Order 14, Rule 2
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NSD327 of 2001
AFFIDAVIT OF FREDRICK TÖBEN
On 27 August 2007 I, Fredrick Töben, of
Wattle Park, in the State of South Australia, say on oath:
1. I make reference to my previous affidavits of 17 January, 5 March, 9 August and 13 August 2007.
2. As a teacher I attempted to be an example to my students by fulfilling my moral, social and legal duties.
3. As an academic I attempted to uphold the moral and intellectual integrity of my world view and of my work done in the public’s interest.
This mindset flowed into my work at Adelaide Institute that has been on-going
for 14 years beginning in 1994. Until about two years ago we had associates in
each Australian state, but this was discontinued on account of pending and
threateningly expensive legal court action. There are enough precedents to hand
that prove dissident thinkers are legally persecuted by those who feal
threatened by their work for whatever reason. The latest example is Richard
Krege who was our ACT Associate. After attending the Teheran Holocaust
Conference in December 2006 he was dismissed upon his return from his job with
the Commonwealth Government’s Air Services at Canberra where he had worked for
almost ten years. It is well known that I do not have anything to lose, having
already lost everything dear to me when the Victorian Education Department
dismissed me in 1984 – as written up in my book: The Boston-Curry Party.
5. In 1995 the local Adelaide Advertiser and Brisbane-based Courier Mail began to vilify me personally because of my work by using the following words: hater, Holocaust denier, antisemite, racist, neo-Nazi. After 9:11 the additional word terrorist has also been used. Not a single one of these words has ever been openly/publicly defined in court because they are merely used to stifle debate on contentious issues.
The procedure used by HREOC in Australia is almost an exact copy of that
used by Jewish groups in Canada against Revisionist and German nationalist Ernst
Zündel when he faced the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and later the court
in Toronto in 1985, 1988 and 1992, among other dates. Annexed hereto
and marked “1” is a copy of an Anti Defamation League article: >Ernst
Zündel: Holocaust Denier, Neo-Nazi Propagandist<, and I make reference to
When the matter came before Commissioner McEvoy, substantive issues of the
subject matter complained about, i.e. defining the above abuse terms and the
numerous historical issues, were not aired in court. I failed to secure legal
representation and this procedural fact mirrored the legal procedure used in a
number of Civil Law countries, in particular Germany, where absolute privilege
does not attach to matters aired in court, as it does in Common Law countries.
Any defence in a German court is foregone because in matters under Section 130
of the German Criminal Code anyone who attempts to justify actions is regarded
to be aggravating the offence, and any barrister who engages in any defence
activity will automatically be charged. Any defence is thus impossible – and
what the judge determines, as judges did during the witch-trials, is whether the
accused shows remorse or not. We saw this procedure applied recently in Germany
where Ernst Zündel received a maximum of five years prison because he dared
state in his final address to court that were his assertions and beliefs about
World War Two German historical events proven wrong, then he would apologize to
world Jewry. This was considered by Justice Meinerzhagen to be an aggravation of
the charge Zündel was facing, and the judge imposed the maximum of five years
prison, a heavy sentence to bear for being a thought criminal. In Germar
Rudolf’s case the sentence imposed was relatively light – 30 months prison.
Rudolf did not take advantage of making a final submission to court because he
felt he had said everything in his main submission.
My appearance before the HREOC, and my 1998 submissions of various books upon
which I relied in forming my views of the historical issues, in particular Dr
Joel Hayward’s MA thesis which stated, as did Professor Arthur Butz’s The
Hoax of the Twentieth Century, there was no systematic extermination of
European Jews. This created uproar behind the scenes, as witnessed in the
vicious media frenzy that engulfed Dr Hayward and Canterbury University in New
Zealand, something the commissioner did not report upon in her October 2000
Reasons for Decision. It was during 2000 that the thrust of the MA Thesis had
been demolished, not through empirical research but through a >bending to
Jewish pressure<, abstract arguments that had nothing to do with empirically
testing of various assertions made by those who felt threatened by the Hayward
thesis’ conclusion. Also, Dr Hayward received death threats, and so he
apologized for his “error’ and stated “I stuffed up”. Canterbury
University stood firm and refused to downgrade the MA to a BA, as New
Zealand’s Zionists demanded, because the investigation could not find any
evidence of Dr Hayward having been dishonest or lied. It was also in 1999 that
Commissioner McEvoy received an honour from the University of Mannheim for her
legal work on human rights done at The University of Adelaide. Ironically, while
she received the honour I was incarcerated at Mannheim Prison for seven months
for having committed thought-crimes.
In the Federal Court of Australia, where the HREOC material was heard before
Justice Branson, any substantive argument in support of my beliefs was not made
because I could not find legal counsel to represent me who would present the
matters of fact upon which I rely and have them examined and cross-examined.
To the allegations as stated in the Applicant’s
Affidavit of 1 November 2006, I state the following:
When Commissioner McEvoy handed down her 2000 Reasons for
Decision, I had a few days earlier deleted the full contents of Adelaide
Institute’s website. Bearing her comments in mind, except for the demand of
making a written apology to the Applicant and Australia’s Jewish community, I
again began to publish my research material on Adelaide Institute’s website.
When Her Honour, Justice Branson handed down her judgment in
2002 and ordered that certain material be deleted, that material had already
ceased to exist two years prior to the order coming into effect. However, I
again removed the full content of Adelaide Institute’s website that had been
on display since 2000. Bearing Her Honour’s Orders in mind I began for third
time to publish material on Adelaide Institute’s website, adding a disclaimer
thereto – we are merely reporting on matters in the public interest. Recently
I Googled the Internet and found one of the items ordered to be deleted from the
website headed:>About the Adelaide
Institute<. I make reference to Annexure “4” of my Affidavit
of 9 August 2007. The
contents of this item clarifies the rationale influencing work published on
Adelaide Institute. To this day I cannot understand why the material within this
article is offensive. It presents in an objective way the aim and objectives of
To the specific Orders made by Her Honour Justice Branson on 17 September
2000 I state the following:
Order A – the
term >Holocaust< is a generic term that Jewish interests have attempted to
use singularly, with some success. However, this has not proven conclusive and
Jewish interests now use the term >Shoah< whenever reference is made to
the 1933-45 World War Two period of history concerning matters Jewish.
references to >a bloody holocaust< when referring to the World War One
Battle of Fromelles, ref. . Further references to various Holocausts can be
found by using an Internet search
engine. Annexed hereto and marked “3” is a copy of the International
Express, August 7, 2007.
If one talks about
the Holocaust, then in a Court Order it should at least be specified as >the
Jewish-Nazi Holocaust< otherwise it is subject to inference that the Order is
biased and made at the behest of Jewish supremacist interests, among other
In the world media
there are also references to the >American Holocaust<, the >Abortion
Holocaust<, the >Hitler Holocaust<, the >Space Holocaust<, the
>Armenian Holocaust<, the >Jewish Bolshevik Holocaust<, et al.
12.1.6 I would now like to comment on each of the items listed in the Applicant’s Affidavit of 1 November 2006 Schedule marked “B” – numbered 1 to 81
concerning the matter of the Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers. Does this Order
- does it refer to
the homicidal gas chambers known as Krema II at Auschwitz-Birkenau, also known
as Auschwitz II? – or
- does it refer to
the homicidal gas chambers located in Bunker II, also known as a farm house,
just outside of the Auschwitz II concentration camp complex, as stated by German
historian Fritjof Meyer in May 2002. Meyer also de-commissioned the homicidal
gas chambers at Krema II.
12.2.4 - does it refer to Gitta Sereny’s assertion as stated in The Times, 29 August 2001 that >>Her ruthless desire to stick to the facts – that, say, Auschwitz was not a ‘death camp’ – has not always won her friends. She is particularly scathing about the identification of Hitler’s evil with the death of the Jews and only the Jews. She deplored the use of the word “holocaust”, she says.<<
12.2.5 I would now like to comment on each of the items listed in the Applicant’s Affidavit of 1 November 2006 Schedule marked “B” – numbered 82 to 117.
Order C concerning
the limited intelligence of those who are offended by and challenge
Revisionists. I would strongly object to my work ever alluding to anyone who
objects to it as being of limited intelligence. Such a view would reflect badly
upon my own person and my philosophical training would thereby be negated.
a teacher who has taught at secondary and tertiary level, if one has such a view
of one’s students mental potential, it would negate the world view that holds
all humans are capable of developing moral and intellectual values, which then
express themselves in the battle of the wills where, especially in my case, the
scape-goating mindset and control-freakery has no home.
reference to Annexure “4” of my Affidavit of 9 August 2007,
wherein appears the following: >>If I offend anybody because I show poor
taste in my sometime blunt and honest questioning, then I apologise. However, if
I offend because I am politically incorrect by asking uncomfortable questions,
then I claim it as my right, under the free speech principle, to say these
I would now
like to comment on each of the items listed in the Applicant’s
Affidavit of 1 November 2006
Schedule marked “B” – numbered 118
Order D concerning
the assertion that there is what Professor Norman Finkelstein called a
12.4.2 I would now like to comment on each of the items listed in the Applicant’s Affidavit of 1 November 2006 Schedule marked “B” – numbered 123 to 144.
I repeat my assertion that I refuse to
be locked up within the conceptual prison wherein the Applicant attempts to
place me, which is made up of the following words: hater, Holocaust denier,
neo-Nazi, and the latest terrorist.
I oppose any mindset that thrives on applying such words without clarifying
them, without giving one such labelled a right-of-reply. This offends against
the basic Common Law principle of Natural Justice. Instead, the Applicant has
continued to defame me personally within the media outlets that he controls, for
example in The Review, Australia’s primary Zionist monthly publication.
The latest he called me was >ratbag< in one of the comments he made about
my attending the Teheran ‘Holocaust’ conference in December 2007. This
indicates to me that the Applicant has abandoned civilising principles, such as
reason and understanding, as he wishes to suggest it is I who lack these
13.1 The mindset that denies basic Common Law principles, for example the presumption of innocence, is rampant within these proceedings. It is only a step away from employing the term terrorist to dissident thinkers, as was implied by the Canadian Justice system when it used on Revisionist Ernst Zündel the now declared illegal >Security Certificate< in order to justify his deportation to Germany. I make reference to Annexure “1”, a copy of the Anti Defamation League article: >Ernst Zündel: Holocaust Denier, Neo-Nazi Propagandist<.
The pattern of legal persecution is also afoot in the USA
where the world’s leading Revisionist, Germar Rudolf, was deported to Germany.
Basic Common Law principles have also been abandoned by vested interests on
account of the attempt to overcome the US constitution’s First Amendment that
guarantees free expression in order legally to lock up the 1933-45 World War
period so that it remains a sword and a shield for world-wide Zionist activity,
but not only. Annexed hereto and marked
“6” is a copy of the Counterpunch article,
dated August 20, 2007, >A Grave Blow to the Constitution<, and Jim
Kirwan’s article: >Michael Chertoff: The Man & His Star-Crossed
Past<, and I make reference thereto.
The matter before this court is saturated with political
malice, and I make reference to Annexure
“9” of my Affidavit
of 9 August 2007 where this
pressure to conform to Zionist interests is graphically illustrated in a letter
Alan Goldberg, QC – now Justice Alan Goldberg of the Federal Court of
Australia – wrote to retired South Australian parliamentarian, Mrs Joyce
Steele, O.B.E., on 1 July 1985. It is in regard to such Zionist pressures upon
public figures that I formulated my maxim: >Don’t blame the Jews, blame
those that bend to their pressure<. If followed, this maxim enables an
individual to bring >battle of the wills< situations back into balance,
rather than to adopt a scape-goat mentality and >blame Jews< for
everything that is undesirable. It is the mirror image of those who use the
following terms against Revisionists in order to block open enquiry on vital
matters of public interest: hater, Holocaust
denier, antisemite, racist, neo-Nazi,
xenophobe, terrorist. It
is not possible in such a malicious and unbalanced mindset, where verbal abuse
is rife – and supported by legal persecution – to use reason and
understanding as calming agents so that the well-spring of any
battle-of-the-wills makes a worthy contribution to world knowledge rather than
to hide or even to distort it, as is currently the case in matters concerning
the World War two 1933-45 period. Annexed
hereto and marked “7” is a Jerusalem
Post article: >Stop Durban II<
wherein the use of concepts within a highly-charged political situation is
illustrated. It must be remembered that Durban
I ended four days before 9:11 occurred, and where Israel had up to then been
condemned for being a racist and terrorist apartheid state, post 9:11 Israel was
once again part of the western democracies, and Islam - the Muslim world stood
condemned as terrorists. 9:11 is a display of absolute power – but that power
is not emanating from the Muslim world! My comment here is one for
the historical record.
If the above conceptual prison is used in Australia, then we
are inexorably moving towards the Soviet-style GuLag, and free expression, the
hall-mark of Australia’s democracy cannot let truth, honour and justice
flourish. Such ideals are much-needed as civilizing influences within our social
fabric where then all citizens benefit from its glow, and not just a minority.
Already in the USA the concept of free expression has been split into free
speech and hate speech, thereby reserving for dissident thinkers, who refuse to
believe in the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust, a special place within the US legal fabric
– where there is no Natural Justice-right of reply, no habeas
corpus-indefinite imprisonment without knowing on what information the
allegations are based, etc.
Future directions – of things to come in Australia? German
media reports comment on the Internet censorship in China and Iran, among others
– but such reports remain silent on how Germany imprisons dissident thinkers
such as Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zündel, and legally attempts to censor overseas
websites that carry Revisionist material. This hypocrisy has been highlighted by
the Iranians who remind the Germans of their own imprisonment of dissidents.
Legally German Zionist interests use the concepts as in 13.3 to suspend and not
to accord basic human rights to those who refuse to believe in the Nazi-Jewish
Holocaust. Germany does this because it is still an occupied country and Germans
are not masters within their own home. Annexed hereto and marked “8” is an article written in German:
>Tipps für “Cyber-Dissidenten”<, and a fanciful report about the
Teheran Holocaust Conference, albeit appearing under >Entertainment: Michael
St John’s Confidential File<.
A worrying aspect of all this is the move to declare anyone
who refuses to believe in the Nazi-Jewish Holocaust to be “mentally” but not
“morally” ill. Annexed hereto and
marked “9” is the article: >Wiesel case referred to court for the
mentally ill< In all my 14 years, and I have been assured by others who have
been within the Revisionist movement for three decades, has an Revisionist ever
used physical violence, as that attempted upon Professor Elie Wiesel by
23-year-old Eric Hunt. It is the reverse. The upholders of the Jewish-Nazi
Holocaust story have used violence against Revisionists. When this matter was
first reported in the world press it was stated that Hunt had sent an email
detailing his attack on Wiesel to an anti-Semitic
website in Australia. I did, indeed receive an email from him but I did not
publish it because I found Hunt’s action to be morally repugnant – clearly
offending against the Categorical Imperative, but another Australian website did
run the letter – ZIOPEDIA, a website based in Sydney and staffed mainly by
Jews who oppose Zionism. It was not Adelaide Institute! Annexed hereto and marked
“10” is a copy of an email from ZioPedia,
dated 26 August 2007. The fact that this website ran the Hunt-Wiesel story, the
fact that it also covers the once-taboo topic of the >Holocaust<, the fact
that most contributors to this website are Jewish, indicates to me that if I am
condemned for publishing material on Adelaide Institute’s website that is
allegedly >hurtful< to the Applicant’s feelings, then as long as
ZIOPEDIA continues to exist there is one law for Gentiles and another law for
Jews – and that is a gross injustice.
On any day I receive hundreds of emails that report on matters
concerning world events wherein the Nazis are ever present or Jews are singled
out. Annexed hereto
and marked “11” are articles of such nature received via email or via
links from Internet websites: Fearing the Nazis
again; Pro-‘surge’ group is
almost Jewish; Credibility of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired
Political Leader Charged After Recommending Hitler’s Deputy for Nobel Peace
Prize; Austrian neo-Nazi writer arrested in Spain for denying the
Fears grow over neo-Nazi ‘school’; Book says Berlin Philharmonic became tool
of Nazi propaganda machine; Digital Holocaust archives handed over to
Washington’; Holocaust Or
Holohoax? New Nazi Records Delivered To Shoah
Museums in Washington And Jerusalem May Break The Tie; Neo-Nazis infiltrate WWII
re-enactment group’; Russian archaeologists believe they may have found the
remains of two children of Russia’s last tsar; German Prisoner Of Conscience
Germar Rudolf Sounds Off in August 15th, 2007 letter; - and a
letter-to-the editor >Disappointed< from the Barossa Valley Herald, 22 August 2007. The final item indicates how
the German-Jewish-Nazi-Holocaust – World War Two – is still alive and
kicking at the communal and the global level. Surely it is time to put aside old
animosities and open the archives to find the truth, rather than play
power-politics and distort world history.
14. Since 17 September 2002 I have with great difficulty attempted to abide by the rather imprecise orders handed down by Justice Branson. I repeat the apology made at 12.3.2. and reiterate that I see my work as reporting on matters of national and global significance
The matter of the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust has been resolved in
the Revisionists’ favour because the Holocaust believers rely on the
sledge-hammer of legal persecution to suppress any opposing view-point.
Revisionists simply lack the political power to overcome this vicious and
anti-democratic way of settling historical disputes. Professor Alan Dershowitz,
one of the leading upholders of the legitimacy of the existence of the Zionist
state of Israel stated that the 1988 Zündel second Toronto Holocaust trial –
where Professor Raul Hilberg had to concede that there existed no >two
written Hitler Order that started the Final Solution<, as Hilberg had
previously claimed in his monumental work: The
Destruction of European Jews – had taught upholders of the Shoah that they
should never again put their arguments to the test under cross-examinations in
any court-case. This pattern has been followed in the Irving-Lipstadt London
trial of 2000, the Zündel and Rudolf legal persecution in Germany, the
Faurisson and Theil legal persecution in France, et al., the Fröhlich and
Irving legal persecution in Austria, the Scully, Grigor-Scott and Töben legal
persecution in Australia
It was from 1988 onwards that the world-wide legal persecution
of Revisionists occurred in an abstract legal vacuum where TRUTH was not a
defence against any allegation and where unsubstantiated HURT FEELINGS became
the measure of finding an accused guilty. As Professor Arthur Butz, in his
Affidavit in my matter before HREOC rightly pointed out – such legally-framed
legislation (RDA) will find anyone guilty because anyone can have a hurt
feeling. It is therefore a pity that the Applicant in this matter before the
Federal Court of Australia has never had to prove the quantum of his hurt
feeling, and it is sad and a great injustice to me that Federal Court Justice
Branson never asked for Jeremy Jones to bring along a doctor’s certificate
wherein the psychological hurt has been established.
14.3 Likewise, my suggestion that the >push-pull< argument be applied in this matter before the Federal Court as not taken up by either the HREOC commissioner nor by the CFA judge. The Internet material is not being pushed on to the Applicant, but rather he has to make a deliberate attempt to pull it from a website. This argument then enables him to make a choice – to download or not to download – to switch-on or switch-off. It demands that a moral and intellectual choice be made. The implication in any favourable decision for the Applicant is that he cannot help himself whenever he comes across >Holocaust-Shoah< material and that the more the material hurts his feeling the more he looks for it, rather than just switching it off and not developing any hurt feelings.
15. Adelaide Institute also covers other contentious issue, such as AIDS – and we established contact with the South African government that refused uncritically to accept the official version of the HIV=AIDS hypothesis. Annexed hereto and marked “12” is an email >‘HIV denial’ is costing lives<. Note the link to the article about SA President, Mbeki, sacking one of his ministers for unauthorised attendance of an AIDS conference - Mbeki sacks minister for attending AIDS conference .
16. I repeat what I have raised elsewhere in my various Affidavits that on a personal level the accusations contained in the Holocaust-Shoah, the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust, et al, are extremely hurtful to me because with my German background I am uncritically to accept that my father belonged to a murderous military machine that exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers. This is a grave injustice because any normal, healthy mind within a justice system – where truth stands uppermost as a moral civilizing value and is the foundation stone of our civilization – must be given the opportunity to respond to such an allegation. It is mental rape if I cannot ask any questions about such an allegation levelled against the Germans. That a Federal Court of Australia judge has attempted to lock-up the topic that was ripped wide open at Teheran in December 2006 is an indication how important it is that a sober and balanced review of the Holocaust-Shoah – Jewish-Nazi Holocaust be established. The physical facts are out there, and even Professor Raul Hilberg, who died recently, stated that only 20 per cent of the facts has been researched. It is no wonder that he looked favourably upon the work done by fearless Revisionists whose love of truth is that of the Godly command freely to think and to speak because this gives us our humanity and those that take this liberty of our minds commit a crime against humanity.
17. My work at Adelaide Institute consists of thinking about issues that are in the public interest, and this means I firmly resist the bullying tactics used by those who attempt to silence me. The German word >Vordenker< - thinking ahead – aptly describes my work.
17.1 I do not advocate any physical action, and so long as Common Law principles are applied to my work – and not that of European Civil Law – then I cannot become a thought-criminal. In Charles Morgan’s sense, my Liberties of the Mind are secure and safeguarded and where anyone, who looks me in the eyes, knows there is someone at home – unlike those victims of authoritarianism who are subjected to show trials where written confessions are extracted through physical and mental torture. According to the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, in Australia we still have a justice system that safeguards our democratic right to free expression – or has our justice system become a mere legal system modelled on the justice system of the Babylonian Talmud?
17.2 A most recent topic to be discussed on Adelaide Institute’s website is the matter of Jewish ritual kosher killing of animals, in particular cattle. Annexed hereto and marked “13” is a copy of Adelaide Institute Online Newsletter No 354 and a DVD, Bloody Hell, wherein Adelaide-based Mr David Brockschmidt writes an open letter to Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick, of Melbourne. I would appreciate guidance and advice from His Honour whether such material can be considered to be offensive and hurtful to Jewish people.
17.3 Finally as to one matter of fact concerning the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust: In The Weekend Australian of 18-19 August 2007 Professor Geoffrey Blainey reviews Ian Kershaw’s latest book: Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World, 1940-1941. Therein the idea that Adolf Hitler had such hatred for Jews he wanted to exterminate them from the start of his political career is laid to rest – a matter that for Revisionists is nothing new because they knew this a long time ago and have incorporated this into their narrative of the 1939-45 World War Two period. Annexed hereto and marked “14” is a copy of this article Big calls won the day.
18. I reiterate my earlier request as expressed in my first Affidavit of 17 January 2007 for court protection in this matter against those who wish to stop me from functioning, as the Applicant has publicly stated. The opponents of Revisionists have in the past not shied away from threatening and violent behaviour in order to silence Revisionists.
19. I would be pleased to receive from the court any guidance and assistance that would help resolve this matter amicably and in a civilized way.
Sworn by Deponent
on the 27th day of August 2007
Filed by Dr F Töben
Tel: 08 83310808
Top | Home
©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute