Order 14, Rule 2
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. NSD327 of 2001
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
on the 9th day of August 2007
Filed by Dr F Töben
Tel: 08 83310808
Top | Home
©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute