Professor Andrew Fraser’s battle against world Jewry and its Proxies
Fredrick Töben comments – 29 June 2006
Professor Andrew Fraser, associate professor of law at Macquarie University, is retiring in a day’s time without receiving the benefits that such a professorship usually offers retiring academics. Why? Professor Fraser dared do what academics should be doing as a matter of course – ask questions about pressing issues, rather than sweep matters under the proverbial carpet and retire with a smile. In the following matter Professor Fraser focuses on an issue that exposes Australian government policy that by implication – an extraordinary immigration program – aims to generate the black-white racial divide within Australian society. The blatant government neglect of basic support services faced by new arrivals in Australia is a policy issues that will create racial divides on account of economic deprivation that generate social dislocation, and immediately one may ask the obvious: Cui Bono – in whose interest is it that such racial social divides exist? In order to understand this matter and what mindset is generating it one needs look no further than the ‘Holocaust’, that neo-liberalism-driven dogma currently controlling the western world’s mindset. Revisionists know the thought pattern that lies behind the actions initiated against Professor Fraser – it is a mere variant of the ‘Holocaust’ story. For good measure it is worth stating: The 911 catastrophe is a variant, not a new phenomenon unrelated and thus ‘too far fetched and fanciful’ of the mindset that generated the ‘Holocaust’ dogma. Anyone who falls for this dialectic trick and responds to those playing the racist card unwisely, will ultimately be shredded by new laws specifically designed to create victims that are then set up as scapegoats, thereby ensuring the power-players have a clear and undisturbed run in exploiting those that let themselves be exploited.
Media Release: 26 June 2006
Macquarie Professor lodges HREOC complaints alleging political discrimination and anti-white racial vilification Associate Professor of law Andrew Fraser will provide the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission today with documentary evidence supporting his complaint of political discrimination against Macquarie University. In July 2005, Professor Fraser wrote a controversial letter to the Parramatta Sun in which he suggested that large-scale immigration from black Africa could lead to increasing levels of crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems.
Almost immediately, Macquarie University was subjected to intense political pressure from black African organisations, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and many other “anti-racist” activist groups and individuals demanding that Professor Fraser be sacked. Soon after returning from overseas, the then Vice-Chancellor of Macquarie University, Professor Di Yerbury declared that Professor Fraser’s view were “repugnant” to her, offering a series of apologies on behalf of the University to African migrant groups.
The Vice-Chancellor also sought to procure Professor Fraser’s immediate resignation, offering to buy out his one-year pre-retirement contract which is due to terminate on June 30, 2006. When Professor Fraser declined that offer, the University immediately cancelled his classes and suspended him from teaching.
Shortly thereafter, the University lent its weight to an organised campaign of political intimidation aimed at Professor Fraser. It sponsored a “Racism Within” forum (really a latter-day Stalinist show-trial) where hundreds of Macquarie academics and students gathered to denounce Professor Fraser’s alleged “extreme racism” in terms bordering on the hysterical.
Despite assurances from his Dean that Professor Fraser would be permitted to resume teaching once Professor Yerbury had resigned in early February 2006, the University cancelled his classes once again in the first semester of the current academic year.
The decision to suspend Professor Fraser this year was taken explicitly because his political views on race were deemed likely to influence his approach to the subject he was set to teach; namely, American Constitutional History.
Professor Fraser will be retiring from Macquarie University at the end of this week. Unlike other academic retirees who intend to remain research-active, he has been denied the status of an Honorary Associate which would entitle him to library privileges facilitating research into his next book on Anglophobia: Its Causes and Cure. That petty academic vindictiveness is the latest step in a year-long campaign of discrimination by the University against his political heresies.
In a case of turnabout is fair play, Professor Fraser also has lodged a complaint against the Parramatta Sun and its editor Charles Boag. The Human Rights Commission declared Professor Fraser’s observations on black crime to be an unlawful form of racial vilification. But the same issue of the Parramatta Sun that published Professor Fraser’s allegedly “racist” letter carried a signed editorial by Charles Boag asserting that it is mere “fantasy” to worry about black crime in light of the notorious record of “murder and mayhem on a great scale” committed by white Europeans, here in Australia and elsewhere in the world.
Professor Fraser looks forward to finding out whether the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is, as advertised, a neutral and impartial investigative body. He hopes that a double standard will not be applied by the Commission allowing white Europeans to be subjected to wholesale “racial vilification” while suffering blatant political discrimination whenever they protest the loss of their freedoms and their ancestral homelands. He is, however, not at all confident that his hope will be fulfilled.
Andrew Fraser - firstname.lastname@example.org Dept of Public Law, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia 2109, Tel: 9613 3382.
I am very saddened that a law professor would make such a serious and silly mistake as Fraser made. Why is he picking Blacks out of a clear blue sky and attacking them?
Is he so blind that he does not see that elite Joory just delights when people make this "David Duke" kind of mistake. As his defense, he should study Israel Shahak`s book, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. There he will learn that there was no fiercer anti-Black than the the Rabbi Maimonides.
When will we learn to focus on our one real enemy, our one serious threat, the one pseudo-religion of Talmudic racism that hates all humans. We urgently need all the allies we can find: Black, White, Brown, Yellow, Green, Red, whatever. There are even some honest Jews who are outraged by the crimes being committed in their name.
Patrick H McNally –
Reading the lines of Patrick H., responding to an article about Professor Fraser, I’m but shocked about how silly and naive one can be. Fraser did not pick out Blacks out of a clear blue sky, nor - most important - was he "attacking them". All that Fraser did was to mention verifiable facts! So if P.H. calls mentioning facts an "attacking", I have to call P.H. brainwashed thoroughly, since this is nothing else but the Stalinist rabulism of talmudic P.C. How will P.H. focus the real enemy, now that his eyesight and thinking is clearly occupied and focused by this enemy already? - and completely, having him using his terms of "attacking" when it is about stating pure and true facts!
Patrick H. is really conquered by the real enemy - Professor Fraser is really not but stays real.
Toivo Kettukangas –
I'm quite in agreement with Patrick H's sentiments on the matter of keeping a focus on the real, Zionist, enemy instead of "falling for" the black distraction. Although news is notoriously under-reported between the continents, you in Australia have perhaps heard of Friday's (bogus) FBI raid on seven black men in Florida, in which they made wild claims about the intent of these "Al-Qaida" aspirants intending to blow up the Sears Tower.
The story has been dropped as quickly as it was raised, so flimsy the "evidence," but it had the desired effect of focusing whites against blacks here in the USA, a reaction that has been programmed by the Zionists with Pavlovian effect. Pulling out a black villain is quite the rage when the "New World Order" of Globalism/Zionism needs to stick a needle of mindless rage into the public's arm -- and it has been done again and again and again.
As someone who has lived among blacks all his life, I assure you that I have my own views, certainly not "politically correct" on the black/white issues of the USA -- and I often share them with candid blacks who are among my "infowar" connections. The greatest of my views on the black/white issue nowadays, though, is that it is a great distraction from the more importantJewish/Christian/Muslim issue which works thus:
Jews use media and money (the areas they control) to get Christians to die while killing Muslims. Their relationship to us is that of a fight promoter egging on a duel to the death, not caring how much (or whose) blood ends up on the ground, as long as they achieve their geostrategic and racial goals and everyone else ends up far worse than they started.
You might call me an honored visitor in the black communities I know (and that know me), in large part because I lived and walked where most whites feared to go, and acted with an integrity towards blacks that few whites ventured to offer. Just to stand the whole issue on its head, I offer for those who are interested in my more particular views and experience with blacks to my published correspondence with my beloved mentor, Dr. Peter W. Guenther (RIP), who was a veteran of Second World War -- a German veteran. I wrote the one I reference while on the way to Ft. Stewart, Georgia, whither I rode on a 1,000 mile bicycle trip, searching for the truth about what happened to my comrades in the Battle of Baghdad -- an event covered up by Jews afraid that the truth of things would deter Christians from dying to kill Muslims: http://www.ghosttroop.net/vicksburgprofg.htm. As Dr. Guenther was the most brilliant, erudite man I ever had the honor of knowing, the letter deals with culture and war on a scholar's level. The real story of Baghdad is still covered up, and it is only the reviled "anti-semitic" media that dared to print the truth: http://www.nationalvanguard.org/printer.php?id=6479
Again, the focus of an effective infowarrior should be on the real enemy, not the distraction -- this is the first rule of any contest. We can't fall for tricks if we are to win the infowar (and the Kulturkampf!), and we will be constantly subjected to tricks (all the more if we fall for them!). After all, "By way of deception though shalt do war" is the motto of the Mossad. We must remember that always.
Captain May, Ghost Troop Commander email@example.com
PS: Apropos of the "Chicago 911" plot the FBI (falsely) claims to have uncovered, it looks very much to us as if they have been reading the prediction we published with you in Adelaide Institute back on 3/30/06: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Toben/toben_may_nuclear.htm (with some of your readers being quite skeptical about our prediction, incidentally!). The ensuing "Chicago 911" mission (May 2-4) now sits atop the charts in the Irish 911 Truth Movement, http://www.911truth.ie/, and our latest terror warning was published in Bush's Texas hometown paper, the Lone Star Icononclast:
You are not only absolutely correct in what you say, but damned heroic to say it! I live in Germany and I know that black violence and crime is ruining many European cities. Linz in Austria is controlled by violent Blacks that the police are terrified of, the same goes for Paris. Add a few thousand Rumanian, Gypsies to the mix and you’ve got CHAOS and CRAZINESS.
Paul v Stroheim –
Fact is Fraser is correct. Best he produce quotes and evidence in the past to help his case. I am sick of this expression “White Australia policy”; that is a term coined by a journalist. It was the “Immigration Restriction Act” and Asians still were allowed in! That should be pointed out! Well done to Prof Fraser!
Gavin Oughton –
Leave Professor Fraser alone. You should support him, not condemn him. From a letter to a newspaper it grew into a monster. Was he to know that?
Why should we look to Blacks as allies against the Jews. Yes, we know who are the instigators of the modern "Völkerwanderung", but the Blacks belong to Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, they belong to Africa. Are we to make them allies, only to throw them out later? They don't belong to Australia.
Two hundered years of Australian history has not been able to solve the dilemma of the other Blacks in Australia: the Aborigines. Now we'll have some total aliens here to blend in happily? Never.
Professor Fraser is a courageous man. All he says about the African Aliens is easy to verify: the crime rates, the diseases, the totally different outlook on life. I am
sorry about his troubles and I for one support him. Maybe you should too, whoever you are who is critizising him. He is fighting for a white nation, just as I am.
Should I end this letter of mine with a Heil Hitler? You get the idea?
Dagmar Brenne –
I think Patrick H. is right. We have to focus on the real troublemakers. Maybe Andrew Fraser should be more careful in the way he words his statements. Reminds me of Beazley who wants to 'tear up the new IR laws'; this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater - when revision is needed.
Margit Alm –
Patrick is right about Fraser on blacks. Whatever the intelligence or other characteristics of groups, there are always exceptional individuals. You would have found so among your students in Nigeria.
Peter Myers –
Fredrick Töben replies to Peter Myers’ comment:
Peter – I even extend this to what is happening in Zimbabwe where the government is facing an onslaught that Adolf Hitler faced – furious international financiers, amongst others, who hate any nationalist government enabling its people to achieve a basic autarkic living standard. How can a loan of 20 years ago be repaid if the interest rate is compounded? What these forces do is destabilize the government by picking off the individuals with rewards and offering them plenty of pleasure and consumer goods, then divide and conquer by playing the race card. Zimbabwe has strategic minerals and Nigeria has oil. Remember the tragic Biafran Civil War? – and now Timor! What’s new?
Professor Fraser invites
You might want to compare my notoriously "racist" prediction that an expanding black African population, if experience is any guide, will result in "increasing levels of crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems" with the observations by Premier Iemma in the NSW Parliament regarding the realities of increasing crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems associated with black African migrants in western Sydney, Regards, Drew Fraser – firstname.lastname@example.org
NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard, 08/03/2006
Speakers: Gibson Mr Paul; Iemma Mr Morris | Speech Type: QWN; Questions Without Notice - HUMANITARIAN REFUGEE SUPPORT SERVICES – Page: 21263
Mr PAUL GIBSON: My question is addressed to the Premier. What is the
latest information on community concerns about humanitarian refugee support services?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: I thank the honourable member for his question.
Mr Andrew Stoner: Are you running for Canberra?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: The Leader of The Nationals can lend support to the victims of asbestos by contacting Peter Costello. How about doing that? Humanitarian refugees are among the most vulnerable people in our community—indeed, the world. When the Commonwealth accepts a humanitarian refugee it also accept responsibility for the problems and challenges refugees face. Refugees and asylum seekers arriving in New South Wales from places such as Sudan have a range of complex health problems not seen in previous groups of refugees. These people have spent a major part of their lives in refugee camps with poor nutrition, terrible sanitation and only limited access to basic health care. In many cases they have been subjected to the most traumatic experiences such as witnessing the execution, rape or torture of their family members.
NSW Health in late 2005 advised me as: only 37 per cent of the 4,000 humanitarian refugees from Africa underwent screening for diseases before arriving in Australia. Despite being given basic preliminary health checks upon application for an Australian humanitarian visa, these refugees continue to be exposed to infections while living in refugee camps before they leave Africa. But when they arrived in Australia, unlike other migrants, they are denied a Medicare card.
Mr Alan Ashton: Shame!
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes. This makes access to medical treatment well nigh impossible. It also puts the whole community in danger from diseases such as tuberculosis, malaria, hepatitis, and measles—
Mr Alan Ashton: They have just been dumped here.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes. The Federal Government is not only dumping these vulnerable immigrants on our doorstep without proper medical checks and without Medicare cards; it has also refused to set up a single dedicated support service in areas where refugees settle such as Western Sydney, Coffs Harbour, Tamworth, Newcastle and Wollongong. These vulnerable refugees are simply left to fend for themselves and the State health system is forced to pick up the pieces. New South Wales is pulling its weight with services such as the Refugee Health Service and the Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma, which we fund to the tune of $3.5 million a year. Not only that but the specialised needs of humanitarian refugees are placing huge strains on our new paediatric clinics at Westmead Children's Hospital and at Wallsend. The Minister for Health has written to the Federal Government calling for the establishment of a Medicare number for refugee health services. The Commonwealth needs to get its act together.
Mrs Barbara Perry: And do it quickly.
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: Yes. This is necessary to prevent an emerging health crisis. It is not just in health services where John Howard is letting these people down. The Commonwealth's English as a second language [ESL] new arrivals funding program is simply inadequate. The Commonwealth has primary responsibility for the ESL program—
Mr Andrew Stoner: Can't you raise these matters over in Canberra?
Mr MORRIS IEMMA: No, because it is placing a strain on area health services. The Leader of the Nationals might not care about the paediatric services at Westmead but we do. The Commonwealth has primary responsibility for the ESL program because it controls Australia's migration program. It is all very well for the Commonwealth to talk big about who comes into this country, yet it has abrogated its duty to teach migrants English. This has been a longstanding concern of this and other State governments. Under the New Arrivals Program the Commonwealth provides a grant to New South Wales for each newly arrived ESL student. However, only 62 per cent of ESL students enrolled in New South Wales government schools meet the Commonwealth's eligibility criteria.
Despite the Commonwealth's failure, the State government will continue to provide a high-quality, targeted ESL program as part of its equity provision in New South Wales government schools—our commitment to equity. Low English ability is a direct contributor to high unemployment rates and is a massive barrier to becoming part of the Australian community. The situation is further exacerbated by the Commonwealth exiting the field of providing interpreter services. On 1 July 2005 the Commonwealth completely abandoned its commitment to providing interpreter services for those accessing community services. This has had a massive impact on those trying to access community services in New South Wales. All this results in social alienation and, inevitably, increased crime rates.
I am advised by NSW Police that a number of local area commands have expressed concern in recent months about the increasing number of recent arrivals from African countries. The concern is not about the African refugees per se; it is about refugees not being adequately supported during their settlement period and thus beginning to feature in crime statistics—both as victims and as offenders. The police are responding to this at the individual local area command level and have recently begun workshops with the Sudanese community as part of a crime prevention and education strategy. About half of the recent 5,000 arrivals have settled in Blacktown. A further 1,500 live in Newcastle and Coffs Harbour. I am advised that local area commanders have to divert police resources to deal with problems associated with these refugees. There are also reports of more serious crime associated with gangs of young men from African communities. It is not the core business of the New South Wales health system for the New South Wales police force to spend time and resources picking up the ball dropped by Canberra.
NSW Legislative Assembly Hansard, 8 March 2006, Pages 43 -, article 11.
October 13, 1998
Few ZGrams have caused such a vigorious write-in to the Zundelsite as my ZGram on "Holocaust History versus Dogma" a couple of weeks ago.
Pertaining to that topic, summarized as the common exhortation that all of us confront repeatedly: "What??? You don't believe in the Holocaust?!?" Dr. Fredrick Töben, Director of the Australian-based Revisionist website called Adelaide Institute, sent me a recent radio call-in excerpt - along with this comment:
"Ingrid, this is clearer to me day by day - and was clear to me when listening to John Sack's statement about "believing" in the Holocaust. The other day I was on local talk-back radio (item will be featured in November newsletter) and again the question: What don't you believe in the Holocaust?"
Some of the content of this call-in pertains to Australian politics and is hard to understand out of context, but the "ambience" around the call, I think, is very typical.
Here's the item:
Jeremy Cordeaux's Adelaide Radio 5DN morning program: Thursday, 17 September 1998
FREDRICK TOBEN: Your last caller talked about the literacy problems in our schools.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Yes.
FREDRICK TOBEN: I can concur with that as a relief teacher in the government system, but you can't really blame the teachers because they're merely carrying out the orders, and I wrote a book called The Boston-Curry Party and therein I trace what happened in Victoria during the 80s when ideology took over.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Well, they seem to be more interested in politics than in teaching.
FREDRICK TOBEN: Indeed, indeed, and this is why it is not fair to pick on the teachers who are really trying to do their best - but their directions come from the top. And of course, now with the Commonwealth Games - the success we're having, it shows that we as a nation are strong in the body and weak in the mind basically because weak in the mind was illustrated when David Oldfield [One Nation Senate candidate] challenged Fischer [deputy Prime Minister and leader of the National Party] and Fischer ran off.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Well, we're easily led. We are and it's a very dangerous position to be in.
FREDRICK TOBEN: We're taught to be slaves, and this is why we challenge taboo topics such as the Jewish-Nazi holocaust.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Who's we?
FREDRICK TOBEN: The Adelaide Institute. We're a group of individuals who have been doing this for the past four years and unfortunately people who don't like us call us neo-Nazis, racists, anti-Semites and so on. But what we do is follow topics that the so-called 'court historians' the historians at the university, don't touch - and one of them is the Jewish-Nazi holocaust.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Tell me what it is that you find hard to believe about the holocaust.
FREDRICK TOBEN: We don't want to believe, that's the point. We want to know and if something is sold as an historical fact, then we should be able to look at documentation, go there physically and say: "Yes, this is possible - it is not".
JEREMY CORDEAUX: But don't you think enough people have looked at the evidence, that there was a holocaust, to be fairly convinced that there was a holocaust?
FREDRICK TOBEN: Nobody denies that there wasn't a holocaust, but the term 'holocaust' itself is so broad now that for example, One Nation, David Oldfield told his members that they should not discuss this topic - and now, this is why I'm ringing, I get a disturbing letter from Hugh Wigg, from the Australia First Party, because what somebody has done is taken material off our Adelaide Institute website and put on it "Vote 1 AFP - Australia First Party". Now we have nothing to do with that. We're not a political organisation, and that's what I wanted your listeners to know. We do not interfere with politics. We have people from all backgrounds - Jews, Christians, Moslems - supporting us. We have atheists, fundamentalists - the whole works. We are not discriminatory in anything - but we do want that intellectual adventure.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Well, you basically want that freedom of thought which is a perfectly reasonable thing - the availability or the opportunity to discuss openly anything you wish to discuss without being howled down.
FREDRICK TOBEN: And Jeremy, that's what makes us human.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Yea, and it's also what makes you intelligent.
FREDRICK TOBEN: But once that's taken from us - see, with the Racial Hatred Act, we're before the Human Rights Commission at the moment, and they say our work is racist, when it is not.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: What do you say that is racist?
FREDRICK TOBEN: Well, they say merely questioning - Jeremy Jones of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry is saying he's hurt.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Well, I know him and he's a very intellectual kind of character and I can't imagine he would be against a discussion.
FREDRICK TOBEN: Yes he is, he is.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Why?
FREDRICK TOBEN: Because the point is he, we want to thrash out - I said to him, look, tell us where we're wrong. If we're telling lies, if we are offending you, tell me specifically what's going on. He refused to talk to me. He doesn't talk to me. He's like Tim Fischer - he runs away.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Well, I don't understand that. I think basically in a free society people are open to or should be open to discuss absolutely anything and if something's a ratbag philosophy or ratbag theory, don't try to keep that person quiet. Let that person be heard and be recognised for what he is - a genius or a ratbag.
FREDRICK TOBEN: Jeremy, this is music to my ears what you're saying - because all we're doing is expressing our ideas, our thoughts.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Well it's common sense.
FREDRICK TOBEN: And if we're offending people because of poor taste, I apologize.
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Well, if we don't have freedom of thought, we are just going through the motions of a free society and I'm for a free and open society where people can discuss and argue points, even if you don't agree with them, basically put them out on a table and let people look at them and regard people as being intelligent enough to sort things out for themselves. Fredrick, I've got to move on. Thank you for the call.
- end of call-in.
Afterwards Jeremy Cordeuax broadcast this disclaimer:
JEREMY CORDEAUX: Just for the record by the way. There are people who will believe there was no holocaust. There are people who believe that the world is flat. There are people who believe that socialism works. There are people who believe that anarchy is desirable. There are people who will believe all sorts of things. But I, like the anarchists who want too shut up Pauline Hanson, I believe everyone should be heard. _______
Thought for the Day:
"The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honor you can bestow on him. It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself." - Joseph Sobran.
Back to Table of Contents of the Oct. 1998 ZGrams –
January 11, 2003
“Australian Revisionist needs your help!”
In 1996, when the Zundelsite was the most controversial website on earth and under fire from three countries for political incorrect content – namely the loaded question: Did Six Million Really Die? - many of my readers rushed to my side and sent financial and moral support. I would not have made it without my loyal readers – many of whom have remained steady supporters to this day. It was tough going for a while, but we managed to stay on the air - and the censors backed off. We haven’t had any problems for several years - and America is still enjoying freedom of speech on the Net. A similar situation now exists in Australia. Dr Fredrick Töben of the Adelaide Institute is battling the Australian Jewish censors. I’ll let him speak for himself:
From: Adelaide Institute
To: Ingrid Rimland
Subject: Critical Comments please, Ernst/Ingrid.
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 14:45:35 – 0600
From: Dr Fredrick Töben, Adelaide Institute, Australia
My name is Fredrick Töben and although I have a German background I was raised on a farm in Australia. I have lived in Australia for almost 50 years, and I received my basic primary and secondary education there. I ended my tertiary studies with a doctorate in philosophy. During 1944, together with a group of like-minded individuals, I formed Adelaide Institute. Our primary aim, then as now, is to introduce the Socratic method – asking questions – into public discourse.
As a teacher I conflicted with those who wished to introduce into the English syllabus ‘Holocaust’-related novels, but who would criticize my teaching of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. When in 1996 we established our Internet presence, Australia’s media received an impulse from Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Los Angeles, who called our website a ‘hate site’.
Australia’s Jewish community spokesperson, Zionist Jeremy Jones, used this as a pretext to initiate local action, and he took us before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I was found guilty under the Racial Hatred Act for spreading antisemitism, ‘Holocaust’ denial, et al. The pattern used in these proceedings followed the precedent set by the Ernst Zündel case in Canada, and elsewhere. To cut the story short, on 17 September 2002, a Federal Court of Australia judgment found against our website – and I was ordered to remove certain items that were considered to be offensive against the Racial Hatred Act. This we did.
However, we are now appealing against this verdict before the Bull Bench of the Federal Court of Australia. The main reason for this appeal rests in our attempt to retain our freedom of speech. It is as basic as that.
In 1999 I was arrested and spent seven months in a German prison for the material we have on our website that is hosted by an Australian server. My attempt at discussing with a public prosecutor the German legal situation led me to be arrested in that prosecutor’s office. Ironically, only wo years before that I had an informative discussion with him in that same office, without anything happening then.
During my 1999 German imprisonment I penned the following: “If you deny me my freedom to think and to speak, then you deny me my humanity, and you commit a crime against humanity. Truth is my defence.”
Australia is following the German legal pattern by proscribing the free expression of ideas.
I wish to oppose this by mounting an effective challenge, so that we retain the Common Law rights to free speech. Australia does not enjoy the US First Amendment protection where only actually expressed physical incitement is a criminal matter but not critical talk.
We are fighting this case to safeguard our humanity from an attack that attempts to reduce our minds to slavery, as prevailed in the former Soviet Union, and now in Germany, Switzerland and France – where every life’s whim had to be seen through the ruling oligarchies’ eyes of atheistic-Marxist-materialistic ideology, or the intolerant, repressive post-war new political elites in these countries, such as France, Germany and Switzerland.
The issue now before the Australian court is not whether the ‘Holocaust’ happened or whether Jews/Zionists can use it to hide behind and deflect legitimate criticism of their behaviour and censorship attempts, especially their oppressive behaviour towards the Palestinians.
Whether one believes in the ‘Holocaust’ or not is now irrelevant in this case because there is now a much larger issue at stake. Our struggle is a global struggle for human freedom against those who thrive on enslaving the minds of the people of the world.
For our 25 February 2003 Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, please send your cash or cheque to: Töben Defence Fund, PO Box 1137, Carleton 3053, Australia.
Direct electronic transfer to: Töben Defence Fund, National Australia Bank, 271 Collins Street, Melbourne 3000, Australia; Account Number: 083.170.54878.5499.
[The Appeal was conducted by a counsel, pro bono, and lost, but counsel is now a judge.]
Im Mittelpunkt heute stand eine 31jährige Kriminalbeamtin des BKA–Bundeskriminalamt - aus Meckenheim bei Bonn/Rhein. Sie "betreut" seit Februar 2003 den "Fall Zündel", d.h. hat im Auftrag der Staatsanwaltschaft Mannheim (Klein) das Vorgehen der usraelischen wie kanadischen Behörden gegen Ernst verfolgt und Verbindung gehalten mit dem Generalkonsulat in Atlanta, USA, dem in Toronto sowie der Botschaft in Ottawa, Kanada, teilweise direkt, teilweise über sogenannte BKA-Verbindungsbeamte.
Verhandlung um 9Uhr angesetzt. Obwohl sich der Andrang wieder in Grenzen hielt, aus unseren Reihen, den Medien - ich habe nur drei gezählt, darunter der BILD-Schreiber für Rhein-Neckar sowie Zastrow von der FAZ, eine Schulklasse -, wurde mit rd. 25 Min. Verspätung begonnen; ein Begründung erfolgte nicht. - Alle Verteidiger waren da, auch Frau Stolz und Horst Mahler.
Das Gericht und Ernst kamen gleichzeitig in den Saal. Einige klatschten - Dr. M. reagierte wieder erregt, ließ aber nicht sofort etwas unternehmen. In der ersten Unterbrechung - es gab wieder einige - wurden von der im Raum anwesenden Polizei - innerhalb wie außerhalb des Gebäudes war man auch nur mit "halber Mannschaft" im Vergleich zum Anfang vertreten - die Personalien der Klatscher festgestellt; alle werden Schreiben des Dr. M. erhalten mit dem Ersuchen um Stellungnahme..... Ordnungsgelder dürften die Folge sein.
Zum Auftakt stellte Dr. Schaller einen Befangenheitsantrag, weil zwei Privatbriefe von Ernst angehalten und nicht weitergeleitet wurden. Antrag nach kurzer Beratung abgelehnt.
Antrag von RA Rieger wegen beeinträchtigter bzw. nicht erfolgter Öffentlichkeit. - Die zuvor erwähnte Schulklasse wurde "sonderbehandelt", d.h. sie mußte NICHT anstehen, wurde durch einen Seiteneingang hereingeführt und bekam Plätze in den vordersten Reihen zugewiesen. --- Einige unserer Leute beschwerten sich lauthals. Einer wurde von der Polizei aus dem Raum geführt und erhielt nach Feststellung der Personalien Platzverweis, d.h. er wurde nicht mehr eingelassen.
Die anschließende Vernehmung des LG-Verwalters wie des Einsatzleiters der Polizei ergab ein "Mißverständnis". Der Antrag auf Vertagung wurde daher zurückgewiesen. --- Am Nachmittag war der Betreffende wieder im Saal. - Ein weiterer Teilnehmer erhielt deswegen einen Platzverweis mit Androhung der Verhaftung, weil er wie bereits mehrere Male zuvor bei der Partbucht auf der Höhe des Eingangs ein Transparent befestigt hatte mit der Aufschrift "Deutschland sucht die Wahrheit!". - Auch er konnte am Nachmittag in den Saal; das Transparent, wenn auch beschädigt, wurde ihm wieder übergeben.
Ein weiterer Antrag von RA Rieger befaßte sich mit der zu Beginn durch den Vorsitzenden verteilten "Liste der Befragungsschwerpunkte" der BKA-Mitarbeiterin. Rieger bemängelte, daß er sich nicht richtig habe vorbereiten können, da er keine vollständige Akteneinsicht gehabt habe. - Ein ähnlicher Antrag war bereits früher ablehnend beschieden worden. Dies geschah auch mit dem heutigen Antrag.
Danach kam der Auftritt der BKA-Beamtin. - Eingangs schilderte sie, was sie seit Februar 2003 alles auftragsgemäß unternommen hat / unternehmen mußte. So weit ich mitbekam, füllen die BKA-Unterlagen unter den Prozeßakten fünf Ordner. --- Erwähnenswert ist, daß seitens der "brddr" kein offizieller Antrag auf Auslieferung / Abschiebung von Ernst gestellt worden war, da nach der rechtlichen Einschätzung der deutschen Botschaft in Ottawa (Bericht v. 20.3.2003) wenig Aussicht auf Erfolg bestand. Daher habe man den Ausgang des kanadischen Verfahrens gegen Ernst abgewartet, das als erfolgversprechender eingestuft worden sei. Sie habe indes den Haftbefehl sowohl in die USA wie auch nach Kanada geschickt, auch das alte Münchener Urteil aus dem Jahr 1991. - Die Amis hätten überhaupt NIE reagiert, die Kanadier hätten auch NIE offiziell mitgeteilt, was man Ernst konkret vorwerfe. --- Sie sei auch am Flughafen in Frankfurt gewesen, als Ernst eingeflogen worden sei und habe ihn auch mit Kollegen nach Mannheim gebracht.
Die Befragung seitens der Verteidigung wurde überwiegend von RA Rieger bestritten. Hier kamen auch "Berichte der Zündel-Exfrau Irene Hellen ins Spiel, für die man wohl auch Geld bezahlt zu haben scheint. Laut Frau Kuhl - so der Name der BKA-Beamtin - habe man NICHTS daraus in den vorliegenden Fall eingearbeitet.
Die BKA-Dame war besser vorbereitet als der Gutachter des Max-Planck-Instituts, machte auch eine bessere Figur, doch auch sie kam ab und zu ins Schleudern, was wohl damit zusammenhängt, daß die Aussagegenehmigung für sie nur eingeschränkt (!) erteilt worden war. Dennoch wurde auch deutlich, daß der BND – Bundesnachrichdendienst – genau wie der der kanadische Sicherheitsdienst ebenfalls mit im Spiel waren.
Die Befragung wurde für rd. 90 Minuten – Mittagspause - unterbrochen.
Dr Schaller, nach der Pause, wollte wissen, ob beim BKA alle Weltnetz(Internet-) Aufzeichnungen der "zundelsite" archiviert worden sind. Auch hier ausweichende Antwort. Auch auf seine Frage, was die "zundelsite" zum Vorwurf der Zusammenarbeit mit der "White Supremacy"-Bewegung (Bewegung für die Vorherherschaft der Weißen/Europäer) in Nordamerika erbracht habe, gab es keine bzw. nur eine ausweichende Antwort. - Danach wurde es für die Zuhörer langweilig, da am Richtertisch das Gericht, der Staatsanwalt sowie die RAe Bock und Rieger mit der BKA-Beamtin BKA-Akten einsahen, die irgendwo zugeordnet werden sollten. --- Denkbar ist, daß der / die Vorgänger(in) der Frau Kuhl noch als Zeuge geladen wird.
Auch bei der Befragung dieser Zeugin ging es darum, inwieweit die zwei Jahre, die Ernst in Kanda im Gefängnis verbracht hat, angerechnet werden können. - Aus der Sicht des Verfassers dieses Berichtes gab es kaum neue Ansätze außer der Tatsache, daß sich die brddr-Behörden alle Mühe gaben, Ernst in ihre Hände zu bekommen - Geld wie Aufwand spielt)e) da keine Rolle.
Da Dr. Schaller den Zug nach Wien um 15.30Uhr erreichen mußte, verließ ich mit ihm kurz nach 15Uhr das Gericht und brachte ihn zum Bahnhof. - Ein Kamerad hat mir noch heute Abend die neuen Folgetermine mitgeteilt:
21, 23, 30 Juni; 3, 20-21, 28 Juli; 4 August; 1, 22, 29 September.
Beginn jeweils um 9Uhr, ausgenommen am 3. Juli. Beginn ist hier 10Uhr.
Am 21. und 23. Juni werde ich NICHT an den Verhandlungen teilnehmen können, da ich im "Deutschen Haus" in Kalabrien, Italien, zum Arbeitsurlaub bin. Kam. Stefan W. wird Dich / Euch in ähnlicher Weise unterrichten wie ich das bislang getan habe.
Alles Gute weiterhin und beste volkstreue Grüße
NS: Zur Klarstellung - Jeder "Berichterstatter" sieht den Verlauf anders, ordnet ihn anders ein und setzt auch andere Schwerpunkte. - WER meine Aufzeichnungen weiter verwendet, sollte auch die Quelle nennen. Wie üblich bitte ich Kam. Frederick, die engl. Übersetzung zu besorgen. - Danke!
Günter Deckert Reports Ernst Zündel Trial 9 June 2005
A 31-year-old BKA police investigator was the main witness at today’s hearing. Since February 2003 under the direction of the Mannheim state prosecutor’s office she has been in charge of the Zündel case, liaising with US and Canadian authorities, retaining contacts with the German consulates in Atlanta, USA, and in Toronto, Canada, and the German embassy in Ottowa, Canada.
The proceedings, set down to commence at 9:AM, began 25 minutes late – no reason given for the late start. A manageable audience settled down in the public gallery, including the Rhein-Neckar Bild reporter, Zastrow of the FAZ, as well as a school class. All members of the defence team were present – as well as Sylvia Stolz and Horst Mahler.
The judges and Ernst entered the court simultaneously. Some applauded – Dr Meinerzhagen again reacted nervously but did not immediately undertake anything. During the first of a number of breaks, the police took down the names of those who applauded Ernst entering the court. They will receive a letter from Judge Meinerzhagen, then most likely have to pay a fine. In contrast to the first day, there were only a few police within and without the court.
Dr Schaller for the defence petitioned/applied to have the judge recuse himself, again, because he had retained two of Ernst’s personal letters, and after a brief conference the application was rejected.
Defence counsel Rieger petitioned the court for prejudicing the public by according the school class ‘special treatment’ in that the students did not have to stand in line with members of the public. They entered the court through a side door, then were given seats in the front row.
Some of our supporters vigorously protested, and one supporter, after his personal details were noted, was escorted out of court and not permitted to return.
The subsequent interrogation of the Landesgericht administrator, as well as the officer in charge of the police, concluded there had been a ‘misunderstanding’. The application to adjourn proceedings was rejected – and in the afternoon the individual was back in court.
Another participant received a warning that he would be arrested if he continued to place at the entrance to the court the banner Germany seeks the Truth! He, too, was permitted to return in the afternoon, and his banner, though damaged, was also returned to him.
Another application by Defence Counsel Rieger concerned the document listing the questions to be asked of the BKA officer. Rieger regretted that he did not have enough time to properly prepare himself in this matter because there was no full disclosure of documentation. The application was rejected, just as it was at an earlier hearing.
Then it was time for the BKA officer to take the stand. She stated how since February 2003 everything was done according to orders. As far as I could follow the proceedings there are five files. Notable is that the “brddr” - Germany – did not apply to have Ernst extradited to Germany because according to the German embassy in Ottowa this would not have succeeded. Hence it was decided to await the outcome of the Canadian action against Ernst, which was considered to be a more successful action. She had sent the arrest warrant to the USA and to Canada, as well as the old München judgment of 1991. The Americans never reacted, the Canadians never officially informed them what was the specific charge against Ernst. She was also there at the Frankfurt Airport when Ernst arrived from Canada, and with colleagues she also accompanied him to Mannheim.
Attorney Rieger led the defence, and the Report of Zündel-ex-wife Irene Helen was raised, for which most probably money had been paid. According to Frau Kuhl, the name of this BKA officer, nothing has been included from that report into the current proceedings.
The BKA lady was better prepared than the expert from the Max-Planck-Institute. She also presented well, but now and again she began to slip, most likely because she was probably limited in what she was able to report. It is clear that the German BND and the Canadian secret service were involved in this matter.
Examination of witness was adjourned for 90 minutes for lunch.
The matter of Ernst’s two years Canadian imprisonment was also raised during Frau Kuhl’s examination. The writer of this report concludes that nothing new came out of today’s proceedings except that it is obvious the German authorities did everything possible to get their hands on Ernst,
After lunch Dr Schaller wanted to know if the BKA had archived all of the „zundelsite“ Internet material. An evasive answer followed. Likewise to the question what accusations have been made about the ‘zundelsite’ cooperating with the “White Supremacy” movement in North America.
After that the audience was bored as defence counsel Bock and Rieger, together with the judges, state prosecutor and the BKA officer, viewed the files. There is a possibility that Frau Kuhl’s predecessor may be invited to attend court as a witness.
Dr Schaller needed to catch the Wien train at 3:30PM, so I left court with him after 3PM and took him to the station. A comrade informed me of the new dates:
21, 23, 30 June; 3, 20-21, 28 July; 4 August; 1, 22, 29 September; start 9AM, except on 3 July - 10AM.
I cannot attend 21 ands 23 June because I shall be on a working holiday in the ‘German House’ in Calabria, Italy. Comrade Stefan W will report accordingly as I have done in the past.
All the best and warmest volkstreue greetings
PS: For clarification – each reporter views things according to his perception. Anyone who uses my material should source it accordingly.
Sent: Monday, 5 June 2006 7:05 PM
Subject: Spiegel-Interview//Ihr Aufenthalt im Iran
Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Toeben,
danke für Ihre schnelle Reaktion. Vor dem Hintergrund des Spiegel-Interviews mit dem iranischen Präsidenten und Ihrem kürzlichen Aufenthalt im Iran würde mich folgendes interessieren - wir können darüber auch gern telefonisch reden, je nachdem wie es Ihnen lieber ist. Natürlich möchte ich Sie auch fragen, ob Sie ggf. zu einem Interview bereit wären, das müsste ich dann aber noch mit der Redaktion abstimmen, aber nun erst einmal zu meinen konkreten Fragen:
1.) Ihrer Internetseite entnahm ich, dass Sie kürzlich im Iran waren, Herr Deckert sagte u.a. auf einer Konferenz zum Thema Holocaust? Was waren die Hauptergebnisse der Konferenz? Gibt es abstracts, summaries oder sonstige Unterlagen, wo man sich informieren und nachlesen kann?
2.) Haben Sie selbst auch referiert - zu welchen Thema? Gibt es ein Vortragsmanuskript oder würden Sie mir kurz Ihren Vortrag zusammenfassen?
3.) Wer aus dem europäischen/deutschsprachigen Raum war noch da, mit wem könnte man noch darüber sprechen?
4.) Den Fotos Ihrer Internetseite entnehme ich, dass auch in der iranischen Presse darüber berichtet wurde (Zeitungen, Rundfunk, Fernsehen). Auch darüber würde ich mich gern informieren, doch in den dortigen Archiven finde ich die konkreten Berichte nur unter dem jeweiligen Datum. Könnten Sie mir mit Daten behilflich sein oder hat vielleicht jemand die gesamt iranische Presse dazu ausgewertet?
Ich hoffe, das sind für das Erste nicht zu viele Fragen. Danke.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen - Ulrich Neumann, 0049 160 150 4821
Betrifft: Herrn Günter Deckerts eingeleiteter Kontakt zwischen Neumann-Töben
Sehr geehrter Herr Neumann
Vielen Danke für Ihre Anfrage - Antwort folgend:
1. Meine Reaktion zu Ihrer Anfrage ist beeinflusst vom Wissen wie klein und schnell die Nachrichtenwelt heutzutage ist. Als in 2002 das Gerichtsurteil vom Australischen Federal Court ausgesprochen wurde - was bahnbrechend gegen Internetfreiheit war - bekam ich am selben Tag noch einen Anruf aus der USA.
2. Kontakt mit Töben: Man finded unsere Telefonnummer ja im Telefonbuch, sowie unsere physische Adresse. Wir sind also zu jeder Zeit zu erreichen da wir auch diese Information auf unsere Netzseite haben - http://www.adelaideinstitute.org. Die Frage: Warum haben Sie mich nicht direkt angeschrieben, wie es andere Reporters machen?
3. Der Name: Als ich am 2 Juni 1944 geboren wurde war meine Name Gerold Friedrich Töben - 10 Jahre später passte meine Familie sich im Anglo-Australischen an wo man zu der Zeit kaum ein Umlaut kannte oder kennen wollte - also wurde es Gerald Fredrick Toben und nicht Toeben. Ich bin nun zurück zum Töben gegangen.
4. Ihre Fragen: Sie sind nicht der erste, der diese Fragen stellt. Ich hatte ja auch durch Emails bekannt gemacht, dass ich von unseren Geheimdienst besucht wurde. Meine Antwort ist einfach gewesen, auch an Sie: - alles was wir präsentiert haben ist auf unsere Netzseite. Abgesehen vom Mannheimer Gerichtsurteil - was noch nicht Rechtskräftig ist da es nicht zu einer Neuverhandlung kam - habe ich ja einen Maulkorb vom Australischen Gericht und darf nicht frei über den ‚Holocaust’ sprechen und schreiben - also bin ich, wie Sie, nur ein Reporter, ein Berichterstatter. Sie sehen ja unser Disclaimer auf der ersten Seite.
5. Interview: Sie können mich gerne anrufen um einen live Interview mit mir zu führen - aber bedenken Sie Ihre eigene Sicherheit - und der Paragraph 130. Ich denke aber da nun Der Spiegel den Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Interview abgedruckt hat - den wir auch führen –
sollte Ihnen doch eigendlich nichts passieren wenn ich auf Radio sage daß Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Hans Günter Kögel, David Irving, u.a. endlich freigelassen werden sollen weil sie nur ihre Meinungen zum Ausdruck bringen, und weil sie sich weigern diese ‚Holocaust’ Geschichten zu glauben ohne kritisch darüber nachzudenken.
6. Gedankengut: Natürlich bin ich vom Gedankengut Horst Mahler/Sylvia Stolz beeinflusst und kämpfe genau wie sie um die geistige-Kulturfreiheit wo wir ohne Hemmung über Adolf Hitler und den Nationalsozialismus sprechen können. Ich pflege keine politischen Ziele außer den Kampf um die Geistesfreiheit für Deutschland und gegen die ‚Holocaust’ Lüge. Also darum kann ich ohne weiteres Abschließend Sie begrüßen mit Heil Hitler und Sieg Heil, ohne daß Sie sich komisch fühlen müssen - nur so können Sie sich selbst vom Versklavungsprozess befreien unter den die Deutschen sich zur Zeit durch die Holocaustkeule befinden.
Mit bester Begrüßung
Ihr, Dr Friedrich Töben
PS: Als ich in den 1970-iger Student in Stuttgart war hörte ich gerne das Program 'Vom Telefon zum Mikrophon' - waren Sie zu der Zeit schon im Radio tätig?
[There was no direct follow-up from Ulrich Neumann, though a German contact did hear a program about Iran that mentioned Dr Töben’s name.]
On both hearing days security was discreet and visitors’ attendance minimal.
1. Ingrid Rimland-Zündel had sent to court for viewing the two DVD-set, Setting the Record Straight: The Ernst Zündel Saga, and defence counsel, Ludwig Bock requested that this also be made available to Ernst in his cell.
2. The court rejects application from defence counsels, Bock/Rieger, that Ernst Zündel’s two years in a Toronto prison be considered when working out prison time in Germany. Rejected on grounds that the Canadian act was one of ‘national security’, while in Germany it is one of denying the ‘Holocaust’.
3. Consideration of matter – subjective/objective nature of ‘Holocaust’ denial. Should Ernst be assessed by a psychiatrist? Problem is that Ernst is convinced his belief is the truth, that the ‘Holocaust’ is a lie.
4. Witness for the prosecution, German secret service agent Jürgen MAURER, 54, trawls over the covert activity in cooperation with Ernst’s second wife, Irene, that occurred via the German Embassy in Washington up to 1999, without any definite results. The aim was to ascertain who was responsible for the Germania Briefe newsletter and the Zundelsite. Irene described Ernst as the ‘active, dominant’ person.
5. Mail sent to Ernst Zündel can now also be written to him in English.
6. Trial continues 20 July 2006
30 June 2006
Beginn: Angesetzt um 9Uhr, begonnen um 9.28Uhr; keine Begründung für Verspätung genannt. - Ende: gegen 12.30Uhr
Besuch schwach - "Der Zahn der Zeit ....!" --- Medien: nur Zastrow (FAZ). --- Aus Kanada Siegfried F. + Partnerin, Toronto, sowie Herr Koppe, Vancouver, die "Berliner Truppe um Andreas K..." - insgesamt etwa 25 Personen. --- Wenig Polizei; keine scharfe Einlaßkontrolle.
Verteidigung: nur RA Bock sowie RA Beust; StA Grossmann; Gericht in voller Besetzung.
Als Ernst in den Saal "geführt" wird, erheben wir uns; keine Reaktion von Dr. Meinerzhagen, der mit seiner "Mannschaft" kurz danach reinkommt.
1. Dr. Meinerzhagen weist auf Punkte, vorwiegend aus der Anklageschrift hin, die besonders behandelt werden sollen; es geht um einzelne GERMANIA-Briefe sowie um die "Zündelseite" - zundelsite. - Führt in diesem Zusammenhang auch den DVD ein, die Ingrid dem Gericht zukommen ließ; verschiedene Abschnitte sollen in das Verfahren eingeführt werden. - RA Bock beantragt, daß das Gericht Ernst die Möglichkeit verschafft, das Video im Gefängnis anzuschauen.
2. Dr. Meinerzhagen verliest den Kammerbeschluß zu den Anträgen Bock/Rieger im Hinblick auf den Sachvortrag sowie die Befragung des Zeugen Straub vom Max Planck-Institut, Freiburg. - Thema: Kann die Abschiebehaft in Kanada auf die mögliche Strafe hier angerechnet werden. Dr. Meinerzhagen bringt nichts Neues, stellt indes für die Kammer erneut klar, daß eine Anrechnung NICHT in Frage kommt, da es KEINE Tat- und Verfahrenseinheit zwischen dem Verfahren in Kanada – Sicherheitsrisisko – und hier - Holocaust... gebe. - Es sei auch eine "funktionale Verfahrenidentität" nicht gegeben, d.h. beide Verfahren bedingen sich NICHT gegenseitig.
3. Verlist Kammerbeschluß vom 20.d.M. (Juni), daß ein ausführlicher Brief von Ingrid, der sich mit Verfahrensfragen (Strategie usw., Vorgehen der Anwälte usw.) befaßt, d.h. nichts PRIVATES bringt, zu den Akten genommen wird. - Hier kommt ein RA(?) Dr. Schütz ins Spiel, dessen Name mir NICHTS sagt, obwohl ich die nationale Anwaltsszene sehr gut kenne...... Anmerkungen von mir: a) Im "Rechtssystem der brddr" gibt es KEINEN Handel hinter den Kulissen!!! Schon gar nicht bei § 130-Verfahren und vor allem nicht im Fall Ernst Zündel! - b) Für unglücklich halte ich zudem die ausführliche Darstellung der Unzufriedenheit mit dem Vorgehen der Verteidigung durch Ingrid. - Gewollt oder nur Taktik?
4. Dr. Meinerzhagen. verliest Kammerbeschluß zum Antrag auf psychiatrische Untersuchung von Ernst - Problem: Ernst ist von der Richtigkeit seiner Auffassung überzeugt! Mögliche Auswirkung auf den sog. subjektiven Tatbestand (Absicht!), obwohl Ernst wie RA Bock den Antrag zurückgeziehen.
These der Kammer: Tatbestand der Leugnung sei wohl gegeben; das Fehlen der "bewußten Lüge" beinhalte laut höchstrichterlicher Rechtsprechung in der brddr KEINE Strafminderung.
5. Vernehmung des Zeugen Jürgen MAURER (54 J.), ehemals BKA-Verbindungsmann in Washington, jetzt Abteilungspräsident im BKA in Wiesbanden. - Zum Auftakt wird die "allgemeine Aussagenehmigung für BKA-Mitarbeiter" verlesen...
Maurer war seit Oktober 1998 als BKA-Verbindungsmann bei der Washingtoner Botschaft der brddr.und war hier mit den Kontakten zur Ex-Frau Irene Helen und deren Vernehmung/Befragung
*** in den Räumen des deutschen Honorarkonsuls in Pittsburg befaßt. - Das Verhalten der "Ex" Ernst gegenüber sowie ihre Bereitschaft, Material gegen Ernst zu liefern, dürfte Dir, liebe Ingrid, bekannt sein, so daß ich darauf nicht näher eingehen muß.
Es ging hier wesentlich um die Frage der "Täterschaft / Verantwortlichkeit" von Ernst in Bezug auf die GERMANIA-Briefe sowie die "Zündelseite". - Laut Maurer beschrieb die Ex. Ernst als den "aktiven, dominanten Teil" in allen Bereichen.
**** Die "Befragung" der "Ex" erfolgte aufgrund eines Fragenkataloges, den das BKA in Zusammenarbeit mit der StA Mannheim (klein) erstellt hatte.
Die "Zusammenarbeit" sei im Sommer 1999 "ausgelaufen"....., da das gelieferte Material nichts brachte, was man nicht bereits aus anderen Quellen kannte. Zudem, so Maurer, sei die Ex. wohl enttäuscht gewesen, daß seitens der dt. Stellen NICHTS Sichtbares unternommen worden sei. Maurer begründete dies mit dem Hinweis auf die Rechtslage in den USA: Einen § 130 gibt es in den USA nicht! DAHER habe man auch NIE einen Auslieferungsantrag gestellt!
Aufschlußreich und GUT, daß die "Ex" NICHT in der Lage war, wie es scheint, dem BKA oder anderen deutschen Stellen, Versand- und Spenderlisten zukommen zu lassen. - Von ihr genannte Namen, so Mauer, seien NICHT überprüft worden, was ich als "Zwecklüge" einordne.
RA Bock wie auch Ernst - Letzteres verwunderte mich - hatten keine Fragen an den Zeugen. - RA Beust stellte indes klar, daß er nach Erhalt der fraglichen DVD Frau Zündel geantwortet habe.
3 July 2006
Offizieller Beginn: 10Uhr, eigentlicher Beginn: 10.18Uhr - Kein Grund für Verzögerung ersichtlich.
1. Medien: 2 Vertreter, darunter Zastrow FAZ
2. Verteidigung: RAe Dr. Schaller, Beust; RA Bock ab 10.45Uhr
3. Staatsanwaltschaft: Grossmann
4. Gericht in voller Besetzung
5. wenig Polizei - in Zivil 2, in Uniform 8
6. Zuhörer: etwa 20, darunter S. Fischer + Marion K. aus Toronto sowie ein Kamerad aus Berlin
Als Ernst vor dem Gericht den Saal betritt, erheben sich die Anwesenden. - Es erfolgen keine Maßnahmen seitens Polizei.
Zu Beginn wendet sich Dr. Meinerzhagen. an Dr. Schaller, der am Freitag nicht da war, bezüglich der zwei DVD, die ins Verfahren eingeführt werden sollen. Trotz unterschiedlicher Güte seien sie inhaltsgleich. - Da Zündel bislang kaum bis keine persönlichen Angaben gemacht habe, wolle das Gericht aus der 2. DVU bei der Verhandlung am 20. Juli (! 1944) Auszüge, die mit Ernst Leben zu tun haben, vorspielen und durch eine Dolmetscherin übersetzen lassen. - Dr. Schaller teilt mit, daß er wegen der Nichtanrechnung der Haft in Kanada einen Gegenvortrag einreichen werde.
Dr. M. verkündet dann eine Verfügung des Vorsitzenden zur Ausweitung des Selbstleseverfahrens der GERMANIA-Briefe, des beiliegenden Prospektmaterials (Bde. 8 + 9 der Gerichtsakten), die Teil der Anklage sind, um festzustellen, "wes Geistes Kind" Ernst ist, d.h. seine GESINNUNG soll herausgearbeitet werden, weil dies für die Strafzumessung nach deutschenm Recht (§ 46, 2) von Bedeutung ist.
Dr. Schaller spricht sich dagegen aus, weil GESINNUNG auch in Deutschland (noch) nicht strabar sei. Die Gesinnung von Ernst sei nicht Gegenstand des Strafverfahrens.
Er will einen Gerichtsbeschluß. ---- Kurze Unterbrechzung. Danach Verkündung des Beschlusses. Antrag Dr. Schaller wird zurückgewiesen. Das Vorgehen ist nach § 46, 2 StGB zulässig wie erforderlich - Strafmaß.
Aus dem Fernbrief (fax) von Ingrid an das LG Mannwein vom 5.8.2005 werden Auszüge in dt. Übersetzung vorgelesen. - Es geht wiederum um die Frage, wer die "zundelsite" zu verantworten hat.
Aus dem Brief von Ernst an Dr. Meinerzhagen vom 30.7.2005 - es geht um die Sprachenfrage im Schriftverkehr mit der Familie.- werden Auszüge verlesen, die den Lebenslauf von Ernst betreffen, u.a.. 1. Ehe, die beiden Söhne usw. - Dr. Meinerzhagen hebt nach dem Briefwechsel das Verbot der Benutzung des Englischen im Briefverkehr mit der Familie auf.
Aus einem Schreiben von Ernsts US-Anwalt (Einwanderung, Abschiebung) vom 5.10.2005 werden ebenfalls in dt. Übersetzung persönliche Daten von Ernst verlesen.
Aus dem Verfahren in Kanada (Zündel gegen Kanada/Generalstaatsanwalt) wird ausführlich die Eidesstattliche Erklärung von Ingrid verlesen. - Thema erneut die Zuordnung und Verantwortlichkeit der "zundelsite". - Diese "Eidesstattliche" wurde der Sta (Staatsanwaltschaft) Mannheim durch das BKA am 13.12.1996 zugeleitet. -
Aus der "Eidesstattlichen" geht hervor, daß Ingrid die Verantwortung für die "zundelsite" voll und ganz übernimmt.
Aus dem GERMANIA-Rundbrief vom 11.5.2006, der dem Gericht durch das BKA zugeleitet wurde, werden die Antworten von Ingrid auf die Fragen eines dt. Journalisten verlesen. Auch hier liegt der Schwerpunkt auf der Frage der Verantwortlichkeit für die "zundelsite".
Nachdem kurz vor 12Uhr die Verhandlung erneut für eine kurze Zeit unterbrochen war, wurde sie um 12.44Uhr beendet.
FORTSETZUNG: 20. Juli (1944!), 9Uhr - wie bereits erwähnt, sollen die 2. DVD auszugsweise vorgespielt und übersetzt werden. Weiterhin sollen Stellen aus dem Kreuzverhör von Dir im Kanada-Verfahren zur Sprache kommen.
WASHINGTON, July 3 — The Central Intelligence Agency has closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants, intelligence officials confirmed Monday.
The unit, known as Alec Station, was disbanded late last year and its analysts reassigned within the C.I.A. Counterterrorist Center, the officials said.
The decision is a milestone for the agency, which formed the unit before Osama bin Laden became a household name and bolstered its ranks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when President Bush pledged to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice "dead or alive." The realignment reflects a view that Al Qaeda is no longer as hierarchical as it once was, intelligence officials said, and a growing concern about Qaeda-inspired groups that have begun carrying out attacks independent of Mr. bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Agency officials said that tracking Mr. bin Laden and his deputies remained a high priority, and that the decision to disband the unit was not a sign that the effort had slackened. Instead, the officials said, it reflects a belief that the agency can better deal with high-level threats by focusing on regional trends rather than on specific organizations or individuals.
"The efforts to find Osama bin Laden are as strong as ever," said Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman. "This is an agile agency, and the decision was made to ensure greater reach and focus."
The decision to close the unit was first reported Monday by National Public Radio.
Michael Scheuer, a former senior C.I.A. official who was the first head of the unit, said the move reflected a view within the agency that Mr. bin Laden was no longer the threat he once was.
Mr. Scheuer said that view was mistaken.
"This will clearly denigrate our operations against Al Qaeda," he said. "These days at the agency, bin Laden and Al Qaeda appear to be treated merely as first among equals."
In recent years, the war in Iraq has stretched the resources of the intelligence agencies and the Pentagon, generating new priorities for American officials. For instance, much of the military's counterterrorism units, like the Army's Delta Force, had been redirected from the hunt for Mr. bin Laden to the search for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed last month in Iraq.
An intelligence official who was granted anonymity to discuss classified information said the closing of the bin Laden unit reflected a greater grasp of the organization. "Our understanding of Al Qaeda has greatly evolved from where it was in the late 1990's," the official said, but added, "There are still people who wake up every day with the job of trying to find bin Laden."
Established in 1996, when Mr. bin Laden's calls for global jihad were a source of increasing concern for officials in Washington, Alec Station operated in a similar fashion to that of other agency stations around the globe.
The two dozen staff members who worked at the station, which was named after Mr. Scheuer's son and was housed in leased offices near agency headquarters in northern Virginia, issued regular cables to the agency about Mr. bin Laden's growing abilities and his desire to strike American targets throughout the world.
In his book "Ghost Wars," which chronicles the agency's efforts to hunt Mr. bin Laden in the years before the Sept. 11 attacks, Steve Coll wrote that some inside the agency likened Alec Station to a cult that became obsessed with Al Qaeda.
"The bin Laden unit's analysts were so intense about their work that they made some of their C.I.A. colleagues uncomfortable," Mr. Coll wrote. Members of Alec Station "called themselves 'the Manson Family' because they had acquired a reputation for crazed alarmism about the rising Al Qaeda threat."
Intelligence officials said Alec Station was disbanded after Robert Grenier, who until February was in charge of the Counterterrorist Center, decided the agency needed to reorganize to better address constant changes in terrorist organizations.
Roosevelt University of Chicago, IL has fired a philosophy and religion professor for allowing students in his class to ask questions about Judaism and Islam. The chair of the department, Susan Weininger, fired the professor, Douglas Giles, saying that students should not be allowed to ask whatever questions they want in class. Weininger ordered Giles to censor his curriculum, restrict his students' questions, and to not respond to controversial questions or comments from students.
Weininger said that free discussion in world religions could "open up Judaism to criticism." Any such material, she said, was not permissible to be mentioned in class discussion, textbooks, or examinations. Further, she ordered Giles to forbid any and all discussion of the "Palestinian issue," any mention of Palestinian rights, the Muslim belief in the holiness of Jerusalem, and Zionism. When Professor Giles refused to censor his students, Weininger fired him.
The Roosevelt Adjunct Faculty Organization (RAFO) filed a grievance on behalf of Giles citing the faculty contract forbidding the university from restricting academic freedom. Roosevelt University Associate Provost Louis Love denied the union's claim saying that Weininger was entitled, as department chair, to set a professor's curriculum and that this was not an academic freedom issue, but a "pedagogical issue." RAFO has appealed the ruling to arbitration, confident that Prof. Giles' academic freedom was violated and an impartial arbitrator would find this so.
This case is just one example of a growing trend of right-wing attempts to censor the academic freedom of professors and students. Here, a department chair who called all Palestinians "animals" and says college religion courses should teach that only Jews have a legitimate claim to the land of Israel, has fired a professor whose only "sins" were refusing to teach a biased class and allowing open discussion in his classroom. This can NOT be allowed to stand!
Students of Professor Giles have started a Yahoo Group to connect activists nationwide who want to help us force Roosevelt University to end censorship and reinstate Giles. More information is available at:
Fredrick Töben: When the ‘gas chamber lies’ divide Jews, hatred against Germans diminishes
1. The Roz Rothstein article, below – ‘red stone’ in German – reveals a mindset that rests on a false premise, namely that the ‘Holocaust’ is an historical fact. From this fact alone flow consequences that reveal what moral and intellectual problems face this person who so desperately clings to a story wherein values such as truth, honour and justice have no home.
2. Generally the word ‘Holocaust’ is defined as:
i. During World War Two Germans systematically exterminated
ii. six million European Jews
iii. in homicidal gas chambers, in particular at the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp.
3. Anyone who questions the authenticity of the official version of the ‘Holocaust’ is immediately branded
i. a ‘hater’
ii. ‘Holocaust denier’
4. In various countries specifically drafted ‘Holocaust’ protection laws either imprison or fine those who publicly dare challenge this orthodoxy by asking probing questions.
5. If the questioner is a Jew, as is Professor Norman Finkelstein, then that person is labeled a self-hating Jew. One has to recall that Dr Finkelstein still believes in the gassing story, and in 2005 he refused to appear on Dr Hesham Tillawi’s Current Issue TV show because Dr Fredrick Töben was also to appeared on the show. Dr Finkelstein justified this refusal by stating that he is doing this in his parents’ honour because they were ‘Holocaust’ survivors.
6. Using the above words as discussion stoppers forces any thinking individual into a conceptual prison from which escape is very difficult. But that is the intention of the upholders of the ‘Holocaust’ believers and propagators.
7. There is never an attempt made to clarify the actual factuality of the issue, and so the above concepts serve only to block open enquiry, something the control freak hates to initiate because in the marketplace of ideas, in an open forum individuals such as Roz Rothstein would lose their argument for want of providing the proof that would sustain their allegations – in a[particular that Germans actually committed the ‘Holocaust’.
8. The Iranian President, Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has brilliantly shown up the false logic employed by those for whom the ‘Holocaust’ is beyond discussion. He rightly states that if the ‘Holocaust’ did or did not happen, it just doesn’t make sense to have the Palestinian tragedy founded on this story of alleged Jewish suffering.
9. Nothing justifies the creation of the state of Israel, a Zionist, racist state if ever there was one. Even apartheid European South Africa never treated its African population in such demeaning fashion, nor did Germans during World War Two reach such a measure of revolting perverse behaviour as Jews are inflicting upon Palestinians. Jewish supremacism has reached its zenith by enabling its proxy-war mongers, the Anglo-American-Zionist Forces, to dictate from Washington - HQ of the New Jerusalem – the terms necessary to ensure the survival of the European colonial entity and artificial Jewish state on Palestinian soil.
10. The intellectual divide is clear: Anyone who believes in the ‘Holocaust’ is propagating vicious German hatred, something the Iranian President has seen so clearly and called demeaning to German pride. Under the guise of three further deceptive concepts – ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’, ‘terrorism’ – the inexorable ‘Holocaust’ civic and one-world society will run its course and continue to demolish anything in its way, that is, until someone like the Iranian President, Dr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, comes along and brings with him a stronger, deeper and more serious moral and intellectual world view that will inevitably outstrip in appeal the shallow hedonistic consumer materialism offered by western democracies. Ironically, the only freedoms western democracies still offer their citizens is the freedom to go shopping!
The Finklestein Syndrome - by Roz Rothstein, National Director, StandWithUs
In May of 2006, I witnessed the bizarre rantings of Norman Finkelstein at UC Irvine.
This was the second time that I had the misfortune of sitting through his lecture, the first time was at Cal State Fullerton. Once again, it was apparent to me why Finkelstein has been such an abject failure in academia. In my opinion, here are just some of the reasons Finkelstein is held in such low regard by serious scholars.
First, Finkelstein uses his identity as the child of Holocaust Survivors to gain credibility. He distorts history by omitting context, and he defames well-respected figures for the purpose of promoting hatred against the state of Israel and minimizing the horrors of the Holocaust.
His lectures include predictable rants against Israel, promotion of conspiracy theories regarding the reason his own new book (Beyond Chutzpah) was never reviewed, and a strange continuous bashing of Professor Alan Dershowitz for writing “The Case for Israel.”
He spends an inordinate amount of time lecturing about Joan Peters book “From Time Immemorial,” and calls Survivor Eli Wiesel the “clown in the Holocaust circus.”
How twisted is Finkelstein’s sense of human decency?
As the daughter of Holocaust Survivors, I find Norman Finkelstein beyond despicable. I believe he openly and methodically lies in order to promote his own anti-Israel agenda.
It is well known that some children of Holocaust Survivors carry severe scars and wounds that actually manifest in peculiar psychological behavior. For two decades I worked as a licensed Family Therapist, and I believe that some day soon there will be a formal psychological syndrome that would account for self-hating Jews like Norman Finkelstein. Perhaps the syndrome will even be named after him: The Finkelstein Syndrome.
It’s inconceivable to me that an academic fraud like Finkelstein might achieve tenure at De Paul University in Chicago, where he presently teaches his bizarre theories. That he is an assistant professor there is, in my view, a badge of shame for De Paul.
Finkelstein’s true occupation is being a member of a traveling circus, a freak show of anti-Semites who promote anti-Israel propaganda from campus to campus. He openly admits to having high regard for Hezbollah on his website, and promotes the false notion that “scholars widely agree that Israel ethnically cleansed the Palestinian people in 1948.” Even the historians that he quotes, disagree with him. He denies the evidence that Arab leaders told Palestinian Arabs to leave Israel in 1948 so that the combined forces coming from Arab countries could exterminate the Jews, after which the Arabs who had lived in the region could return. He denies the overwhelming evidence that this was the case, contained within periodicals and confirmed radio announcements at the time, like The Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, The New York Herald, London Economist, Time Magazine, Jordanian Daily Newspaper, etc. that clearly reflects the push by Arab leaders to encourage the flight of their brethren for the purpose of the annihilation of the Jews and their reborn state.
There is a compiled list of critical quotes from reputable sources regarding this issue.
I cannot help but wonder why Finkelstein fails to mention that approximately 150,000 Palestinian Arabs chose to remain in Israel in 1948, becoming Arab Israelis with descendants and friends that now number over one million. Growing numbers of Arab Israeli citizens, with representation in Israel’s Knesset, do not match with his accusation of ethnic cleansing.
I wrote a letter to him once, frustrated after having attended one of his deeply disturbing lectures. I asked him why he lied to well meaning students during his lecture. I showed him the evidence that the flight of the Palestinian Arabs from Israel in 1948 was in part due to the war, and in part due to the clear calls from Arab countries. I showed him evidence from credible sources. I asked him to refute them, but he did not. Instead he told me to read his book, and he told me that our conversation was at an end.
As I sat watching Finkelstein this second time, I looked around the room at the eager 300 to 400 students who came to hear him speak. Many of them were already anti-Israel and enjoyed his presentation because it supported and expanded their own prejudices. Others, however, heard that a controversial speaker was coming and came in good faith, with an open mind.
I watched for three straight hours at UC Irvine, as students were poisoned by the Finkelstein Syndrome. I walked away feeling saddened by the notion that young hearts and minds were affected by a man of such dubious scholarship and malicious intent.
What remedy do we have when a hateful propagandist and academic fraud like Finkelstein comes to town? As the national director of an organization that believes in free speech, the only power we have is to expose him as a failed scholar who clearly lacks balance, as a man with an obsessive agenda, and as a man who respects the likes of Hezbollah. To this end StandWithUS supplies flyers to the activists among you to enable you to spread the truth.
Maybe if these things about him becomes more widely known, the 350 people who may have the misfortune of attending his future lectures will come for entertainment rather than for education.
The above is the humble opinion of another child of Holocaust Survivors.
I am confident, however, that I am not alone.
I have heard from a number of you who expressed their puzzlement or concern that you had heard nothing from me between June 30 and July 5. I appreciate your concern but there will be some days when I leave my computer behind and do something else. In this case, it was a trip to London where I had been invited to speak on a panel on an all day conference in London sponsored by the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the subject of which was: Against Zionism: Jewish Perspectives. I was told that the entire event will be available on the IHRC's web site as well as on a DVD and will let you know when it is on line or available.
The day was broken down into three panels. The first was the "Religious Case Against Zionism" which featured two rabbis from Neturei Karta, Rabbi Yisroel Weiss from New York whose business card contains the slogan, "Pray for The Speedy Peaceful Dismantlement Of The State Of 'Israel'" and Rabbi Ahron Cohen from the UK, and Prof. Yakov Rabkin from Canada, whose most recent book is "Jews Against Zionism." And whose subject was "The Use of Force in Jewish Tradition and Zionist ractice." Neturei Karta, which springs from the Satmar movement, is the only one of the Hassidic groups that remains actively true to its anti-political zionism antecedents.
The second panel on "Subjugation in the Name of Self-Determination" was composed of Israeli historian Uri Davis, who was the among the first to describe Israel as an apartheid state, Les Levidow, a member of the UK Palestine Solidarity Campaign whose subject was "Western support for Zionism; implications for strategy," and Roland Rance, a trade union activist whose subject was "Opposition to Zionism: The core strategy of a solidarity movement."
On the third panel were Michael Warshawski, who spoke on "Zionism as the Frontline of so-called Jewish-Christian Civilization; John Rose, a leading member of the UK's Socialist Workers Party, who spoke on "Dismantling Zionism--the pre-condition for Arab-Jewish reconciliation," and yours truly, who spoke on "The Influence of Israel and its America Lobby over US Middle East Policy."
Anyone listening to the second panel would have been forgiven for wondering if any of the speakers had heard of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper, let alone read it. There was nothing in the presentations of Levidow or Rance who were presumably addressing what should be the strategy of a Palestine solidarity movement that would indicate that they had or that paying attention to what the Zionist lobby was doing in the UK or elsewhere was of any significance. It was only when a member of the audience asked the panelists what they thought of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper did they respond and denounce it and the notion of the lobby's power, Rance with as much gusto as he devoted to denouncing Israel's crimes in Gaza, and Levidow more passively but just as firmly. While it was not Davis's subject, he agreed with both that the Israeli tail does not wag the American dog.
After Warshawski's presentation, which did not refer specifically to the issue. I gave the better part of my talk, explaining in some detail what the lobby is, how it functions, and some of its history. Given the time restraints, I did not present the whole paper but certainly enough to get the basic ideas across. My presentation, as I expected (having previously viewed the UK SWP web site) roused the ire of John Rose who departed from his remarks to blast the idea of the lobby having any say over US policy, insisting that Israel is a "proxy" for the US in the region and dredging up Israel's victory over Egypt in 1967 to prove it while offering no other later example (probably for the reason that there are no later "examples," and that one hardly qualifies since France was Israel's chief provider at the time and the US had some ongoing relations with the Nasser regime which it hoped to pull into the US orbit.). In a brief rebuttal, provided by the moderator, I drew the audience's attention to the fact that the only two groups that have rejected the thesis of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper are the Zionists, themselves, and the Anti-Zionist Left, and that it was curious that those who had done so with such emotion at this conference, unlike myself, have had no experience dealing with the Israel lobby in the US; that their position allowed the pro-Israel forces to run up and down the field with no opposition. I am appreciative of the fact that the IHRC gave me the opportunity to present a side that is still largely excluded from conferences on the I-P issue that are organized by the "official" Palestine solidarity groups.
What happened on that Sunday was not just an academic disagreement on a hot London summer afternoon, but represents a critical failing of the Western Palestine solidarity movement; one that amounts to allowing certain self-described "anti-zionist" Jews who have assumed key positions in the movement over the years to continue to provide a protective shield for the well-documented destructive activities of the pro-Israel lobbies both in the US and the UK and no doubt, elsewhere.
They clearly need to be confronted and challenged even as the lobby itself needs to be confronted and challenged and the issue thoroughly discussed and understood among movement members.. Those who think otherwise should examine the sorry record of the solidarity movement thus far and ask whether or not the failure to recognize the importance of the lobby's role is one of the reasons for its failure.
Fredrick Töben comments: The above can be augmented by asking any pro-Palestinian: Do you believe in the existence of the Auschwitz gas chambers? A believer is an enemy of Palestine!
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 12:20:12 -0700 From: Jeff Blankfort - email@example.com
To simply refer to it as the "corporate media" unfortunately disguises its ownership as I am sure the author will privately concede. This story is really yet another proof, as if such is necessary, of who controls the US media when it comes to issues concerning the Israel-Palestine struggle. There was brief breakthrough in the early years of the first intifada among the cartoonists and some editorial circles of the US media and the Zionist lobby not only put it down, it was determined that it wouldn't happen again.
EXCERPT: Yet there was no hint of Olmert's words in LA Times or Washington Post. The New York Times' coverage is more interesting. New York Times'Anti-Zionist Conference in London - Trotskyist Jews deny Israel lobby correspondents Steven Erlanger and Ian Fisher reported the quote in an on-line article that was also published in the International Herald Tribune. However, the quote never appeared in the Times' print edition. The Times' editors seem to have decided that Olmert's words were not "fit to print," and deleted them from their journalists' report. The conspicuous absence of such a widely reported and telling quote raises the possibility that the leading US papers actively avoid printing information that makes Israel look too obviously bad. ...After rationalizing Israel's arrest of 60 Hamas leaders, many of them Palestinian Authority Ministers and elected members of the Palestinian parliament, The Post's editors then downplayed Israel's destruction of an electric plant that provides half of Gaza's power. In a final outrage that combined both blindness towards Israeli violence and complete disregard for international law, The Post's July 1 editorial recommended that the Arab States and the UN stop "fulminating about supposed Israeli war crimes."
One element fueling the current crisis in Gaza is the ongoing failure of US corporate media coverage of Israel/Palestine. US policy, public opinion and mainstream media coverage of Israel/Palestine are all dangerously biased towards Israel. Media coverage both reflects and influences policy and public opinion. Media coverage of events in Gaza again illustrates how the US mainstream media privileges the Israeli narrative, and frequently ignores both Palestinian experiences and international law, providing the US public and policymakers with only part of the story.
On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert admitted that he intended to commit war crimes in Gaza, telling his cabinet that he wanted "no one to be able to sleep tonight in Gaza".
Olmert thus officially acknowledged Israel's policy of collectively punishing 1.4 million Palestinians, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
But none of the US' three leading newspapers - The New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times - reported Olmert's statement, even though it was widely quoted around the world. In the last week, these three leading US papers all also published editorials strongly supporting Israel's right to "retaliate" after the capture of an Israeli soldier. Their editorials never mentioned a single element of Israel's brutal 10 month siege on Gaza. In a reminder of The Washington Post's editorial advocacy of the Iraq war, The Post took the most belligerent position, applauding Israeli "restraint" and approving an Israeli overthrow of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.
Although the major newspapers have published some good articles reporting Palestinians' views in the last days, their overall bias towards Israel has been glaring. On July 2 Ehud Olmert told his cabinet that, "I want nobody to sleep at night in Gaza. I want them to know what it's like" in Israel's communities near Gaza that have been hit by Palestinian Qassam rockets. His statement referred directly to Israel's practices of waking Palestinians in the middle of the night by repeatedly flying jets overhead that create sonic booms, and of shelling Gaza at night. Additionally, Israel keeps Gazans awake at night with worry about poverty, siege, imminent attack, and lack of electricity, water, fuel and food. Olmert's statement was widely reported in the Israeli media, and by the Associated Press, The Chicago Tribune, The International Herald Tribune, and the UK's Guardian, among others. A google news search for his quote yields 279 articles, mostly from newspaper websites around the US. Some of these papers undoubtedly printed this story. Yet there was no hint of Olmert's words in LA Times or Washington Post. The New York Times' coverage is more interesting. New York Times' correspondents Steven Erlanger and Ian Fisher reported the quote in an on-line article that was also published in the International Herald Tribune. However, the quote never appeared in the Times' print edition. The Times' editors seem to have decided that Olmert's words were not "fit to print," and deleted them from their journalists' report. The conspicuous absence of such a widely reported and telling quote raises the possibility that the leading US papers actively avoid printing information that makes Israel look too obviously bad.
What is certain is that the leading US papers generally omit the frameworks of human rights and international law as well as related concepts like collective punishment, and proportionality, all of which have been consistently violated by Israel. On July 3, the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem specifically criticized Olmert's statement, saying that, "The use of sonic booms flagrantly breaches a number of provisions of international humanitarian law. The most significant provision is the prohibition on collective punishment. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention… categorically states that "Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited."
In addition to criticizing sonic booms, Human Rights Watch noted on June 29 that "The laws of war prohibit attacks on "objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population." Israel's attack on Gaza's only power plant is in violation of its obligation to safeguard such objects from attack."
Though collective punishment of Palestinians has historically been a cornerstone of Israeli policy, and characterizes Israel's siege of Gaza, the US' three leading papers have used the phrase "collective punishment" just four times since heightened crisis began on June 25. Each paper cited the same statement by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas once, and The New York Times also quoted a Palestinian grocery store owner. These same newspapers printed the phrase "collective punishment" a combined total of only six other times this year in their reporting on Israel/Palestine. Since June 25 those papers used the words "terrorism" or "terrorist" 28 times to describe Palestinians, while using "occupation" only six times to describe Israeli actions. Citations of the illegality of Israeli settlements, the Wall, home demolitions, detention of Palestinians, and many other measures are similarly rare. While these newspapers do document the humanitarian crises that Palestinians endure, they generally avoid suggesting that Palestinians have rights like Israelis, or that there is an accepted body of law that should be applied not just to Palestinian attacks, but also to Israeli actions. Similarly, in taking positions on the current crisis, these newspapers' editorial boards completely erased Israel's most recent human rights violations. All three papers blamed only Hamas.
The New York Times June 29 editorial noted "reckless Hamas provocations," and The Washington Post's July 1 editorial "Hamas's War" highlighted Hamas' "acts of terrorism and war." Writing as if history began with the June 25 capture of the Israeli soldier and the Palestinian attack materialized from thin air, none of their editorials even hints at Israel's disproportionate violence ? Israel's 39 year military occupation; the 176 Palestinians killed in 2006, many of them civilians and children, compared to 16 Israelis killed; 8300 Israeli shells launched into Gaza this year compared with 840 Palestinian rockets launched towards Israel; on-going Israeli land seizure; or Israel's tightening siege of Gaza. Only The New York Times mentioned that Hamas was now breaking a unilateral 16 month truce. month truce. Israeli newspaper editorials have been more nuanced and balanced than these US editorials. None of the editorials noted that Palestinians killed and captured Israeli soldiers implementing a siege of Gaza. None noted the irony that Palestinians were holding a single Israeli soldier prisoner, while Israel is holding 9,000 Palestinian prisoners, many civilians held without due process, and some enduring torture. In a sentence that could have been drafted by an Israeli government PR firm, The Post's editors wrote that "the militants' demand that Israel release Palestinian prisoners it has legally arrested in exchange for a soldier who was attacked while guarding Israeli territory."
After rationalizing Israel's arrest of 60 Hamas leaders, many of them Palestinian Authority Ministers and elected members of the Palestinian parliament, The Post's editors then downplayed Israel's destruction of an electric plant that provides half of Gaza's power. In a final outrage that combined both blindness towards Israeli violence and complete disregard for international law, The Post's July 1 editorial recommended that the Arab States and the UN stop "fulminating about supposed Israeli war crimes."
Once again, Israeli government spin overpowers the Palestinian narrative, and human rights and international law are belittled. These examples illustrate how the US corporate media is actively shaping the information reported to the US public to Israel's advantage, and promoting the view that Hamas and Palestinian terrorism are the sole problem in Israel/Palestine. Without more balanced reporting from establishment media outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post and LA Times, US policy and public opinion on Israel/Palestine are also unlikely to become much more balanced. The need for media activism on Israel/Palestine is more vital than ever.
Howard County Campaign to End The Israeli Occupation PO Box 6446
Columbia, MD 21045 HCCEIO@yahoo.com
Top | Home
©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute