Dr 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.

One 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.

For 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 law…”.

The life-giving dialectic process of German philosopher Hegel would state the following: “I tell the truth AND obey the law’.

All 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?

Here is John Goldberg’s article:

 

 

Going to jail the hard way

By Guest Columnist John Goldberg, May 24, 2009 11:30pm

 

ONE 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 exception.

Apart 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.

Under 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.

This 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.

In 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 October, 2000.

You then have to refuse to comply with that determination until the Federal Court orders you to comply.

That 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.

The 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.

You 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.

Then 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.

Well, it was a long and difficult path but Frederick Töben finally got there; three months' jail for contempt of court.

Not quite as easy as going to jail for Holocaust denial in Germany, but undoubtedly well worth the effort if martyrdom is your objective.

John Goldberg is president of the Law Society of SA.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,25531484-5013696,00.html

  

 

 

 

©-free 2009 Adelaide Institute