German hatred in Australia
14 May 2003
The past couple of decades have seen a rise of German hatred, mainly owing to Australia's Zionists not letting Hitler's ghost rest. These haters need Hitler as a convenient scapegoat for their own failed policies.
With the troubles caused by the Israeli state in the Middle East, there also is a proportionate rise of 'Holocaust' propaganda so that Israel can continue to justify the horrendous crimes it perpetrates against the Palestinians.
This raising of the war propaganda story, what the Germans are allegedly to have done to European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, is designed to weld the Australian public together in support of Israel.
The culmination of that propaganda push came to fruition with Australia joining that immoral, no-match, Anglo-American-Zionist attack on Iraq.
PS: In Germany it is a criminal act to give the Hitler (Roman) salute, yet at their monthly meetings all Freemasons salute their Master in such a way! Imagine what this does to someone's mental state, especially those who wish to be Germans; it's OK to salute the Master but not the memory of Hitler. Public prosecutors and judges who are Freemasons then do that for which they willingly persecute others.
In Honour of My Family's Good Name
"I witnessed the burning of my father's body in a computer regulated crematorium oven set to burn for 1.45 hours. From having observed this physical fact, I conclude the allegation - that Germans during World War Two exterminated, in homicidal gas chambers and burnt in crematorium ovens, millions of Jews - is not founded on a physical fact because a quick calculation would indicate the physical impossibility of it. The allegation thus remains just that, a vile and malicious allegation against Germans and anyone of German descent. It is, in fact, hate-speech directed against Germans and those of German descent to assert that Auschwitz was an extermination camp because such an assertion is not founded on factual physical evidence."
Dr Fredrick Töben
21 May 2003
Self-centredness at its best
Toben fights to retain offensive website
Aviva Bard, Australian Jewish New, 30 May 2003
AUSTRALIAN Holocaust denier, Dr Fredrick Toben, was in court last week attempting to overturn a Federal Court decision forcing him to remove offensive content from his Adelaide Institute website.
Last September, Dr Toben was ordered to remove the offensive material from his website within seven days. [Töben comments: Why is it not acknowledged that within the seven day period after the 17 September 2002 FCA judgment was handed down, I complied with more than was ordered? Twice I have deleted the full content of Adelaide Institute's website, and in good faith am attempting to abide by that judgment. However, as we are an independent media outlet, we report on any matter that is reported by other media outlets on issues of public interest.]
But Dr Toben's lawyers are arguing that the prohibitions against racial hatred in the Racial Discrimination Act contravene the Australian Constitution.
Appealing before three Federal Court judges, Dr Toben's lawyers claimed that the court's interpretation of the law was erroneous and that he was entitled to publish the material in the public interest.
Commonwealth Solicitor-General David Bennett QC argued in favour of the court's interpretation of the legislation in the case brought against Dr Toben by Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Jeremy Jones and represented by NSW Jewish Board of Deputies president Stephen Rothman SC.
Toben's website is replete with anti-Jewish material, including the following:
"The past couple of decades have seen a rise of German hatred, mainly owing to Australia's Zionists not letting Hitler's ghost rest. These haters need Hitler as a convenient scapegoat for their own failed policies. With the troubles caused by the Israeli state in the Middle East, there also is a proportionate rise of 'Holocaust' propaganda so that Israel can continue to justify the horrendous crimes it perpetrates against the Palestinians.
This raising of the war propaganda story, what the Germans are allegedly [sic] to have done to European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, is designed to weld the Australian public together in support of Israel.
The culmination of that propaganda push came to fruition with Australia joining that immoral, no-match, Anglo-American-Zionist attack on Iraq."
Regarding his current court appeal, Dr Toben writes: "This appeal in the FCA [Federal Court of Australia] is a test case that will define our free-speech parameters, and by implication will signal how strong Jewish-Zionist influence is in Australia's judiciary where the current battle rages between common law versus talmudic law "
A decision is expected within the next six weeks.
Israel under fire at Sydney Writers' Festival
Vic Alhadeff, AJN, 30 May 2003
[With added comments by Fredrick Töben]
A PACKED Sunday morning session at the Sydney Writers' Festival degenerated within seconds into a venomous attack on Israel and its legitimacy.
The panel comprised a softly-spoken Israeli poet who could barely speak English and two politicised Palestinian activists, one of whom painted Israel as an illegitimate state which has no right to exist and which has "destroyed and smashed" Palestinian society.
Helping to tip an already uneven playing-field was ABC Radio's Stephen Crittenden, who, chairing the forum, allowed the Palestinians to blast Israel for 20 minutes before inviting the Israeli to respond.
Crittenden went on to opine that "the Israeli state came into being on a wave of terrorist violence with Begin and the Stern Gang", remarking later "how similar" the "terrorist violence" was to that which occurs today.
"A foreign body of people came into our homeland and threw us out," Palestinian author Ghada Karmi told the 400-strong audience. "It was arrant injustice. It was an invasion by foreigners, European Jews. The Jews were terrorists in every sense of the word.
"That history is conveniently forgotten. Today's propaganda views Arabs and Muslims as terrorists, when the reality is the other way."
The act of "creating a new people on the land of another, at the cost of another, is unacceptable", she continued. "They created four wars and kill children every day. It would be regarded as unacceptable were it not for sympathy for the Holocaust - for which we were not responsible.
"What happened to the Jews was not the Arabs' fault. Give the Jews part of Germany if you're sorry for them.
"That is the prism through which we look at the situation. We were a simple agricultural people and we were evicted.
"For a two-state solution you need contiguous land and a sovereign state, and the Israelis will have to withdraw its settlements. There is no evidence that any Israeli government will do that."
Israeli poet Ronny Someck said the Holocaust taught Jews that "the only place where they could protect themselves was in Israel".
He also noted that some of the Jews who moved to Israel had been expelled from Arab countries and that Israel was established by the United Nations.
"Our neighbours refused to accept the Partition Plan, which would have given Jews and Palestinians homelands and saved a lot of bloodshed."
Someck said "terrorism" was "not a metaphor. It's my life. I fear travelling by bus or queueing for a pizza. As one who believes in coexistence, it is hard when there is constant fear of terror."
Facing down Irving was more than trivial pursuit
Professor Deborah Lipstadt, AJN, 30 May 2003
WHEN I learned that David Irving was suing me for libel, I laughed. In my book I had devoted about 300 words to Irving, describing him as "the most dangerous Holocaust denier", a Hitler partisan and someone who knew the truth but bent it until it fit his antisemitic and neo-Nazi ideology.
I considered him dangerous because, unlike other deniers, he was the author of numerous books about WWII and the Third Reich, some of which were well regarded. Consequently, his pronouncements garnered far more attention than those by other deniers. Who would take this garbage seriously? I was wrong. There were people who took it seriously. And I was wrong about this threat. Irving pursued this case seriously.
Defamatory words are presumed under English law to be untrue until proven true. British law placed the onus on me, the defendant, to prove the truth of what I had written, rather than on Irving, the plaintiff.
Had I not fought, he would have won by default. I would have been guilty of libel, and Irving's definition of the Holocaust would have been determined to be legitimate.
Irving may have assumed I would not pursue this matter. I was American, far away and a woman. He anticipated that I would apologise, pay him and withdraw my book.
I was wrong to assume Irving's lawsuit was just a nuisance. But Irving was more wrong if he thought I would "crack up and cop out".
The conferences of the Institute for Historical Review - a California-based denial group - resemble academic confabs. Its Journal of Historical Review has a scholarly veneer.
[Let Professor Lipstadt get past Germar Rudolf's The Revisionist!]
Deniers have racist sympathies. The institute told its supporters the Holocaust myth lowered the "self-image of white people". White supremacists have latched onto denial.
But these people are the radical fringe. More disturbing than denial is the fuzzy reaction to deniers. In the 1980s and 1990s student newspapers on American campuses accepted ads denying the Holocaust. Some justified their decision with the First Amendment, unaware that it does not oblige newspapers to accept ads.
Some published the ads despite their policy not to run ads that were racist, sexist or hostile to a minority, ethnic or religious group. The editors did not consider the ads antisemitic.
I was disturbed by papers that justified the ads on the basis of responsibility to "tell all sides of the issue". "What 'issue'?" I asked them.
The Cornell Daily Sun declared it wrong to "unjustly censor advertisers' viewpoints". The University of Washington Daily argued that it had to be a "forum for diverse opinions".
Few grasped that denial was not a "viewpoint", but propaganda that had been discredited.
[See following Grubach article.]
I found the same confusion about the parameters of historical debate in the media. I watched with dismay as talk-show hosts treated denial as an intriguing idea. I declined invitations to participate in debates with deniers.
While many things about the Holocaust are open to debate, its existence is not. One producer said: "Shouldn't our listeners hear the other side?" These journalists failed to grasp that denial was not just false, but designed to propagate hatred.
[Professor Lipstadt, at her illogical best, running out of argument, and so she has to resort to name-calling and using shut-up words. This is a sad moment for all those who value traditional academic/intellectual pursuit as opposed to closed-minded, bigoted subjectivism that relies on emotional blackmail to make a point.]
Despite his exoneration of Hitler and overt antisemitism, Irving straddled the worlds of the extremist ideologue and the iconoclastic historian. Though increasing numbers of historians believed his ideology compromised his work, some remained impressed. While preparing for the trial, I heard from doubters in both the scholarly and Jewish communities. When academics asked why I was doing this, I bristled.
I explained that I was fighting to clear my name and to prevent Irving's version of history from being legitimised.
[Professor Lipstadt's intellectually immature view fails to state that her so-called "legitimised" version of history is full of blatant exaggerations, fabrications, distortions and outright lies. Little wonder that many US academic institutions are faced with a crisis of credibility.]
When a Holocaust scholar declared that my biggest mistake "was not ignoring his charge", I was reminded that I not only had to wage a legal battle, but to educate those who I assumed would understand what I was facing.
[Yes, facing her personal moral and intellectual bankruptcy.]
Professor to discuss Holocaust denial
"Denying the Holocaust" author Deborah Lipstadt will address instances of denial and litigation at 8 p.m. in the EMU Ballroom, Roman Gokhman, Campus/City Culture Reporter
April 28, 2003
It has been almost six decades since the Holocaust, but some people still deny it ever happened.
Deborah Lipstadt will speak about her legal battle with a Holocaust denier at 8 p.m. today in the EMU Ballroom, part of the local commemoration of Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Lipstadt, the Dorot Professor of Modern Jewish and Holocaust Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, was involved in a six-year fight with English historian David Irving, who has questioned whether 6 million Jews really were killed by Nazis during World War II.
Irving sued Lipstadt for libel when she called him a Nazi sympathizer in her book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. The professor said the trial was especially taxing because it took place in an English courtroom.
"In England, in terms of libel, one is guilty unless proven innocent," she said in a telephone interview. "The legal battle consumed my life for six years. In many times, it was a long and disturbing fight."
Oregon Hillel Director Hal Applebaum said Lipstadt is one of the world's leading authorities on Holocaust denial.
"Holocaust denial is out there -- people and groups say it never took place," Applebaum said. "We should not forget, lest it happen again."
Lipstadt said people deny the past for differing reasons. One of them she calls "inconvenient history."
"When history is troublesome, you can try to rewrite it," she said, adding people such as Irving are motivated to rewrite terrible events because of personal biases such as anti-Semitism.
"This guy has said some racist things," she said.
Lipstadt said there could have been many implications had Irving won the trial. She said if people could believe the Holocaust never happened, some would believe Nazis were good people. Some people in the United States have used such thinking to ignore the slaughter of American Indians and the cruelty of the Ku Klux Klan, she said.
The verdict "felt great because so many survivors had been moved by this," she said, adding that for people who weathered the Holocaust, the victory was about remembering lost loved ones as well as reaffirming history.
The author is currently finishing a new book about the trial, and HBO is producing a movie for next year.
Half an hour before tonight's lecture, members of the University's Jewish Student Union will begin their annual "reading of the names," where students read names of Holocaust victims out of a book for 24 consecutive hours at the EMU Amphitheater. Because the list is so long, only the names of people who perished in Germany will be read.
"So many Jews in Europe perished that for many of them, all that's left are statistics," JSU Director Daniel Gruber said. "What we are doing is remembering them."
Gruber said he expects only one letter of the alphabet to be completed in 24 hours.
Students interested in signing up to read names for 15 minutes should contact JSU at 346-4366.
Contact the reporter at email@example.com.
Why Won't Deborah Lipstadt Debate the Holocaust Revisionists?
By Paul Grubach
Holocaust historian and Jewish activist Deborah Lipstadt is a prominent and severe critic of Holocaust revisionism (or to use her terminology, "Holocaust denial"). As a result of the libel case brought before the High Court in London in the winter-spring of 2000 by David Irving against Lipstadt and her publisher, she and her book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, are now world famous.
One of her book's primary claims is that Holocaust revisionism is utter nonsense, on par with the flat earth theory. On the dust jacket we read: "The denial of the Holocaust has no more credibility than the assertion that the earth is flat."
Dr. Lipstadt further insists the traditional view of the Holocaust is not a matter of debate. To debate the Holocaust revisionists "would give them a legitimacy and stature they in no way deserve. It would elevate their anti-Semitic ideology-which is what Holocaust denial is-to the level of responsible historiography-what it is not."1
Despite what Lipstadt writes, if hard evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming and the claims of revisionists ridiculous, to engage the latter in debate would not lend them credibility and respect. Quite the contrary. Crossing swords with these "cranks" would be a golden opportunity for Lipstadt to expose their alleged quackery and stupidity. Only if revisionism has intrinsic validity will it gain stature by a public hearing. The Emory University professor's refusal to debate carries with it the implicit recognition that revisionism has more legitimacy than she cares to admit.
Even if revisionism were pure balderdash, the public interest would still be served if it were given serious attention in the mainstream media. The truth of the traditional version of the Holocaust could be reverified. Lipstadt has been quoted as saying that she is "only interested in getting at the truth."2 If this be so, then a more complete perception of the truth would be gained in a public debate where her "Holocaust facts" clashed with "revisionist fiction."
To put it bluntly, Lipstadt's "justification" for refusing to debate is nothing more than a conscience-salving self-deception designed to cover up her fear and insecurity.
The reader will now ask-what is the real reason behind her refusal to debate?
This question was answered in part on July 22, 1995, the day that revisionist historian Mark Weber squared off against anti-revisionist historian Dr. Michael Shermer in an oral debate on the Holocaust. Both sides were given a fair and equal opportunity to present their case, as the audience had the opportunity to hear defenses of both the Holocaust revisionist and the traditional view of the Holocaust.3
The debate was a disaster for the traditional view of the Holocaust. Weber made Holocaust revisionism look too good and Lipstadt's Holocaust ideology severely deficient. As evidence that this is the case is suggested by the fact that some years after the debate Shermer wrote: "It is one thing to analyze the literature of deniers of or to interview them face to face; it is quite another process to confront them in a public forum, where their skills at rhetoric and debate can trip up even seasoned scholars and historians."4
Indeed, to this day Shermer refuses to advertise the videotape of the debate in his Skeptic magazine and he never referred to it in his long analysis of Holocaust revisionism that appeared in his bestseller, Why People Believe Weird Things. Although the force of circumstance compelled Shermer to mention the videotape in brief passing in his Denying History, the reader is given no information on how to acquire it, which suggests he and his ilk don't want people to see the video.5
It is safe to assume that if Dr. Shermer had scored a victory over Holocaust revisionism, he and the Deborah Lipstadt's of this world would be aggressively promoting the Weber-Shermer debate videotape.
The upshot of my argument is this. It is actually a somewhat favorable sign for Holocaust revisionism that some of the major promoters of the traditional view of the Holocaust like Deborah Lipstadt refuse to debate. It seems to be a tacit admission by its most bitter opponents that Holocaust revisionism has more credibility than they care to publicly admit.
1. Deborah Lipstadt, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory (New York: The Free Press, 1993), p.1.
2.Vanity Fair, December 1993, p.117.
3. The Holocaust Story in the Crossfire: The Weber-Shermer Holocaust Debate, quality VHS color video, $21.95 postpaid (CA sales tax $1.55), add $1.00 for foreign shipping, available from INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW, P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659.
4. Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman, Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why do they say it? (University of California Press, 2000), p.109.
Modern Day Self-centredness
9 June 2003 - Queen's Birthday
Dear Associates and Supporters of Adelaide Institute
I have accepted a late invitation to attend this year's TBR conference, and this means I shall be leaving for Washington in the third week of June.
The most significant matter for Revisionists is the US Zündel arrest and deportation to Canada. Media attention is slowly beginning to focus on how Canada's internal security service knew about the pipe bomb parcel that was sent to Ernst Zündel at his Carlton Street, Toronto, home.
US and Canadian authorities hoped quickly to deport Ernst Zündel to Germany, and now there is a chance that this process will be drawn out while legalities of this action are challenged in the courts in both t he US and Canada.
In this respect I will only allude to the 11 September 2001 tragedy - 9/11 - that has dwarfed actual Holocaust Revisionism by revealing the larger issues underpinning Anglo-American-Zionists one-world plans. The tragic and misconceived attack on Iraq revealed this so well. The pretext for the attack - hunting for Weapons of Mass Destruction - has not materialised; supporters of the AngloAmerican-Zionist war on Iraq believed their President and their Prime Ministers were telling the truth. All too many had forgotten that the previous Gulf War also began with a lie told by a small girl before the UN where she claimed Iraqi soldiers were ripping babies out of incubation cribs. The consequences of such deception will linger on - and thanks to the Internet the official version of events has, as in the 9/11 tragedy, no time to solidify into a cohesive dogma that unquestioning citizens accept in blind faith. Individuals want to know more about the issues.
On the home front it is the 19 May 2003 Appeal before the Federal Court of Australia that may or may not advance our battle for free speech and Revisionism. The fact that The Australian Jewish News reported on the matter two weeks after the Appeal indicates they are also not certain of the outcome. I say this clearly recalling how the Jewish press, and the various media outlets, crowed about Mrs Olga Scully's case and mine before HREOC, that result being a foregone conclusion in favour of Jeremy Jones. Likewise, our endeavours before a single judge of the Federal Court where matters of fact became irrelevant as matters of law became pre-eminent. Still, it was good to have Olga at long last present the rather offensive passages from Talmud, and to witness how Jeremy Jones rationalised away/talked his way out of such material. There were other highlights at our various court appearances that still linger in our memory. We know we are not the immoral ones, that we do have a right to disseminate information in the public/national interest. After all, if we don't do it, who will balance the equation?
In 1644 John Milton put it thus:
And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple: who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?
The challenging of the 17 September 2002 Branson judgment by appealing before the Full Bench of the Federal Court appeal - that was undertaken by Counsel Chris Maxwell on 19 May 2003 - saw at the last moment the intervention of the Commonwealth Government, thereby supporting Jeremy Jones and his Zionists. No wonder this same Attorney General's office refused to grant me legal aid to pay for a defence counsel. As it turned out, the defence fund raised enough to cover costs.
Finally, let me quote Counsel Chris Maxwell's brief words on the 19 May 2003 Appeal:
I was pleased with how the appeal went. The argument on your behalf was explored in detail - with plenty of questioning from the bench - over 2½ hours. The distinction between that which is offensive and that which is an expression of racial hatred was, I think, well understood. It remains doubtful, however, whether the Court will be prepared to read the prohibition as strictly as we contend. We will probably have to wait two or three months (at least) to find out.
This rather sober assessment I shall take with me to Washington, together with my usual attitude: I expect the worse and hope for the best. Whatever happens, I know that now the issue is a national issue. Our work has been in the forefront where social and legal protection does not operate. The system is catching up. Without the encouragement from all those who have supported Adelaide Institute throughout these past 10, yes, ten, years, we could not have taken the whole matter as far as we have. Smilingly I add that I must also thank Jeremy Jones for taking the bait when we threw it at him in 1994!
And here is the best news since David Irving lost his case against Deborah Lipstadt in 2000.
Now available from Peace Books the definitive CHP English edition of
THE RUDOLF REPORT
Justice Gray had made his London judgment safe from a possible appeal by explicitly stating, although mentioned but not submitted during the trial, he had not been given the opportunity to read and consider as evidence THE RUDOLF REPORT.
The Australian distributor of The Rudolf Report is Peace Books, PO Box 3300, Norwood 5067.
Advise your interested in purchasing a copy, hardback (US$45) or paperback (US30) plus postage.
As we seek to keep costs down, we will offer the book for about $10 less than what it would cost if you ordered it direct from Castle Hills Publishers.
SBS quizzed over program cuts
AJN, 30 May 2003
SBS Radio head Quang Luu has been given 30 days to explain to a Senate Estimates Committee why SBS is dropping Yiddish/Hebrew programs, cutting the week's Jewish programs by one-third.
Senate Deputy Opposition Leader Stephen Conroy, at a committee hearing on Monday, asked Luu for a run-down on the cuts and said he would want answers to a kore detailed series of questions.
In response, Luu said he believed that with two programs a week rather than three, Yiddish and Hebrew speakers were "well taken care of".
He said SBS had reviewed program schedules on the basis of the 2001 Census "to ensure that it stays relevant to the needs of Australians of non-English-speaking backgrounds particularly and also to the needs of other Australians".
He said Australia-wide consultations six months ago with more than 1000 Australians, including many "of Jewish background", had re-endorsed criteria for looking at the allocation of air time to be allocated to language groups.
Criteria included the number of people speaking a language other than English at home, aged people, new arrivals, people lacking capacity in English and employment.
"When you apply those five criteria today compared with 10 years ago, you find that in the data in 2001 there are 5946 people speaking Hebrew in the home and 2667 speaking Yiddish," he said.
"On that basis, the current allocation of three programs a week [to Jewish programs] is not consistent with the needs of other communities. The [SBS] board agreed with our recommendation to take one hour from the Yiddish program and the Hebrew program. Even now, with tow programs each a week, the Yiddish and Hebrew speakers are well taken care of. The Tongan community of 10,587 speakers also has two programs a week, which is equal to the number of Yiddish and Hebrew programs a week."
Labor MP Michael Danby [the only Jewish member of Federal Parliament] prepared the questions Luu must answer within 30 days. Danby has asked why SBS cut the Jewish Friday afternoon program, which has a higher number of listeners than the Wednesday program and is considered the most useful for the community.
He questioned how often SBS re-evaluates ethnic language programs and what factors may lead to changes, including religion, protection endangered languages like Yiddish or whether a community has access to alternative media.
Letters to the Editor
Australian Jewish News, 30 May 2003
SBS Radio Cuts
I write to correct misconceptions regarding SBS Radio's decision to reduce the Hebrew and Yiddish language programs by one hour each per week (AJN)
Such reductions - like the loss of hours for all 10 language programs affected by this rescheduling - could have been avoided had SBS Radio been granted the extra air time it has been seeking. Cuts are unavoidable if we are to cater for new and emerging communities as well as respond to demographic changes.
The most misleading argument in your editorial is the confusion of the Jewish community - as served by your newspaper - with the Hebrew- and Yiddish-speaking communities as served by SBS Radio.
SBS Radio is a language-based broadcaster. We are not religious based and have no Jewish programs.
Where a religion is significant in any of our 68 language communities, it may be covered in those programs, but SBS Radio does not broadcast to religious communities per se.
SBS Radio's decision was based on the 5946 Hebrew speakers and 2667 Yiddish speakers identified in the 2001 Census as speaking the language in their home, numbers which cannot sustain three hours each per week when much larger language communities have fewer programs.
If language was abandoned as the benchmark, language programs would be swamped by the millions of Australians of English or Irish ancestry who might claim air time.
It is misleading to state SBS Radio is scrapping the English-language component of its Hebrew and Yiddish programs. No decision has been made on formats. Additionally, anyone who speaks English can listen to our World View and Alchemy programs.
Finally, it is misleading to claim that SBS failed to consult the community. Over a six-month period to December, SBS conducted the most wide-ranging consultation undertaken by a media organization in Australia.
No other broadcaster, newspaper or magazine has consulted its communities - not just listeners or readers - more widely before making changes.
Head of SBS Radio
AJN political editor Bernard Freedman stands by his report that Quang Luu informed him that the English-language component of the Hebrew and Yiddish programs was to be scrapped - Editor.
Anne Frank analogy invoked in gay couple's refugee plight
The Australian Jewish News 18 April 2003
The High Court of Australia has been asked to consider the story of Ann Frank in dealing with a case regardinga claim for refugee status by a gay Bangladeshi couple. The highest legal authority in the country was told that if the couple were to return to Bangladesh and hide the fact that they were gay they would be safe; otherwise they would be heaten by police.
The Federal Government is seeking to reject the couple's bid to stay in Australia. The court was asked to consider the analogy of the gay couple coming out of the closet to Anne Frank emerging from the attic where she hid from the Nazis for two years before she was discovered. She perished in bergen-Belsen in 1945.
It would be inconceivable, the barrister for the Bangladeshis argued, to think that if Anne Frank had appeared before an Australian court seeking refuge from the Nazis, and had been told to return to her attic in Amsterdam and hide her Jewishness, she would be safe. The outcome of the case that the seven judges are presiding over could see the treatment of homosexuals under the Refugee Convention coming into line with those based on political and religious beliefs.
Counsel for Australia's immigration minister, Phillip Ruddock, told the court that the two cases were "related but different". The men have been in a relationship since 1994 and arrived in Australia in 1999 where they applied for visas. The Refugee Review Tribunal did not accept that the harm they would experience if they returned to Bangladesh, where homosexual relationships are tolerated behind closed doors, would constitute persecution. They are appealing this decision.
Judge Michael McHugh said: "The government's argument was to turn the whole object of the convention on its head - it's like saying to German Jews who came to Australia in 1938: 'You're not refugees ... go back to hiding your Jewishness from the Germans and you'll be safe'."
President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry Jeremy Jones told the AJN: "Issues relating human rights and immigration can be very emotional and can attain a level of compassion from a body like the High Court. Nevertheless, the analogy between a gay couple and Anne Frank is not appropriate and lacks sensitivity."
Fredrick Töben comments: Jeremy Jones is the most selfish and insensitive person I have known and he does not wish to share this Anne Frank tale with anyone. He is coldly calculating as is befitting a man who is considered to be the Foreign Minister of Australia's Zionists. He also displays that kind of cynicism we saw recently so evident among the Zionists who directed the recent US attack on Iraq. Further, Jones has publicly stated that his opponents need to be silenced-terminated via legal means. But with caution I recall that Mossad has been given the green light to eliminate Israel's opponents around the world, something our foreign minister Alexander Downer refuses to comment upon. Little wonder that our usually talkative Foreign minister remains silent on this vital issue because he is an ardent Zionist, as is our Prime Minister, John Howard, and both have been well honoured by Australia's financially powerful Zionist lobby.
The above Jones comment reveals his lack of compassion, unless, of course, he admits that the Anne Frank story is one of those self-serving Holocaust frauds that have developed a life of their own. Persecution is persecution, and if a Bangladesh law frowns upon overt homosexual acts, as still does most of the Moslem world, then surely it is legitimate to claim this as a ground for seeking refugee status.
Interestingly the discriminatory legislation, on which the claim before the High Court rests, is part of the Political Correct brigade who cares little for objective justice for all. I recall Ernst Zündel's current Canadian quest for refugee status application on account of being persecuted for refusing to believe in any of the numerous Holocaust stories and myths.
Jones, of course, would welcome any such persecution. His argument rests on his perception that the Revisionists are basically calling his Holocaust promoters liars and extortionists. He wants us to believe he is sincere in claiming that such things are terribly hurtful for him and so he takes the Revisionists to court to silence them. Interestingly, Jones never has to prove that he has suffered mental distress by providing medical evidence to back up his claim that he gets mentally damaged by any Revisionists' arguments.
Jones also forgets that by upholding any of the numerous Holocaust stories and myths, he calls, for example, Ernst Zündel and any German or person of German descent, a murderer of Jewish people because Germans hated Jews. Jones does not engage in any open debate but he does label and defame Revisionists with all the resources at his disposal. Some would see Jones' behaviour as an example of Jewish power through the media, et al, but I see it as displaying a lack of moral and mental integrity.
I know that I offer a moral argument that does not address the power question, but a healthy community needs a moral foundation where trust is the glue that binds individuals into a wholesome unit. Jones bases his cohesive social glue on the legal framework only, and that's where he becomes undone. As citizens we have moral, social and legal duties to fulfil.
Hence, as unbalanced as he is, Jones is an avid collector of so-called antisemitic incidents. This activity brings him into a spin because it creates the illusion that the world centres around his person where any divergent opinion expressed or implied is an antisemitic incident, an insult, done because Jeremy Jones is Jeremy Jones. Imagine the absurdity of such a persecution complex, of being a self-proclaimed victim of one's own making. What a massive moral and intellectual immature state of mind!
So, self-absorbed and self-centred and ethnocentric Jeremy Jones sits in his office or at home expecting an antisemitic incident to come his way; or he is just embroiled in an antisemitic incident, or he is just coming out of an antisemitic incident. There is no rest for him. Naturally such mental mindset develops into a neurosis, and we must be wary of such because these individuals are always out to find a scapegoat that deflects from them ever having to accept personal responsibility for their own behaviour. Jones has to realise that he is not the centre of the universe and that his favourite pastime, hunting antisemites, is a mental fraud. Anyone who uses the term 'antisemite' is not being honest.
To Whom It May Concern
25 May 2003
Re: Imprisonment of Pacifist and Revisionist Historian, Ernst Zündel
The Canadian government's unjust treatment of Ernst Zündel gives rise to great concern because for decades this man, prior to leaving for the US three years ago, lived in Canada without breaking any laws. That the Canadian Zionist lobby has succeeded in perverting the course of justice in Canada does not surprise me, certainly not since I have learned that internal security agencies were actually condoning illegal acts against Ernst Zündel during the 1980s, for example permitting a pipe-bomb parcel to be sent to Zündel's Toronto address. However, I did not expect the Canadian government agencies to jettison basic common law principles merely to fulfill the hate-driven Zionist campaign to extradite Ernst Zündel to Germany where he faces certain imprisonment, if not certain assassination.
Ernst Zündel's thoughts are dangerous to those who uphold the 'Holocaust lie', namely that Germans during World War Two, systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers, in particular at Auschwitz, Krema II. In 1999 I personally spent seven months at Mannheim Prison for having a website that, among other things, deals with this taboo topic. As part of my research I canvassed a number of judges and public prosecutors in order to gain a better understanding of what motivates these legal persons to uphold the 'Holocaust lie'. My arrest occurred in a public prosecutor's office, a person I had visited two years earlier.
It is not possible to defend oneself against any allegation involving the 'Holocaust lie' because truth is not a defence in such proceedings. In fact, if one vigorously defends the allegations and offers physical proof to prove that one's views are founded on physical/scientific/historical facts, then that will give rise to another charge: the charge of having the mindset of a Revisionist whose 'criminal energy' is self-evident in any mounted defence. My legal counsel and I remained silent, and so immediately after the court hearing, and after bail was posted, I was allowed to leave prison.
It would be a travesty of justice to send Ernst Zündel to Germany where certain persecution awaits him. For the Germans who uphold the 'Holocaust lie', Zündel is a dangerous enemy because his thoughts would liberate millions of Germans from a sick dogma called the 'Holocaust lie', or 'Holocaustianity'.
If you care for free speech, the foundation of any civilized society, then you will not entertain the idea of sending Ernst Zündel to Germany. In any case, if a person is to be deported from Canada, has that person not a right to decide on a country of choice?
As I have pleasant memories of spending time in Canada during the 1970s, I am simply now appalled at the way Canadian government agencies have treated one of its own long-term residents: Ernst Zündel has never harmed anyone; Ernst Zündel has no criminal record; Ernst Zündel has never been a burden on the Canadian taxpayer. Ernst Zündel is a creative artist, a free thinker and a devoted husband and family man.
I request that Ernst Zündel immediately be released from unwarranted detention.
Submitted for your consideration.
Dr Fredrick Töben
©-free 2003 Adelaide Institute