|
|
|
Form 20
Order 14, Rule 2
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
No. NSD327 of 2001
JEREMY JONES
Applicant
FREDRICK TÖBEN
Respondent
AFFIDAVIT OF FREDRICK TÖBEN
On 9 August 2007 I, Fredrick
Töben, of Wattle Park, in the State of South Australia, say on oath:
1. I make reference to my Affidavits of 17 January
and 5 March 2007, and
the contents of this Affidavit attempts to augment the material facts of the
matter as reflected in those affidavits, and with some additional personal
background information that may be relevant to the issue before this court.
2. As a 63-year-old, I reflect on my moral and intellectual development
with some satisfaction in that this maturation journey did not embrace some
monumental detour that required me to indulge in some massive rationalisation
exercise while busily constructing my own world view. The example set by my
farmer parents and growing up on the land has left a lasting impression on me,
of being at one with nature and not regarding anything as >superior< or
>inferior< but rather as something >more< and >less< developed, thereby
stressing in, for example, education the ability of individuals to grow as
things in nature grow, but with the factor of nurturing added to it.
3. I followed my own advice that I gratuitously gave to my students: You
should know as much as possible about life but you need not have done everything
in life, and temper this within a moral and intellectual framework that is
guided by the Kantian Categorical Imperative. This unashamedly moral-religious
stance makes me an idealist, but not only. Scientific considerations temper my
idealism somewhat with the realization that all our knowledge grows and that the
principle of fallibilism exemplifies this through the logical form of abduction
– hypothetical reasoning. In this way it is possible to avoid dogmatic thinking
that relies on the >right-wrong< dichotomy.
4. Hence my life’s quest, as determined by my philosophical studies, has
never been to get involved in the win-lose dialectic nor dabbling in criticism
for the sake of criticism but rather in seeking clarification. In this way
reason and understanding continue to be my guiding principles. I do not live
within a conceptual prison where defamation rules supreme as is the case with Mr
Jeremy Jones who refused to conciliate before the HREOC where our differences of
opinion could have been discussed in an open civilized forum. His reliance has
been on the heave-handed and expensive legal process. The hallmark of those
whose life consists of an absolute power-play use the following words to silence
any criticism of their views: Hater, Holocaust Denier, Antisemite, Racist,
neo-Nazi, Xenophobe, et al. To this is now added another concept: Terrorist.
Never in any litigation are these concepts analysed for meaning. It is enough
for someone to use them as was done a while ago when former US President Jimmy
Carter wrote a book about the Middle East problems: Freedom, not Apartheid.
Twenty of his Carter Centre members resigned in protest – but Carter did not
apologize.
To escape from the conceptual prison made up of these words is difficult,
especially if a person lacks the power to access the controlled media. The
Internet has opened up the free flow of information impeded by those who control
and resist open communication channels from functioning as they should.
5. My view of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission – HREOC -
procedure sheds further light on a conspiracy against my expressing a dissenting
opinion on the Holocaust. I use the word >conspiracy< in its ordinary meaning,
that a number of individuals get together to effect an outcome against another
person, i.e. in this sense it is a natural human phenomenon because wherever two
or more persons interact we may say there is a conspiracy afoot!
6. My status as a person who is financially embarrassed and lacks legal
training:
My appearance before the HREOC and the Federal Court of Australia was viewed
critically by both Commissioner McEvoy and Justice Branson. Both claimed I was
uncooperative, and in light of my overseas travels, I should have been able to
engage legal counsel to defend me in this matter. To that I say that my overseas
trips are all paid for by those who invite me to attend their conferences, and
that my Disability Support Pension does not permit me to live a life of luxury.
I can expand on how I survive with the little money I receive if that is
desired. As to the impression that I am not acting in good faith stems from my
understanding of what I consider flows from my innate sense of justice, and from
my understanding of the importance of the truth concept within our civilization.
7. Extrinsic Matters: My disagreement with the Victorian Education
Department that led to my fighting in court my dismissal for almost a decade,
1984-193, and having this dismissal declared invalid, taught me many things.
Besides losing my job and being black-listed in Victoria, and my family unit
breaking down, I continued not feeling guilty of >disobedience and
incompetence<! This was re-inforced when under the new FoI Act I received
documents that later, during the trial, went missing from my file. I had a
Director-General of Education and the Department’s legal officer outright lying,
in writing, about matters. Fortunately I could provide documentation from my
file that proved my assertions. Had I not had that proof, then my position would
have become untenable for the judge because my social standing was not to be
compared with that of a Director-General of Education, or with that of a legal
officer. It is this experience that I am applying to my historical research –
and the views expressed by Mr Jones, et al, are terribly lacking in substance.
But not only, there is massive deception involved as well.
8. The value of moral and intellectual integrity within human endeavour
is for me an absolute as is the concept of God. That humans fall short of such
perfection is well explained by retaining the humbling realization that humans
are imperfect and only God is perfect.
9. There were also public figures that enabled me to understand the
processes at work, without whose help I would have easily fallen into the victim
mentality that afflicts so many individuals who are crushed by systems that
refuse to be publicly accountable. The following gentlemen were all well into
their 80s and 90s when I canvassed them with my concerns – and hence had the
liberty of the mind fearlessly to express their innermost thoughts on issues of
public and private importance.
9.1 Sir James Darling – illuminated matters for me within the education
field by stating that had I been under his principalship I would not have been
dismissed from his private school. Sir James headed prestigious Geelong Grammar
where he prided himself in not dismissing Dr Coombs on account of that man’s
eccentricity. For Sir James the concept of >political correctness< dissolved
into the old concept of >manners<. He scoffed at the flawed government education
ethos of >anti-discrimination< and >value-free< education as unrealistic. Any
thinking person discriminates, and it is the task of a teacher to structure this
process with moral and intellectual values.
9.2 Sir Edward Barber – illuminated for me the workings of the law and
how, when an individual hits the establishment brick-wall, there are other
alternatives that one can pursue. Sir Edward was at one time Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Victoria, and he was defence counsel in the Orr case,
priding himself in having favourably gained a settlement from the University of
Tasmania for Mrs Orr when her husband died.
9.3 Sir Walter Crocker – illuminated for me the workings of international
politics. Sir Walter had bequeathed his personal papers to The University of
Adelaide Archive and placed an embargo on their release to the public. However,
as he reached 100 years he outlived that embargo and stated that it is not
possible to write any kind of meaningful history if records are locked up, as he
had done with his own papers. Sir Walter was involved with the UN and the
creation of the State of Israel in 1948, then assumed prominent positions within
South Australian society. In 1991 he protested against the staging of the
Adelaide War Crimes trials, at which I also protested – participating in my
first protest at 47!
10. Intrinsic Matters:
10.1 HREOC: The fact that the commissioner did not mention in her Reasons
for Decision, 5 October 2000, the letter written to her by Electric Frontiers
Australia, is significant. Likewise what is not mentioned by her is HREOC
receiving from New Zealand Dr Joel Hayward’s letter in response to my submitting
Hayward’s MA thesis as evidence that the matter before her has academic merit.
It explains, however, why it took her so long to hand down the decision because
from the public hearing on 2 November 1998 to 5 October 2000, in New Zealand. An
article by Dr Thomas A Fudge >The Fate of Joel Hayward in New Zealand Hands:
from holocaust historian to holocaust?< appeared in New Zealand’s History Now,
Volume 9, Number 2, May 2003. The whole magazine was pulped and copies of the
article for a time disappeared from public view. Thanks to the Internet it still
lives on. Annexed hereto and marked “1” is a copy of
Adelaide Institute Newsletter No. 349.
10.2 On 4 August 2000 I wrote a letter to the >Hayward Thesis Enquiry
Panel< wherein I outline the matter of Holocaust scholarship. Annexed hereto and
marked “2” is a copy of the letter.
10.3 On 14 June 2007, at Adelaide I spoke with Professor Stuart Macintyre
about the Hayward affair. He had been a member of the three-person panel
enquiring into the thesis matter, and he agreed with me that enquiry into the
Holocaust should not be criminalized but that any study should be properly
supervised. Hence the evidence given before HREOC on 2 November 1998 by the
Applicant that no-where in the world at any university is the Holocaust
Revisionist view-point worthy of academic study. This has now been superseded by
the events following the December 2006 Teheran Holocaust conference. That this
event was attacked from those who celebrate the Holocaust as a dogma-religion is
understandable because any such public scrutiny would unearth unpleasant and
threatening information that would be >>uncomfortable and hurtful to believers<
who have blamed the Germans for over 50 years of having committed a massive
unique crime.
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister for Education and Research, Dr M. Mohammadi put
it thus:
>>Do you believe the Holocaust was an historical event? The response is
always: >>Yes<<. He then asks: >>Do you believe historical events should be
studied?<< Again the answer is: >>Yes<<. Dr Mohammadi then responds: >>Well,
that is exactly what we are doing.<< He said that whenever he addresses
diplomatic conferences people ask him why have a Holocaust conference in Iran,
and he replies: >>- because you will not!<< .
Annexed hereto and marked “3” is a copy of
Adelaide Institute Newsletter No. 351.
10.4 The commissioner ordered that certain material be removed from
Adelaide Institute’s website – which I did by wiping the whole website, then
starting again and always bearing in mind the criticism made of the material and
the orders handed down by Commissioner McEvoy. Recently I searched the Internet
and found one of the items that was ordered to be removed >About Adelaide
Institute< on a website:
http://www.learntoquestion.com/resources/lessons/intro/tour/sites/about_adin.html#.
Annexed hereto and marked “4” is a copy of
Adelaide Institute Newsletter No. 346.
10.5 FCA: An ex-parte judgment, an uncontested >test-case< as my matter
had become before Justice Branson does not make good precedent law. What it
does, however, do is serve as a vehicle to get the matter under consideration on
to the court record. It is difficult and resource consuming to reverse such
decisions, especially when new evidence comes to light or when the politics of
defending a dogma change.
10.6 The defence of academic merit available to me was ridiculed in both
the HREOC and in the FCA. Further, in view of the recent Dr Haneef case it is
interesting to note how Canada’s model of >State Security< has in essence been
copied by the USA in the Guantanamo cases. This mindset is also influencing the
DPP in Canberra. Hence, originally used against so-called >Holocaust deniers<
Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf, the procedures show blatant disregard to the
presumption of innocence, a legal principle that guarantees that our democracy
at least functions not as a representative de-facto dictatorship. Annexed hereto
and marked “5” is a copy of Adelaide
Institute Newsletter No. 348.
10.7 That the upholders of the Holocaust fear open debate is evident from
material appearing on the Internet that equates research into this historical
event as racist, et all, thereby blocking any open enquiry into the matter. Such
censorship distorts and falsifies, for example, the complexity of the events
that make up World War Two. Annexed hereto and marked “6” is a copy of
Adelaide Institute Newsletter No. 350.
10.8 That the December 2006 Teheran Holocaust conference has had an
effect on attitudes within the Holocaust believers’ camp is accentuated by the
legal persecution of two of the leading Holocaust Revisionists in the world,
Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf, who are currently imprisoned in >democratic,
Germany. Two of the leading Holocaust dogma proponents, Professor Deborah
Lipstadt and Professor Alan Dershowitz, now state openly that they reject
criminalizing and imprisoning Holocaust Revisionists, or >Holocaust deniers< as
they label those who refuse to believe in the Holocaust. That this is done on
grounds of free expression is to be welcomed. Unfortunately, they have already
developed th4e strategy whereby free expression is split into Free Speech and
Hate Speech, thereby excising any discussion about matters Holocaust as Hate
Speech. In the USA there is the attempt to make Hate Speech a criminal matter,
thereby safeguarding for a while yet open debate on the Holocaust. Annexed
hereto and marked “7” is a copy of
Adelaide Institute Newsletter No. 347.
10.9 The truism and rather self-evident fact that open enquiry, academic
or otherwise, is a prerequisite for any civilized society need not be canvassed
here. Colleague Mr David Brockschmidt illustrates this well in his article >How
the Fritz turned into a Moshe<. If we do not have the freedom openly to enquire
into matters of national interest, then our society dies as it did in the
Communist block of countries where thought-control was absolute. It must be
recalled that one of the first laws enacted after the Bolsheviks gained power in
Russia during the 1917 Revolution, was to criminalize >Antisemitic behaviour< on
account of the large number of Jews within the Bolshevik movement. Mr
Brockschmidt makes these comments with the full knowledge that his mother was
Jewish! Annexed hereto and marked “8” is a copy of
Adelaide Institute Newsletter No. 345.
11. I have attempted to present the Holocaust topic on our website in the
best way that I can with a view to the legal constraint imposed on me. It is
difficult because our media is saturated with Holocaust matters. It is, in fact,
a tsunami of Holocaust that literally is distorting our view of world history,
of world politics. My disclaimer on our front page reads as follows:
>>Dr Fredrick Töben's disclaimer
"I am operating under a Federal Court of Australia Gag Order that prohibits me
from questioning/denying the three pillars on which the >Holocaust-Shoah<
story/legend/myth rests:
1. During World War II , Germany had an extermination policy against
European Jewry;
2. of which they killed six million;
3. using as a murder weapon homicidal gas chambers. It is impossible to
discuss the >Holocaust< with such an imposed constraint.
I therefore am merely reporting on matters that I am not permitted to state. For
example, if I state the >Holocaust< is:
1. a lie;
2. six million Jews never died, or
3. the gas chambers did not exist,
then I would claim that I am merely reporting on what expert Revisionists such
as Professors Butz/Faurisson, et al, are stating in public.
Anyone who refuses to believe in these three pillars of orthodoxy will face a
world-wide group of enforcers who will use any means to destroy dissenting
voices. The latest victims imprisoned for refusing to BELIEVE in the
>Holocaust-Shoah< narrative are Germar Rudolf and Ernst Zündel in Germany and
Siegfried Verbeke in Belgium.
If you wish to begin to doubt the >Holocaust-Shoah< narrative, you must be
prepared for personal sacrifice, must be prepared for marriage and family
break-up, loss of career, and go to prison. This is because Revisionists are
dismantling a massive multi-billion dollar industry that the >Holocaust-Shoah<
enforcers are defending, as well as the survival of Zionist-racist Israel.
So, do not cry when the knock on the door takes you away from family and
friends. Revisionists are not foolish or naive but realistic as befitting
someone who still cherishes such life-affirming ideals as Love, Truth, Honour,
Justice, Beauty!
Also, some define an >Antisemite< as someone who condemns Jews because they are
Jews, something I reject in my maxim: >Don't blame the Jews, blame those that
bend to their pressure<.
If you seek to create Beauty-Love, Honour-Justice and Truth, then feel free to
enter Adelaide Institute's website:
Welcome to Free Expression - REPORTS <<
12. As a person of German origin I take great offence at someone
suggesting that my father was a member of a criminal fighting force, and then
preventing me from looking into the allegations made against him and the German
people generally.
I have now for almost 14 years professionally looked into the allegation that
Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers in
particular at Auschwitz. I have reached the conclusion that massive academic and
common fraud operates in this field of enquiry.
At the same time, my maxim: >Don’t blame the Jews, blame those that bend to
their pressure!< indicates that a simplistic friend-enemy dichotomy cannot shed
any further light on the subject. All individuals in any human endeavour act and
react to circumstances and scapegoating is a primitive, less developed form of
behaviour that does not help to clarify a problem.
I am reminded of the letter written by Alan Goldberg, QC, to one of South
Australia’s remarkable politicians then in retirement, Mrs Joyce Steele. The
threat within this letter was substantial, but Mrs Steele did not bend to Jewish
pressure, and she stood firm in her belief. Politely she responded to Mr
Goldberg, now Justice Alan Goldberg of the Federal Court of Australia, that she
thanked him for his letter and had taken note of its contents. Annexed hereto
and marked “9” is a copy of the
letter Alan Goldberg, QC, wrote to Mrs Joyce Steele.
Sworn by Deponent
at Adelaide
on the 9th day of August 2007
Filed by Dr F Töben
Tel: 08 83310808
Mob: 0417088217
Email: toben@adelaideinstitute.org
©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute