In Defence of Dr. Fredrick Toben 

Founder and former director of Adelaide Institute, and the first prisoner of conscience in Australia's legal history.  

by David Brockschmidt

Truth in History must never be decided in courtrooms. To use the Racial Vilification Act against Dr.Toben - Adelaide Institute by Jeremy Jones, a prominent figure within Jewish-Zionist circles in Australia, is plainly wrong, because Jews are not a race.

Australia has other laws to deal with slander and defamation which could have been used by Jeremy Jones if he felt slandered and/or defamed. If the Legal system in Australia includes Jews into a racial category, then Australia indirectly agrees with Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists of Germany who declared and classified Jews as a race. Any anthropologist anywhere in the world, including the State of Israel will state clearly that Jews are not a race. According to the ABC1 Compass program of Sunday, 16th August 2009, 9.35 PM Titled "Mazal Tov, Mazal Tov! " (which means - Good Luck, Good Luck!), let me quote a a Rabbi from this program, who said "Judaism is not a religion, and not a culture, but a way of life" This statement surprised me because in my understanding Judaism is indeed a religion and a culture, and not only a way of life. If this Rabbi would be correct, neither the Racial nor the Religious Vilification Act could have been used against Dr Fredrick Toben - Adelaide Institute.

In regards to our Toben-Adelaide Institute judgement, let me make the following points:

Firstly, as we all know, Justice is blind and so are many politically correct Judges these days. Dr Toben put it into one sentence after these judges were sending him to jail, and denying him a last word. He said loudly and clearly for everyone to hear, addressing the judges on their way out of the courtroom "You are following blind orders Gentlemen".

Secondly, The Toben-AI case shows Australia and indeed the World, that Australia has abandoned common Law and common sense. 

Thirdly, the court procedures against Dr Toben-AI within the last several years, make it crystal clear that there is no freedom of speech, no freedom of scientific and historical research in this country, if this research collides with the taboo mantra of so-called Holocaust studies. These studies are not identical with the research regarding the Shoa.  The old Marxist dialectic applies to Holocaust research today in Australia, which is "it cannot be, what is not allowed to be". Anything what does not fit this brave new world order framework, expressed either verbally and/or in print, is classified as hate speech. The law-makers in this country, and indeed the whole Western world, decide what is love and what is hate speech. The rules are simple, hate is what affects the national interest and love is what serves the national interest of the country. 

Let me give you and example here, Love, is if we go into Afghanistan or Iraq with our freedom loving allies and having a 'smashing time' there. Destroying their infrastructure and loving innocent Afghani and Iraqi civilians to death, plundering their antiquities sites, which means destroying their history. Helping to establish permanent US army and air-force bases. Corrupting the people with pornography and other toxic sludge, produced in our freedom loving Western world, which will one day destroy us too. We all do that because we love Iraq, for example so much, not their people of course, but their oil. Anybody who opposes our 'giant love-in' in Iraq and Afghanistan, not only acts against the national interest of our Nation, but is classified as a Hater and Terrorist sympathiser. To repeat George W Bush's sentence here, who said "If you are not with us, you are with the terrorists" 

So what has that to do with the Toben-AI case here? Dr Toben has been classified as a  'Hater', not only by the system Media, employing thousands of conformist intellectual prostitutes, poison-pen artists, and ink-pissers.  There are, of course some shining examples within Journalism who have protected their personal and professional integrity, in not prostituting themselves to the media czars worldwide. I am especially thinking here of the British Journalist - Robert Fisk, the Australian Investigative journalist - Chris Masters, and the late Paul Leinem. Also John Pilger, and Greg Palast come to mind. Classifying Dr Toben as a 'Hater' surprises me also personally because the feedback that I got when he was still teaching was that he loved his work, he was a good educator- teacher with a good sense of humour. Dr Toben hold two BA's and a Doctorate in Philosophy. He has not only taught in Australia, but in other parts of the World, visited and worked in many countries, including the State of Israel, and taught for a lengthy period in Nigeria. When he asked his students in Nigeria what they thought about corruption in their country, one student answered " Sir, yes we have corruption here in Nigeria. The difference between ours, and your corruption is simple. Your corruption is more sophisticated than ours. You are not only financially corrupt but morally and intellectually too. Your corruption is driven by your greed for money and by the plundering of our resources. Our corruption is based on poverty caused by your ruthless exploitation of our workforce and our country as a whole. Every dollar you invest in our country, you make sure you get three to four dollars back, Sir. This imprisons us in your debt-trap which is based on your usury, speculation and financial system. We are not as cunning and conniving as you are Sir. But don't worry Sir, Africans, at least us Nigerians are fast learners. One day we will beat you at your own game.  This is the eternal law of Karma."

Lets go back to the Toben-AI case, thanks to the three Federal Court Judges, Dr Toben has now checked-in to Hotel Yatala, South Australia's University of crime, proudly sponsored by the government of South Australia. Let's hope that Dr Toben will lecture revisionist history to the other 'guests' because every thinking person must revise in order to find out what is the Truth, and what are Lies. It is always said that Dr Toben is not in jail because of his beliefs, his research and his studies of history, but for his contempt of court. That of course in my honest opinion is utter nonsense. The World knows why Dr Toben is in jail ! I personally have also a problem with giving unlimited respect to our legal system and our courts, which of course includes the judges. When the whole legal actions against Dr Toben started, in front of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission in South Australia, Dr Toben asked the then Commissioner Kathleen McEvoy, "Is truth a defence in my case here?". The Commisioner answered, "Not Necessarily". This left me speechless, because if truth is no defence, then the system is morally bankrupt. It is B.E.A as we said in the army, which means Beyond Economical Repair, ready for the scrap heap. So we might as well call HREOC - O'HREOC which means, the Orwellian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission. As George Orwell said in his brilliant book, 1984, "Truth telling is always a revolutionary act."

Last, but not least, let me comment on Dr Toben's critique regarding our legal system and the rule of law in Australia. Let's have a look if his critique has some merit. 

Very few Judges apply the principle of Common Law today. It is generally agreed that the legal system in this country has failed the people of Australia, Justice is blind and indeed so are more and more Judges today. It seems that these Judges are totally disconnected from the realities of real life. Their judgements are sometimes very strange indeed. this raises the question, are these judges living in a different world than us?, or are they completely off the Planet? 

Judges are supposed to uphold the rule of Law, but more and more exceptions are made here. Judges allow tribal law to be applied in disputes between Aboriginal people, for example. 

Dr Toben's accusation, that Judges and the legal system in this country are influenced and infiltrated by powerful Jewish-Zionist groups needs some closer examination. Dr Toben believed that some judges in South Australia have lost their independence. According to Dr Toben, they still  uphold the rule of Law, but it is not the law of the land, but Talmudic Law, the religious Law of Judaism. Let's hope that Dr Toben is wrong here, because according to Talmudic Law we Gentiles are not even classified as Human beings, but as animals. So, if Dr Toben is right, and we are ruled by Talmudic Law, then we might change the name of this country from the Commonwealth of Australia, to Talmudistan. We also have to make sure that our legal counsels representing us in case of conflict come from the Animal Rights movement.

The laws of the Commonwealth of Australia based on the Westminster system, must never ever by replaced, nor supplemented with any tribal and/or religious laws, for example Talmudic Law and/or Sharia Law. If we want to survive as a nation which is united, we must stop the erosion of common law and Habeas Corpus in Australia, otherwise it makes the law of the land look like Swiss cheese. How far we have gone down this road of legal spiritual and intellectual self destruction, is shown in two articles entitled: "What! Jewish Law comes first?" by Betty Luks, and "The legal system out of control?" by Ian Wilson LL.B

WHAT ! JEWISH LAW COMES FIRST ?

by Betty Luks
Rabbi Moshe Gutnick, brother of mining magnate “Diamond Joe” Gutnik, went to the New South Wales Supreme Court to stop his congregation, the Mizrachi Synagogue, from making him redundant. The “congregation” argued that Rabbi Gutnik is just an employee “who is made redundant in difficult financial times”. If the Rabbi’s salary were not cut, the synagogue would have to be placed in administration. But Rabbi Gutnick argued that he has life tenure and even if his position was to be terminated, he would be entitled to a payout of over $1 million. He argued that a Jewish tribunal should determine the matter.

The NSW Supreme Court held that “the balance of convenience favours this dispute being determined by a Jewish tribunal in accordance with Jewish law.” The court rejected the argument against this that the Jewish principle of life tenure “could not overwrite the ability on the part of the employer to make a position redundant,” particularly where that might lead to the synagogue trading “while insolvent, which is a breach of the Corporations Law” (The Australian, 1/4/09, p.5).

This seems to place the synagogue in the position of having to go into administration. If so, I believe that Rabbi Gutnick will have to wait in line while the administrator sorts out the liabilities. The court’s decision, in my opinion, is flawed and it does not follow that Rabbi Gutnick is “not an ordinary employee because of the spiritual nature of his employment.” Where does it say that “spiritual nature(s)” matter in employment relations? Would the court’s decision be the same if they were deciding a parallel matter involving a Christian minister? What precedent has been set?

 

IS THE LEGAL SYSTEM OUT OF CONTROL?

by Ian Wilson LL.B.
In this article I will discuss two books which argue that the American legal system – and by implication the common law systems in other parts of the world – are out of control. The two books are Catherine Crier, "The Case Against Lawyers: How Lawyers, Politicians and Bureaucrats Have Turned the Law into an Instrument of Tyranny – and What We as Citizens Have to Do About It" (Broadway Books, New York, 2002) and Philip K. Howard, "The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating America", (Warner Books 1994).

Crier argues that the rule of law “has become a source of power and influence, not liberty and justice” (p.5). First off, she laments about the massive awards delivered in some celebrated American tort/personal injury cases – one accident at an amusement park that led to a girl dying of burns injuries – led to an award of US$1.2 billion. Excessive she says (p.9). Tobacco litigation is in her opinion “ridiculous” for illegal drug users go to prison but “cigarette addicts get money instead” (p.10).
Worse: “Lawyers are making out like bandits as we litigate the most inane conflicts” (p.13). These include our arguments over “potential” problems in products. Indeed, Crier cites a book by Norman Augustine, "Augustine’s Laws", which allegedly shows that the more lawyers a country has, the greater the drain upon the country’s economic growth (p.14).

I am not impressed by these arguments as some type of critique of lawyers. We can grant that the accident case yielding $1.2 billion is excessive but only because we have come to value money over a life and are quite prepared to put a low monetary value on a life. The comparison between cigarette smokers and illegal drug users does not hold because illegal drug users have not been able to promote their products through manipulative advertisements and, after all, tobacco is legal, not illegal.
And finally Crier’s attitude towards lawyers seems to me “over the top”. She quotes Shakespeare in Henry VI: “First thing we do is kill all the lawyers” and says “we applaud this suggestion today” (p.180).
The reason apparently is that lawyers “now dominate our government” and “ have taken their “rightful” place at the helm, issuing and executing orders in the name of stability over anarchy and structure over freedom” (p.181).

Philip K. Howard in "The Death of Common Sense", an earlier published book, covers much the same ground as Crier’s "The Case Against Lawyers". In my opinion it is a better argued book because Howard begins his discussion with the real legal problem of modern society: the massive bureaucracy and regulations and laws that run modern life, crush freedom and individual creativity, resulting in what sociologist Max Weber described as the “iron cage of capitalism”. Crier does mention this problem throughout her book, but she puts the blame on lawyers per se.
To my mind, this confuses cause and effect. Maybe, just maybe, lawyers are maggots, but they are only present in the meat of society, because society has become so rotten! The causes of this rot must be sought at a deeper level and the popular ‘blame lawyer’ books are too superficial in my opinion to go to the heart of things.

The growth of laws and bureaucracy in modern society is a dual product of population expansion and centralisation. More people means informality goes. Once upon a time one could leave one’s car unlocked, but today we need electronic security alarms.
There is also the ethnic factor that goes with population increase: homogenous Western societies have been deliberately broken down by multicultural and multiracial immigration policies. In turn, social capital and trust have been lost. Thus only law and the power of the sate – an authority with the monopoly of violence, holds things together. As Major Douglas also showed, with increasing centralisation, there is a decrease of individual freedom.

In conclusion, blaming lawyers for the expansion of oppressive laws is a rather superficial critique. The “problem of law” is just another version of the “problem of economics” discussed weekly in these pages and has the same origin and solution.

                                         ******************

Dear reader, after reading these two articles, you make up your own mind, if Dr Toben is right or wrong here. 

The walls which incarcerate Dr Toben now, will come down like the Berlin Wall has come down. Political correctness which is nothing else but intellectual terrorism, according to Dame Leonie Kramer, will disappear. The walls of fear have come down already. Leaders pay attention, the masses are becoming restless and angry. Globalism will end up where it belongs- onto the scrap heap of History. Nations will again be Masters in their own houses, and not run by corrupt politicians, Multi-national corporations and the parasitic criminally insane tribes of Wall street, including their misfit off-springs around the World. The Bernie Maddoffs of this World will be locked up in Loony-bins, and the keys thrown away. Usury, speculation and pornography will be outlawed. The value of money will again be based on the principle of social credit which was the founding principle of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, a true people's bank. The value of our currency will be based not any more on criminal monetary manipulation and so-called rating agencies, but it will be based on what is in the ground, on the ground, in our muscles, in our heads and our production. The way we live today with the principle of live now and pay later is not sustainable and the road to disaster. Otherwise this will lead to a nation of tribes, a truly disunited country, which will turn in times of war and hardship into another Yugoslavia. Let's stop the one-World loonies now, we are not puppets on their strings. The real power must go back to the people, the people of Australia. We must stand up and fight for our rights in order to ensure the future of our children.

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

©-free 2009 Adelaide Institute