Töben’s endeavour of telling the truth about the so-called
‘Holocaust’, among other things, and the consequences he took into
account for insisting that it is his moral duty to tell the truth, have
been variously interpreted – often revealing more about the writers’
state of mind than about what Töben’s world view is all about.
such article appeared in Adelaide’s The Advertiser on 26 May
2009. Written by a John Goldberg, president of the Law Society of South
Australia, it clearly illustrates a mind that finds itself in a
conceptual prison, and is not comfortable with itself. It is the soul
destroying Talmudic-Marxist mindset that cannot imagine anything outside
of its own dialectic process, and hence any kind of idealism is
interpreted through the infantile eyes of Freudian psychology. In Töben’s
case, so Goldberg contends, the matter is simple – he wants to be a
martyr. But this is an easy way out of a huge moral dilemma, which the
following fact: the truth concept is the foundation on which
civilisations rest because without it we have no trust, and without
trust relationships break down, and a one-dimensional world appears in
the form of the legal conceptual prison.
example if a dialectic is set that states the following moral dilemma:
‘Do I tell the truth or do I obey the law’, the Talmudist would fall
into a frenzy and ramble on: “…obey the law, obey the law, obey the
life-giving dialectic process of German philosopher Hegel would state
the following: “I tell the truth AND obey the law’.
this is nothing new for civilized individuals. Was it not Christ who
rebelled against the Talmudic mindset by bringing in the truth-telling
moral dimension, thereby eliminating an absolutist/unbalanced and
materialistic-only world view?
is John Goldberg’s article:
to jail the hard way
Guest Columnist John Goldberg, May
24, 2009 11:30pm
of the great privileges we enjoy in Australia is freedom of speech. We
are able to speak and write publicly and freely on almost any topic. No
rights, however, come without restriction, and freedom of speech is no
from defamation laws that protect damage to reputation, there are other
things that you cannot do in the name of free speech. An often-quoted
example is falsely calling out "fire" in a crowded cinema or
nightclub. Australia, in common with many countries, has an
additional restraint on free speech.
the Racial Discrimination Act, it is unlawful to communicate words,
sounds, images or writing to the public if they are reasonably likely to
offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group and it
is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the
other person or people.
is described as racial vilification. Although racial vilification is
unlawful, it is not a criminal offence. I now turn to the curious case
of Dr Fredrick Töben. He is, or was, a director of the so-called
Adelaide Institute and is a German-born Australian and a serial
Holocaust denier. He has just been sentenced to three months'
imprisonment by the Australian Federal Court in circumstances which he
describes as being for the sake of his right of free expression.
Germany, unlike in Australia, Holocaust denial is a crime. Töben knows
that only too well. The challenge for Töben was to achieve martyrdom in
Australia on the altar of freedom of speech by being imprisoned for
Holocaust denial. As it is not a crime in Australia, how could he
get himself locked up? The answer is: With great difficulty, unless you
are as persistent and resourceful as Töben. To start with, you have to
engage in racial vilification and have a determination made against you
under the Racial Discrimination Act. Töben managed to achieve that in
then have to refuse to comply with that determination until the Federal
Court orders you to comply.
happened in 2002 when he was ordered to remove material from his
Adelaide Institute website where he denied the Holocaust and suggested,
among other things, that Jewish people who were offended were of limited
intelligence and that Jews exaggerated the number of people slaughtered
for ulterior purposes.
next step is to ignore the Federal Court orders but when you are finally
charged with contempt of court, unreservedly apologise and undertake to
comply with the orders. That happened in November, 2007.
then have to immediately change your mind and continue to maintain the
offending material on your website for a further 18 months until you are
again charged and ultimately found guilty of 24 counts of contempt of
court. That happened in April this year.
when it comes to sentencing submissions, you suggest to the court that
in the Australian justice system, Jewish people get preferred treatment.
That was in May this year.
it was a long and difficult path but Frederick Töben finally got there;
three months' jail for contempt of court.
quite as easy as going to jail for Holocaust denial in Germany, but
undoubtedly well worth the effort if martyrdom is your objective.
Goldberg is president of the Law Society of SA.
©-free 2009 Adelaide Institute