stolz ungeheuren Durst bekommt und danach viel Wasser trinken muss. Dieses
Leitungswasser aber enthält Unmengen von Chlor. Gibt es denn Obst? Ja, aber
die Äpfel haben eine glänzende, mit Chemikalien durchsetzte Schicht, die
nur mit heißem Wasser abgewaschen werden kann.
Es ist wirklich ein Verbrechen, einen Menschen wegzusperren - in diesem Fall
eine Frau -, über den eine Gesinnungsjustiz herfällt, und dann auch noch
dessen Gesundheit zu gefährden. Diese Zustände sind empörend und
unannehmbar. Jeder kann sich zuhause einen anständigen Möhrensalat mit
etwas Essig und Öl anrichten. Es klingt fast so, als ob das Küchenpersonal
absichtlich widerwärtiges Zeug auftischt, oder, wie es schon einmal der
Fall war, sich an nicht ausgereichten Zutaten bereichert, während den
Inhaftierten irgend etwas Minderwertiges vorgesetzt wird. Damals wurde sogar
eine tote Maus im Essen entdeckt.
Für die meisten Gefangenen findet Sylvia Stolz so etwas wie Zuneigung.
Gerne würde sie die Mitgefangenen anwaltlich beraten, aber sie darf Ihnen
auch keine kostenlose Hilfe anbieten, da sie mit einem fünfjährigen
Berufsverbot belegt worden ist.
Betrachtet sich die Gefangene als Märtyrerin für die deutsche Sache? „Wenn
der Preis die Inhaftierung ist, das ist die Sache wert. Die Freiheit ist mir
so wichtig, dass ich bereit bin, meine persönliche Freiheit dafür zu
opfern.“ Würde Sylvia Stolz also diesen Weg noch einmal beschreiten? Mit
einer eisernen Entschlossenheit, die man dieser zarten Frau so kaum zutraut,
antwortet sie: „Was immer mit mir passiert: die Haft hat meine Überzeugung
nur befestigt.“
____________________________
The
vital role of defence lawyers
John
Goldberg, The Advertiser, December
8, 2008
The
Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, said of defence lawyers in State
Parliament on November 26: “I hope that when you drive your BMWs to the
court, you feel proud that you are living off the earnings of those who
murder and try and sell drugs to our kids.”
At
first blush, this seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to make, even
if a little emotional. Why should defence lawyers be permitted to act for
wicked, evil people and, what is even worse, earn money doing it?
Well,
the sad fact is that there is an entire industry built around wicked, evil
people. The police earn a living investigating their crimes. Prosecutors are
paid a salary to prosecute them. Judges are remunerated to conduct and
supervise trials. If they are convicted, prison officers are paid a salary
to guard them and if they are released on parole, parole officers are paid a
salary to supervise them. And,
yes, right in the middle of all this are the defence lawyers, usually funded
by legal aid as a level that might make a manual Ford Festiva affordable,
but if it is a BMW, it would need to be a very old one.
In
any event, how is it determined that the people described by the Premier as
murderers or who try to sell drugs to our kids are guilty of the charge?
Surely only after a trial. Under our legal system, until someone is
convicted, they are presumed innocent.
Back
in 1992, in a case called Dietrich, the High Court said that for a serious
offence, you cannot be put on trial unless you have access to representation
in court. Without representation, there is no way of being satisfied that
you can get a fair trial. And who provides that representation? Why, the
defence lawyers.
It
follows that without defence lawyers, our criminal justice system cannot
function. Based on the High Court decision, courts must refuse to allow a
trial to proceed if the accused requires but is unable to engage a defence
lawyer.
What
that means is that if you want to see people who murder or sell drugs to our
kids end up in prison, they have to be convicted of an offence. That can
only happen if they get a fair trial and for that to occur they must have a
defence lawyer. Perhaps the Premier’s concerns could be met if defence
lawyers only act for those that they consider to be innocent.
The
trouble with that is that defence lawyers would then be doing the work of
the courts; after all, it is the job of a judge or jury to determine guilt
or innocence, not the defence lawyers, not the prosecutors, and not even the
Premier.
What
is even worse in that scenario is that people who appear most guilty would
not be represented and would therefore never be put on trial. The truth of
the matter is that we do not have enough defence lawyers. The pay is lousy
and many of their clients are underprivileged and have psychiatric issues.
It is an unglamorous and stressful job.
So,
Mr Premier, instead of attacking defence lawyers, you should be expressing
gratitude for their vital contribution to the Government’s law and order
campaign.
Fredrick
Töben comments – 9 December 2008:
Upon
reflection, the fact that both Mrs Olga Scully and I could not get any legal
representation at the matters-of-fact stage before the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission, speaks for itself. We were abused and
ridiculed for employing alleged delay tactics because the HREOC
commissioners and Federal Court judges claimed we should handle matters for
ourselves. Mrs Scully did just that, then Judge Heley stated in his judgment
against Mrs Scully that it was not to be a precedent-setting judgment, and
MRs Scully was asked to pay $150,000 costs!
In
my case I unsuccessfully appealed before three FCA judges that Justice
Catherine Branson be removed from the case because of her advising me that I
should go to the law library and read up cases and defend myself – this on
account of my tertiary qualifications. She later handed down an ex-parte
judgment, the foundation of the current contempt of court action. When SC
Robin Margo, counsel for the Applicant, mr Jeremy Jones, made a similar
statement during the 5-7 August 2008 trial in the Adelaide Federal Court, my
legal counsel Mr David Perkins was quick to point out that I may have
tertiary qualifications but “he is not a
lawyer!”
________________
SBS
AUSTRALIA Reports : Holocaust revisionist faces jail in Germany: 7.10.2008
A
German-born Holocaust revisionist is facing extradition to his native
country, where he could be jailed for up to five years. 64 year old Gerald
Fredrick Töben, who's based in Adelaide, is accused of being a Holocaust
denier. Our South Australia correspondent Karen Ashford says Töben was
arrested in dramatic circumstances at London's Heathrow Airport. She is
speaking with Greg Dyett.
Fredrick
Töben comments: I
did not skip bail in 1999 and have not been sentenced by a German court
because in 2000 an appeal court set down a re-trial, which was to be heard
during 2004. However, Judge Adam refused to give me my defence counsel of
choice, Mr Horst Mahler, and when he selected Michael Rosenthal, he refused
to defend me because of fear of self-incrimination at this fact-finding
stage of the proceedings.
_______________________________
Unconditional
Victory for Revisionists
: Dr
Töben Released in London without Bail, case dismissed
–
George Kadar reports
, 21
November 2008
On
19 November in the afternoon Dr Töben was released after spending 50 days
in a medieval prison in London.
Behind
the arrest was the German warrant, worded with the linguistic skills of a
ten year old child, without any specifics of dates and locations of the
“crime”. Töben was charged for questioning the holocaust from his
Australian website that can be read from Germany and was kidnapped off a
plane coming from America and going to Dubai. After the first court hearings
it was clear to this writer that Töben will be extradited within ten days
to Germany where the Mannheim prosecutors already, publicly promised him
five long years in prison.
HMP
Wandsworth entrance with Serco prison transport
Solicitor
Mr Kevin Lowry-Mullins with Lady Michele Renouf
And
then Lady Michele Renouf suddenly like a protecting angel out of the clear
blues sky shows up with an attorney, a top extradition specialist who spent
his first 30 minutes in the courtroom telling the judge that the warrant is
worthless and that his client already agreed to take the case to the highest
court and is willing to spend the two years in jail to wait for the results.
Public
opinion was so strongly on Töben’s side in England that the case had the
potential to become a nightmare for those who cajoled the public into the
swamp of the EU laws where anybody can be grabbed and delivered to the land
of the EU – THE BIG HAPPY FAMILY WHERE “EVERYBODY BENEFITS” – and
thrown into a convenient Gulag for thought criminals.
In
addition the British Nationalist Party is on the war path against the
corrupted to the bone British establishment and is due to benefit from every
serious mistake it makes.
On
top of that there was the danger that a legal precedent can be established
if Töben wins at the high court. Therefore, after the Crown Prosecution
Services indicated to Berlin that their case was on shaky ground, Solicitor
Kevin Lowry-Mullins signed a consent agreement that activated an
“executive order” and Töben was released from HMP Wandsworth and on the
street, within the hour, no bail or any conditions, without a shred of
paperwork proving that he has ever been there. Prior there was a £100,000
bail set with draconian conditions, on the edge of the impossible like they
were specifically designed for the re-arrest of Dr Toben.
Behind
the desperate German warrant is the deeply upset Prosecutor Klein from
Mannheim who had to endure Dr Töben’s lectures on intellectual freedom
repeatedly, in 1997 and 1999. As one of his last acts before retirement he
signed the warrant for Töben in October 2004, hoping that Töben will be
caught in a place where warrants are only served but not read by the
authorities.
Fredrick
Töben after his release
It
seems that he was not satisfied with the seven months term Töben served in
jail in Mannheim on the 1999 occasion. Now, Mr Klein was forced to see that
his work of art was withdrawn by the German government and Töben walked
into the sunset, spreading the word to all with an open mind.
Dr
Töben is truly a seasoned revisionist who duplicated the world famous Zündel
and Irving trials in Australia. After establishing the Adelaide Institute in
1994 Toben and company were dragged into never ending court cases by the
Australian Jewish organizations. Töben presents a flawless lecture with the
dates and names on the whole of the revisionist movement and states: “My
mission is to provoke the judiciary.” He wants them to show their hand,
for all to see. He also traveled the globe to spread the knowledge that
revisionism created. However he goes behind the usual revisionist subjects
when he states: “The Germanic and Judeo mindset are incompatible.” And
here he is referring to a crash of two cultures that can not coexist. Töben
is German by birth but spent most of his life in Australia.
On
the day of Töben’s arrest, on 1 October 2008, the news in the media
spread like Californian brushfire driven by dry Santa Ana winds. All the
minor details were properly colored. Every paper dutifully repeated the
idiotic lie how Töben was changing seats to avoid detection when actually
he was sleeping on the US to London American Airlines flight on an empty row
of seats.
After
Dr Töben was released it took long days for a few articles to appear. One
really had to do some hard reading to figure out that he was released
unconditionally.
And
something else changed: The Jewish
Chronicle of London called Dr Töben a “revisionist historian”.
Other, mainstream Jewish publications state that maybe, it is time to take
this struggle “from the courtrooms to the classrooms”.
It seems that the decades of hard labor of the IHR with Willis Carto
at the helm is getting to them. The international media was silent on the
occasion of this major revisionist victory.
However,
not everybody was willing to allow the event to slide by so easily. Lady
Michele Renouf scheduled a press conference in Central London for November
24, at
2:00PM
. The guest of honor this time was Professor Robert Faurisson.
Lady
Michele at the news conference
The
media – although invited – generally shunned the event, they might have
had enough of revisionism for now.
Professor
Faurisson at the November 24,
2008 news conference
Professor
Faurisson – as usual – delivered a fiery speech, telling us all that he
does not have a lawyer anymore in France, nobody dares to defend him. He is
a veteran of more revisionist combat than an average Russian soldier who
made it from Moscow to Berlin. Regardless,
he invited President Sarkozy to raise his objections against his views, if
the President finds that action necessary.
George
Kadar and Fredrick Töben
This
writer only considers himself privileged to meet these men, some of the
bravest and the best of their generation. The men who refused to give up.
