In the XVIIth Chamber of the Paris Correctional Court, the CRIF and Yahweh against Professor Robert Faurisson – July 11, 2006
They came to grief for it. Quite a bad idea, picking a quarrel with Professor Faurisson. That is what they have learned to their cost, “they” being, first, Madame le substitut du procureur (“assistant public prosecutor”) of the French Republic in Paris, Anne de Fontette, initiator of the proceedings, then the three civil plaintiffs – the LICRA (“International league against racism and anti-Semitism”), the MRAP (“Movement against racism and anti-Semitism and for friendship among peoples”) and the LDH (“League of human rights”) – and, finally, the new presiding judge of the XVIIth chamber, Nicolas Bonnal.
Professor Faurisson’s knowledge and determination
For four and a half hours on this very hot July afternoon, in a sweltering XVIIth Chamber of the Paris Correctional Court, slightly more than a hundred revisionists, who had come from France, Britain, Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, Iran and still other countries to support the professor, attended a legal bout that, from the start, was to swing in favour of the defence. 77 years of age but endowed with a fierce energy, Robert Faurisson is a retired university professor who taught at the Sorbonne and in Lyon. Of “British” style (he is both a British subject and a French citizen), he appeared determined. His memory was to have the LICRA barrister saying: “This one, with his hate-fed memory, can’t be expected to end up with Alzheimer’s”. It was in a sarcastic tone that the presiding judge deemed fit to begin the opening questioning of the professor but the latter warned him that he would not let himself go on being spoken to in that way. And the tone changed. Then, at three points in his reading of a document, the judge stood corrected. His three errors, as the professor was good enough to point out, resulted from the fact that he’d relied on a faulty copy (the text of the writ of summons) whereas he ought to have referred to the original text of a basic document: the report drawn up by a chief inspector-sergeant. When the professor started setting forth his line of defence and developing the revisionist argumentation, the judge seemed to become aware of his mistake: he had a tough opponent to contend with and the revisionist case proved to be decidedly more solid than he appeared to have imagined. Many times he was to be seen, overwhelmed by it all, hiding his face in his hands. “A judge having his virginity taken from him on the bench!”, concluded one revisionist present at the hearing.
The law forbids us, in France, from going into the academic’s arguments, which R. Faurisson always backed up by references. It will be enough here to recall his keenness to point out that it is not his ambition to seek “the Truth”, but that he aims only at exactitude. According to his explanations, he first carried out, on site at Struthof, Auschwitz, Treblinka and in a good number of other places, a technical detective’s investigation; then, through the intermediary of laboratory chemists, he conducted a forensic investigation. Like an examining magistrate, he strove to find all the elements he could both against and in favour of the accused. He sifted closely through a considerable number of testimonies. In the study of documents, he merely followed the most classic historical method. He put into practice a discipline in which he had in the past lectured at the university of Lyon and which had received the official designation of “Appraisal of texts and documents (literature, history, media)”. A revisionist, he points out, far from being a “denier” or a “negationist”, is a researcher who, at the end of his inquiries, can be led to affirm that such or such “Truth” is questionable from a scientific point of view. Also, the right to do historical research should not normally come with either arbitrary bounds or a pre-imposed conclusion. The researcher must not let himself be gagged, just as the judge must not let his hands be tied by a special purpose law like the Fabius-Gayssot Act of 13 July 1990, also known by its technical label “article 24bis”. Besides, up to now, for one and the same offence, which he has stubbornly repeated over a quarter of a century, in the same forms and in identical conditions, the professor has seen himself judged in all possible manners. He has often been convicted but he has at times been acquitted and it has even come to pass that, after a certain trial, a court of appeal has paid solid tribute to the quality of his work, to the point of stating: “The value of the findings defended by Mr Faurisson [on “the problem of the gas chambers”] is thus a matter for the sole appreciation of experts, historians and the public”. If, over these last few years, his publications have no longer met with prosecution, it is because the Law changes moods, because case law reverses itself and because French judges are first of all men and women, who, in general, mean to serve the law but not to enslave themselves to it.
At the root of the charges, a botched inquiry
Robert Faurisson is charged with having granted in 2005 a telephone interview of revisionist tenor to the Iranian radio and television station Sahar 1. The indictment asserts that the programme carrying the interview, having been transmitted by satellite, could at the time be received in France, but there is nothing to prove that it was actually received there. The prosecution produced a “re-transcription of Mr Faurisson’s words on the cassette submitted by the CSA [“Superior council for audiovisual communications”]”. Mr Faurisson readily admitted that the recorded words corresponded to his thoughts but added that, given the abundance of interviews he had granted to foreign stations or agencies, especially since his stay in Iran in November of 2000 at the Iranian government’s invitation, he was unable to specify the date and place of the interview in question. And he was quite surprised that the prosecution, for its part, should be able to state, without having made any inquiry on the relevant points, that his interview would seem to have been broadcast on February 3, 2005 (the date, in fact, of the transmission) and, in the prosecution’s obscure wording, “in Paris […], in any case on the national territory”. The authorities had so badly botched their own investigation into the matter that they couldn’t tell where the cassette had come from, a cassette that, furthermore, might well have undergone tampering since, with the beginning and end of the professor’s discourse having been cut out, the tape could not show in exactly what context the remarks had been made. [As the CSA is apparently not equipped with the formidable technical means requisite for recording, day and night, all the broadcasts of the great many stations of the Arabo-Moslem world, one must suppose that the listening was the work, in reality, of an intelligence agency, for example the famous MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), an appendage of the Israeli military intelligence services specialising in tracking down revisionism in cyberspace.] With such proof wanting, it could not, consequently, be known whether the professor had spoken from France or from a foreign country. As for the missing portions of his talk, perhaps they contained a passage where, as he customarily does, the professor warned his interviewer that such statements as he was about to make must not be diffused in France. In short, there existed no proof of criminal intent. Finally, Maître Eric Delcroix, barrister for the accused, stressed that, in spelling certain names letter by letter, Mr Faurisson plainly believed that his words were going to be translated into Persian, for an Iranian audience.
The civil plaintiffs’ agitation and insults in the face of the professor’s demonstration
Despite the civil plaintiffs’ attempts at obstruction and their noisy objection requesting that the judge stop what one of them termed a “slandering of the martyrs”, the professor listed, to the general amazement of those present, the sizeable concessions, touching directly on the merits of the “Holocaust” case, made to the revisionists in the course of a half-century by the representatives of the official version. He brought up the undoing of Raul Hilberg, in 1985, at the first Zündel trial in Toronto, where the Number One historian of the “Destruction of the European Jews” (as his magnum opus is entitled) had been forced to admit, under oath, that there was, after all, no document proving the existence of a policy for the physical extermination of the Jews. When summoned to explain how, then, such a policy had been able to be conceived, ordered and implemented by Germany, he stated, affirming beforehand what was to appear later that year in the new edition of his book, that all of that “came about not so much [in line with] a plan carried out, but an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus mind reading by a far-flung bureaucracy”! Robert Faurisson mentioned as well the utter defeat of Jean-Claude Pressac on May 9, 1995, in the very same XVIIth chamber. A few days after that memorable session, Pressac had, on his own initiative, signed a sort of act of surrender, which would be revealed to us five years later by a young French academic, Valérie Igounet, at the very end of her book Histoire du négationnisme en France (Paris, Seuil, 2000, p. 651-652). For the one who for years had been the miraculous saviour of exterminationism or affirmationism and the Klarsfeld couple’s protégé, the dossier of the official history of the concentration camps was henceforth “rotten” and no longer good for anything but the “rubbish bins of history”. At this, the burly, paunchy barrister for the LICRA, Maître Charrière Bournazel, exploded with anger. Together with his friends, he asked the judge to put an end to the professor’s turn to speak. Fifteen years previously, faced with the same demand, presiding judge Claude Grellier, the first to hear cases brought under the 1990 law, had termed it “surreal”, pointing out to the censors that, if Faurisson was appearing before his court, it was indeed because of them. Judge Bonnal having ruled that the defendant should continue to be heard, the professor went on with his discourse. Robert Faurisson piled up the evidence, with references, indications of sources and all kinds of precisions. He predicted that his opponents, for want of ability to confront him with arguments and evidence, would seek refuge in invective. And that is what happened. With regard to him or his writings, all that was to be heard from the plaintiffs were words such as “stinking”, “nauseating”, “falsifier”, “lie”, “crime”, “beyond bad faith”, “mud”. In his concluding statement, Maître Charrière Bournazel struck a solemn pose and proclaimed himself a “holy garbage collector”. The plaintiffs repeated the word “anti-Semite” but with nothing specific to indicate the defendant’s supposed anti-Semitism. Later, Maître Delcroix was to observe that, in our day and age, the accusation of anti-Semitism is hurled against people just as the accusation of anti-Christianism was launched against people in former times: “We know your hidden motive, Galileo: you’re trying to discredit the Holy Scripture!”
The substitute public prosecutor, Anne de Fontette,
calls for Yahweh’s protection
Anne de Fontette, the substitute public prosecutor, brought the verbal assaults to a climax with one of her own. She was putting both Faurisson and Iran on trial. To crown it all, the rhetorical flourish of her summation was to be… a Jewish prayer. Announcing that she was about to give a reading of a text of which, as she let us know, she would have been glad to be the author, she read out an invocation to Yahweh (sic), protector of his “chosen people” (sic), beseeching him to protect the said people from “lying lips” (sic) (thus, from the “lying lips” of Faurisson). You have read correctly. Those words were pronounced by an assistant to the procureur of the French Republic and in the courtroom of a secular State. The crucifix had long been removed from French courtrooms, but, on this day, in Paris, it has been replaced by the evocation of Yahweh, whose wrath might strike Robert Faurisson, a call that may be interpreted as a call to murder. Is it not specified in Psalm 120 that “sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper” shall punish the “lying lips”? Today, the French people in their entirety have been replaced by the sole “chosen people”. Judge Bonnal did not breathe a word. Can one imagine his reaction if a representative of the public prosecutor’s office had read an invocation to either Allah or Jesus (who, according to the Talmud, is condemned to stand in boiling hot excrement till the end of time)? Madame le substitut ended by declaring that, as Faurisson was a multiple repeat offender, it would only be right to “move up a notch” and give him a prison sentence, “perhaps with remission”. She was unaware that on May 9, 1995 her predecessor, François Cordier, had sought a sentence of three months without remission. As for the various civil plaintiffs, they demanded, true to ritual fashion, their pounds of flesh in the form of coin of the realm.
Nicolas Bonnal has been “trained” by the CRIF and the
Simon Wiesenthal Centre!
But why did judge Bonnal keep quiet in the face of the misplaced evocation of the Judaic deity and the call to violence or to murder? Is it because he has compromised himself with two entities that are close to the Israeli right: the CRIF (“Representative council of French Jewish institutions”) and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre? The CRIF is headed by the banker Roger Cukierman, formerly a senior director with the Edmond de Rothschild bank. And, just recently, in a press release of July 5, the CRIF announced that it was in charge of a “training” programme for European judges, among whom it expressly mentioned, first of all, Nicolas Bonnal, who had taken a course given by Marc Knobel, a research fellow at the Centre Simon-Wiesenthal de France! In second place the CRIF proudly announced another trainee: François Cordier! Was Robert Faurisson about to find himself in a rabbinical court that would be trying him more Judaico?
Maître Eric Delcroix’s clap of thunder
A formidable voice then made itself heard in the courtroom: that of Maître Eric Delcroix. Hang the microphone! We were no longer hearing the speeches of our three likenesses of Maître Bafouillet (“Barrister Babbler”), as inept as that fictional French lawyer who was so afraid lest he “make the judge’s white hairs turn red”. With Eric Delcroix it’s a well-structured presentation eloquently delivered in the great French tradition. The professor’s barrister went to the bottom of the case: he dissected “article 24 bis” of the law regulating the freedom of the press, that “atrocious article 24 bis” as Maître Yves Baudelot, lawyer for Le Monde, has termed it. After demonstrating its aberrant nature, Maître Delcroix, going to the bottom of the bottom, showed the legal ignominy of the trial of the defeated at Nuremberg in 1945-46, which was the basis chosen for article 24 bis. He also recalled how, as a young law graduate, he had visited the Soviet Union to take part in the defence of dissidents. These days it is against a new tyranny that he continues his task of defending public freedoms. For years he had fought to obtain the non-enforcement of article 14 of the same law, which enabled the Interior minister to ban certain publications printed abroad. That non-enforcement ended up being obtained de facto before it was then approved by the superior administrative courts in Paris. Finally, the lawmakers have recently repealed article 14 outright. Maître Delcroix declared: “I’ve vowed to have the hide of article 24 bis just as I’ve had the hide of article 14.”
Last to speak: Professor Faurisson
Despite all kinds of hindrances the professor had been able to speak for an hour. Now he was to speak for another half hour. In his address, he listed the civil parties’ main errors and, especially, those of the substitut. He pulled his punches somewhat, for the opponent was visibly exhausted and flustered. One doesn’t hit a man when he’s down. But there was a warning: any conviction or new prosecution would reignite hostilities. In the past few years, guided by experience, the examining magistrates and prosecutors had refrained from causing R. Faurisson trouble. Then, new and inexperienced jurists thought they would be cleverer than their predecessors. That cost them dear on this July 11th of 2006. It could cost them dearer still in a future encounter on the judicial terrain.
Meanwhile, the decision is due to be handed down on October 3.
NB: Contrary to their custom, the Jewish tontons macoutes did not come to the courthouse on the day of this hearing, and so did not punch anyone. One of judge Bonnal’s predecessors, Jean-Yves Monfort, used to show, for his part, great indulgence towards the physical violence of the groups known as Bétar, Tagar and Ligue de défense juive. And early last year, on January 15, 2005 to be precise, speaking on radio station France-Inter at 8.30 AM, he confided to presenter Elisabeth Lévy that he was “alarmed” by the number of revisionist followers: he was sad not to see the “citizens come out onto the streets” to express their “indignation” and, in doing so, bring their support to judges whom he described as being totally isolated in their struggle against “negationism”. Acknowledging that the remark, coming as it did from a judge, might surprise people, he called for – his exact word – “disorder”!
Fredrick Töben’s quip:
“Don’t blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure!”
Mannheim. Den früheren Mannheimer Staatsanwalt Hans-Heiko Klein als Reizfigur für die rechte Szene zu beschreiben, wäre eine maßlose Untertreibung. Der 66-Jährige, im Januar 2005 in den Ruhestand versetzt, hat sich bundesweit einen Namen gemacht, weil er rechtsextreme Straftaten mit einer Ausdauer und Zähigkeit verfolgt hat wie kein Zweiter vor ihm. "Ich bin ein Überzeugungstäter", hat Klein einmal über sich selbst gesagt. Auf der Liste derer, die der Mannheimer Ex-Staatsanwalt vor Gericht und teilweise ins Gefängnis gebracht hat, stehen so prominente Namen wie der ehemalige NPD-Chef Günter Deckert, der australische Revisionist Fredrick Töben - und der aktuell wegen Volksverhetzung in Mannheim angeklagte Holocaust-Leugner Ernst Zündel, gegen den Klein gestern als Zeuge aussagen musste.
Ein brisanter Auftritt für den Neonazi-Jäger aus Kurpfalz: Als Richter Ulrich Meinerzhagen Klein erklärt, er dürfe auf Grund einer Sonderregel seine Adresse geheim halten, stößt sein unter den Zuschauern sitzender Erzfeind Deckert nur ein ironisch-gehässiges "Oh" aus. "Ist das der Deckert dahinten?", ruft Klein schließlich genervt, als ihn der Weinheimer zum wiederholten Mal in strengem Ton aufgefordert hat, bei seiner Aussage doch lauter und ins Mikrofon zu reden.
Das Gericht befragt Klein, der Mitte der 90er Jahre nach dem Durchbruch des Internets auf das revisionistische Treiben Zündels stieß, ausführlich zu seinen jahrelangen Ermittlungen in dem Fall. "Spielten Geheimdienste bei der Auslieferung Zündels von den USA über Kanada nach Deutschland eine Rolle?", möchte Meinerzhagen wissen. Der Holocaust-Leugner behauptet seit längerem, seine Ausweisung sei ein Komplott gewesen, in das Geheimdienste und hohe Regierungskreise verstrickt waren. "Wissen Sie", antwortet Klein trocken, "ich lese ja gerne zur inneren Erbauung Bücher mit Verschwörungstheorien. Aber das ist nun wirklich grober Unfug." Ein Zeuge mit Unterhaltungswert: Woher er denn gewusst habe, dass Zündel in die Bundesrepublik und nicht in ein Drittland abgeschoben wird, fragt Meinerzhagen noch. Klein: "Allen Beteiligten war klar, wenn er Kanada verlassen muss, kommt er heim ins Reich. Der Senegal war auszuschließen."
Erst als die Zündel-Verteidiger ihr Feindbild Nummer eins kurzzeitig ins Kreuzverhör nehmen, dreht sich die Stimmung. Ludwig Bock und Herbert Schaller werfen Klein vor, er habe in der Causa Zündel bewusst nicht nach entlastendem, sondern nur nach belastendem Beweismaterial gesucht. Der 66-Jährige pariert die Attacken so gut er kann, aber vor allem Bock hat sich in Rage geredet und will die Chance zur Abrechnung nutzen. Es gelingt ihm nur sehr bedingt. "Ich kann ruhig schlafen und habe ein reines Gewissen", sagt Klein, danach endet die Vernehmung.
Die Chancen für Ernst Zündel, einer Verurteilung wegen Volksverhetzung zu entegehen, sind indes weiter gesunken. Der Vorsitzende Richter Meinerzhagen erklärte gestern, die Kammer sei davon überzeugt, dass der Angeklagte eine Mitverantwortung für die Inhalte der "Zundelsite" trage und Urheber der "Germania-Rundbriefe" sei. Bereits am 1. September könnte die Beweisaufnahme nach den Worten Meinerzhagens geschlossen werden, ein Urteil könnte demnach schon im Oktober ergehen. Zündel drohen bei einer Verurteilung, die nach dem bisherigen Prozessverlauf sehr wahrscheinlich ist, bis zu fünf Jahre Haft. Der 67-Jährige sitzt seit März 2005 in Mannheim in Untersuchungshaft.
29. Juli 2006
MANNHEIM. Die Beweisaufnahme im Verfahren gegen den Holocaust-Leugner Ernst Zündel geht dem Ende entgegen. Ein früherer Staatsanwalt hat gestern dem Vorwurf widersprochen, der Angeklagte sei Opfer eines Geheimdienstkomplotts mit dem BND.
"Ich lese gern Bücher mit Verschwörungsgeschichten", erklärte Staatsanwalt Hans-Heiko Klein, der die Ermittlungen gegen Zündel bis zu seiner Pensionierung 2005 geleitet hatte, im Zeugenstand. In dem von ihm geführten Verfahren habe es dergleichen jedoch nicht gegeben. Der Vorwurf der Verteidiger, Zündels Verhaftung und Auslieferung aus den Vereinigten Staaten beruhe auf einem Komplott der Geheimdienste Kanadas, der USA und des Bundesnachrichtendienstes (BND), "ist absoluter Unfug", sagte Klein. "Der BND hatte mit mir gewiss keine Kontakte; es gab im Hinblick auf das Verfahren keine Zusammenarbeit." Nicht ausschließen wolle er, dass man damals das Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz eingespannt habe, um Material aus dem Internet zuzuliefern. Einmal seien auch "einige Kanadier" wegen des Falls bei ihm gewesen. Sie seien von der Botschaft ihres Landes angekündigt worden und hätten Material mitgebracht, "das wir schon kannten", sagte Klein. Was genau die Besucher aus Übersee beruflich getan hätten, habe ihn nicht interessiert. Sie hätten damals gescherzt, sie seien "vor allem für Weihnachtseinkäufe nach Deutschland gekommen", verriet der Staatsanwalt. "Ein geheimdienstlicher Tiefgang war da nicht dahinter."
Klein, der bei der Staatsanwaltschaft Mannheim für politische Straftaten zuständig war und zahlreiche Verfahren gegen Rechtsextreme, darunter der frühere NPD-Vorsitzende Günter Deckert, führte, hatte die Ermittlungen gegen den zunächst in Kanada, dann in den USA lebenden Zündel 1994 in Gang gesetzt. Anlass sei das Aufkommen des Internets in Deutschland gewesen, sagte er gestern. Im Netz habe Zündel, dessen Versand von Germania-Rundbriefen schon länger bekannt gewesen sei, berichtet, er habe erstmals Kontakt zu deutschen Universitäten aufgenommen; die jungen Menschen dort seien "begeistert". "Es ist ein neues Zeitalter für uns angebrochen" habe er geschrieben. Lange habe man daraufhin diskutiert, wie man die Verbreitung unterbinden könne. Die Debatten seien aber ausgegangen "wie das Hornberger Schießen" - am Ende seien die Provider gesetzlich von der Haftung freigestellt worden, sagte Klein. Zwei Bücher zeigten, dass Zündels Aktivitäten ("Das war Holocaust-Leugnen pur") öffentliche Resonanz gefunden hätten.
Der Prozess wird Anfang September fortgesetzt. Aus Sicht des Gerichts könne die Beweisaufnahme dann geschlossen und ein Urteil gesprochen werden, erklärte der Vorsitzende Richter auf Anfrage.
Sent: Monday, 29 May 2006
Subject: BGH bestätigt Ausschluß von RAin S. Stolz
Endgültiger Ausschluß von RAin Sylvia Stolz im Mannheimer Zündel-Prozeß?
Vor drei Tagen war auf S. 3 des Mannheimer Morgen (MM) zu lesen, daß der Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) in Karlsruhe die Beschwerde von RAin Sylvia Stolz gegen die Entscheidung des Oberlandesgerichtes (OLK) Karlsruhe, welches den Beschluß des Landgerichtes (LG) Mannheim schon vor längerer Zeit bestätigt hatte, zurückgewiesen hat.
Auch der BGH hat die Ausschlussbegründung des LG Mannheim übernommen: Prozeßverschleppung und Verhinderung der Verurteilung.
Damit ist Frau Stolz wohl endgültig ausgeschlossen. – Sie kann das BGH-Urteil mittels einer Beschwerde beim Bundesverfassungsgericht (BVfG), ebenfalls Karlsruhe, anfechten, was sie sicherlich tun wird.
Weinheim a.d.Bergstraße, den 28.5.2006
On 25 May 2006 the Mannheimer Morgen reported that the Bundesgerichtshof in Karlsruhe rejected Legal Counsel Sylvia Stolz' appeal against the Supreme Court, Karlsruhe, decision to exclude her from further proceedings in the matter of [Occupied Germany-OMF v] Ernst Zundel, which legitimises Justice Dr Meinerzhagen's initial decision made at Mannheim. The judge's reasons for this decision were also adopted by the BGH. This means that Attorney Stolz is finally excluded from the Zundel defence team, though she can appeal this decision to Germany's highest court, the Bundesverfassungsgericht - constitutional court.
FT comment: That, of course, is the problem when confronting a legal structure that one rejects. In Australia we have Mr J Wilson who claims all judicial appointments, among others, are illegal, and he then lodges papers with the registrar of the court that he does not acknowledge as being in possession of legitimate legal powers.
There are, of course, ways around this problem - but I have a gag order and do not wish to incite and possibly become subject of our new sedition law!
From SMH March 6, 2006
Scientist Masoud Faroughi 33 was shot dead at his home at Kellyville, a Sydney suburb Feb 25,2006. His body was flown back to the Kurdish town of Orumrich Iran for burial. Police say there was no motive for the murder.
He had just completed a doctorate in chemistry at Macquarie University. He was highly regarded in Sydney's Kurdish community. He was not known to be politically active.
He came to Australia in 1991 & became a post-graduate student at Macquarie University. His supervisor was Dr Andrew Try.
Kurdish Media website states"Mr Faroughi had all but finished his PhD thesis in developing frameworks for organic molecules."
An internet search shows that McQ U Research Brochure 2005 lists a research paper "Chiral Liquid Crystals" by Faroughi, Malik & Gleeson.
The internet has details of another research paper, "Mass Splittings of Nuclear Isotopes in Chiral Soliton Approach" by Kopeliovich, Shunderuk Matsoko April 2004.
The internet has following details about Mr Faroughi's PhD supervisor, Dr Andrew Try at McQ U. "His research interests are in organic materials & nanotechnology, eg chiral liquid crystals & non-linear optics."
It will be noted that the term "chiral" occurs several times in the above discussions.
Wikopedia states that "the term chiral isused to describe an object which is non superimposible on its mirror image. In terms of Chemistry these objects are usually molecules. The study of chiral molecules & associated phenomena is a very active area."
A Russian paper "The difference in the masses of nuclear isotopes can be described within the chiral soliton approach."
Wikopedia "Isotope separation is the process of concentrating specific isotopes of a chemical element by removing other isotopes eg separation of natural uranium into rich & depleted uranium."
Natural uranium contains 0.7% U 235 the fissile isotope. Civilian power reactors use uranium enriched to 3-4% U 235. Nuclear weapons need 90% U 2345.
Several techniques are available for uranium enrichment eg diffusion, centripetal effect, electromagnetic, laser & chemical methods.
Silex Systems is a Sydney based company engaged in separation of uranium isotopes by the laser method. Its shares are traded on Sydney Stock Exchange. Its shares have increased substantially in 2006 eg from 90 cents to over $4.
US Provisional Patent Application 60/ 113192 is entitled "Photonic Semiconductor Laser with Chiral Feedback"
Dr Faroughi's PhD thesis is not available.
BERLIN, May 28 (Reuters) - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Germans they should no longer allow themselves to be held prisoner by a sense of guilt over the Holocaust and reiterated doubts that the Holocaust even happened.
In an interview with Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, Ahmadinejad said he doubted Germans were allowed to write "the truth" about the Holocaust and said he was still considering travelling to Germany for the World Cup soccer tournament.
"I believe the German people are prisoners of the Holocaust. More than 60 million were killed in World War Two ... The question is: Why is it that only Jews are at the centre of attention?," he said in the interview published on Sunday.
"How long is this going to go on?" he added. "How long will the German people be held hostage to the Zionists?... Why should you feel obligated to the Zionists? You've paid reparations for 60 years and will have to pay for another 100 years."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other leaders have said his previous remarks questioning whether the Holocaust happened were unacceptable.
Denying the Holocaust is a serious crime in Germany punishable with a prison term of up to five years. Six million Jews were killed by the Nazis and their allies in concentration camps.
In the rare interview with Western media, Ahmadinejad said if the Holocaust really happened Jews should be moved from Israel back to Europe. "We say if the Holocaust happened, then the Europeans must accept the consequences and the price should not be paid by Palestine. If it did not happen, then the Jews must return to where they came from."
He said he was still considering going to Germany to support Iran in the World Cup despite protest stirred by a "worldwide network of Zionists".
Iran's first World Cup match is against Mexico in Nuremberg on June 11 two days after the tournament starts and German Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble says he would be welcome to come because Germany wants to be a good host.
The invitation sparked protests from other political leaders and groups who said his anti-Israeli comments were unacceptable. "My decision (on whether to go) depends on a lot of different things," said Ahmadinejad, a soccer fan. "Whether I have time, whether I want to and some other things."
He said he could not understand why his possible visit had caused such debate but was not surprised by the row. "I was not at all surprised because there is a very active worldwide network of Zionists, also in Europe," he said in the rare interview with Western media that was published on Sunday.
Ahmadinejad's latest comments were condemned by the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. Rabbi Marvin Hier, a founder and dean, called on Merkel to keep him out of Germany. "On a day when the Pope is in Auschwitz to remind the world of the horrors of the Holocaust, Ahmadinejad questions it again," Hier said. "For him to be at the World Cup and sit in a VIP seat would be a desecration of the memory of the Holocaust."
Asked by Der Spiegel, in its cover story entitled "The man the world is afraid of", whether he stood by his earlier view the Holocaust was a myth, Ahmadinejad said: "I only accept something as the truth if I am truly convinced of it.
"In Europe there are two opinions on it. One group of researchers who are by and large politically motivated say the Holocaust happened. There is another group of researchers who have the opposite view and are by and large in prison for that."
Israel's chief Sephardi rabbi calls on China to recognize Judaism as an official religion - Rabbi wants China to recognize Judaism
Israel's chief Sephardi rabbi called on China to recognize Judaism as an official religion. Shlomo Amar made the call Monday as he visited a synagogue in Shanghai, Reuters reported. Giving Judaism official status would be mainly symbolic, since most Jews living in China are expatriates working there. During his visit to the site of the Ohel Rachel Synagogue, which is currently a government building, Amar also thanked Shanghai for providing a home for Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.
US Supreme Court dismisses class-action lawsuit against Austria. Supreme Court Skirts Holocaust Dispute
By GINA HOLLAND The Associated Press. Monday, June 12, 2006
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court turned back an appeal Monday from
Austrian Jewish victims of the Nazi regime whose litigation had tied up
payments from a $210 million settlement. Justices refused to disturb a decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with the Bush administration in dismissing the class-action lawsuit against Austria.
That decision late last year cleared the way for payouts from a 2001 settlement fund. So far, more than 2,000 payments have been made to Austrian Jews whose property was confiscated during the Nazi era and World War II. The fund was set up through negotiations with the Austrian government and businesses. Lawyers who filed the class-action lawsuit told justices that the appeals court panel "swayed perhaps by an understandable desire to obtain some measure of compensation for Holocaust survivors during their lifetimes, has dismissed this case for the wrong reason." The appeals court panel had split 2-1 in agreeing with the Bush administration that dismissing the case would improve U.S. relations with Austria, Israel and European nations. A dissenting judge said the ruling gives the government too much power to decide when lawsuits can be brought against other countries.
The lawsuit had been filed in 2000 by present and former nationals of Austria and their heirs and successors who suffered from Nazi persecution between 1938 and 1945.
Had the high court intervened and reinstated the case, Austria could have been forced to defend itself in court despite the settlement. Gideon Taylor, executive vice president of the conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, said more than 2,000 payments have been made and more are coming.
"It's important that payments are made quickly, because they're symbolic. As much as they're about the money, they're also about the history," Taylor said. The case is Schindler v. Whiteman, 05-1296.
NEW YORK - Official negotiations on Holocaust reparations between representatives of the German government and a senior delegation of Jewish leaders are due to begin today in Berlin. These are the first official talks on the question of payments to Holocaust survivors to be held with the new German government under Chancellor Angela Merkel.
"The talks in Berlin are in effect a renewal of the dialogue with the German government on affairs relating to Holocaust survivors after a long period in which the sides merely held informal contacts," said Dr. Israel Singer, president of the Claims Conference and head of the delegation.
The Jewish side, consisting of representatives from Israel and European countries, plans to raise the plight of thousands of survivors who are elderly and ill and have special needs. Germany two years ago allocated 9 million euros as special assistance to needy survivors. At the present talks, the delegation will ask that the aid be renewed and that it be raised to 15 million.
Another issue will be the provision of a lifelong pension to survivors who lived under Nazi occupation in western Europe - some 4,000 people who succeeded in staying alive in difficult conditions in countries like France, Holland and Belgium.
Singer noted that, since her election, Merkel had consistently shown a positive attitude toward the renewal of talks. However, he refused to assess the chances of success. "So long as there is still one survivor alive, the negotiations will continue," he said.
Amiram Barkat adds: Meanwhile, the World Jewish Congress is pressing the Allianz AG Insurance company of Germany to speed up its handling of the payment of claims to the heirs of Nazi victims who held policies with it.
Allianz is one of the largest insurance groups in the world. According to Holocaust historians and legal experts, such as Professors Michael Bazyler and Gerald Feldman from the United States, Allianz insured the concentration camps at Auschwitz-Birkenau as well as other death camps.
In 1998, after a public campaign waged by the WJC and other Jewish bodies, Allianz and four other large insurance companies signed an agreement to pay compensation to heirs of Holocaust victims that had held policies with them.
Allianz has so far received some 20,000 claims from the heirs, but about a month ago, it informed the committee supervising the work on the claims that it planned to turn down some 7,000 of them because they lacked details of identification. Of these, 1,700 include the full name of the policy-holder. The WJC contends that there is sufficient information from the claims to locate the original policies.
WJC's Israel director, Bobby Brown, told Haaretz that the congress was demanding to know whether Allianz had thoroughly checked its archives in an attempt to identify the policy-holders.
On Sept. 10, 2005, Doron Almog, the former commander of the Israel Defense Forces' Southern Command, was on board an El Al flight to London to raise money for brain-damaged children. But as the plane landed at Heathrow and other passengers began to disembark, a flight attendant approached Almog with a cryptic message. "The pilot asked that I disembark last,"
Almog later told Israeli Radio, repeating the flight attendant's message. "After some time, the chief steward said that the Israeli military attache was on his way and wanted to speak to me. I phoned him, and he told me not to get off the plane."
The reason, he soon learned, was an arrest warrant, issued that day by a senior London magistrate charging Almog, as the army's top commander in the Gaza Strip, with overseeing the bulldozing of 59 Palestinian homes in the Rafah refugee camp in January of 2002 - acts that violate the Geneva Conventions.
Under British law, ordinary citizens are free to file criminal complaints against individuals suspected of war crimes, even if the accused are not British citizens and the alleged crimes - were not committed on British soil. The threshold such complaints must meet to justify an arrest warrant are substantial.
But in this case, Senior District Judge Timothy Workman ruled that the plaintiff - a resident of one the bulldozed homes - had met the bar. Almog never got off the plane. He returned to Israel the same day. And with Almog's departure from his jurisdiction, Workman withdrew his arrest warrant, as per the requirements of British law.
The problem, however, was far from solved: A few months later, Israel's military advocate general advised the current Gaza commander, Brig. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, to decline an official British invitation to spend the summer at the Royal College of Defense Studies, fearing that he, too, would be greeted at the airport by police officers.
Neither is the problem confined to Britain. Other European nations, such as France, Spain, Sweden and Denmark, have similar laws, all guided by the principle known as universal justice.
These statutes allow lawsuits against alleged perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity to be prosecuted even if neither the complainant nor the defendant are citizens of the country in which they are filed, and even if the alleged crime took place somewhere else.
With cases similar to Almog's already brought against Israeli officials in Belgium, Israeli diplomats and legal experts fear that the procedures in England might herald an onslaught of lawsuits against Israeli officers in courts the world over. Ironically, the laws in question were first put into place in the wake of the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals to ensure such crimes could not be perpetrated without prosecution. Chandra Sriram, professor of human rights at the University of East London and one of the leading experts in the field, cautioned that universal justice cases face tough tests. "The threshold is relatively high," she said. As a practical matter, courts "are not willing to assert jurisdiction unless they think there is a reasonable case and a reasonable chance of managing it."
Usually, there must be strong evidence that the individual or individuals in question were personally responsible for specific gross violations of international law, such as genocide or torture, explained Sriram.
And the evidence must support clear intent to commit the violations, she said, not just that they occurred as byproducts of other actions. Still, on a strictly legal level in Great Britain, a judge technically need only find that the facts alleged, if proven, would constitute a violation of international law under the principle of universal justice, said Sriram.
It is hard to know Workman's exact legal reasoning for issuing Almog's arrest warrant. Alongside the warrant, Workman issued a still-sealed document explaining his decision. Kate Maynard, the solicitor who brought the charges against Almog, said the magistrate stated there was sufficient evidence to open up a case against Almog, as his responsibility for the house demolitions was in breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention, a violation criminalized in the UK.
Sriram noted that another common yardstick in such cases was whether the country whose citizens were being charged had a functioning judicial system capable of pursuing its own challenges. "You can," she added, "characterize the Israeli legal system as such."
Yet, Israel's judicial system has been reluctant to address most accusations concerning the behavior of army officers in the West Bank and Gaza. According to a 2005 Human Rights Watch report, more than 1,600 Palestinians - including at least 500 children - were killed by Israeli security forces between Sept. 29, 2000 and Nov. 30, 2004.
Thousands more were seriously injured. The Israel Defense Forces informed Human Rights Watch that as of May 10, 2004, it had launched criminal investigations of just 74 alleged cases of unlawful use of lethal force - less than 5% of the civilian deaths in nearly four years of the second intifada.
Maynard, the British solicitor who filed the suit against Almog, stressed it was the evidence, not the Israeli judicial system's failure to deal with that case, that most influenced the magistrate's decision to issue an arrest warrant. Documenting such a failure was not, in any event, a formal requirement of the British statute in question, she said.
But Maynard added, "In all cases we've put together, we've always sought to show a chain of impunity in Israel. In all of the cases we've been able to show that local lawyers have petitioned the courts to try and obtain justice in Israel, and couldn't."
For all the efforts by some to use the principle of universal justice against Israeli actions in the occupied territories, Sriram stressed that the concept remained problematic in legal terms.
"It's murky," she said. "If anyone can assert it anywhere in the world, how could you resolve competing claims? And how do you establish who has a legitimate claim?" As a result of such issues, she said, courts the world over think carefully before translating principle into action. Courts, she stressed, "are only going to entertain a case where a case has been made of a clear international crime. They exercise a pretty significant degree of caution."
Israel Fights Back
Tzipi Livni, Israel's minister of foreign affairs, has denounced the cases filed against Israel as politically motivated. "England is turning into an address for lawsuits that do not deal with its own citizens," she said in a recent statement. "This may undermine its war on terrorism." Working behind the scenes, Israeli diplomats are trying to convince other European countries to amend their legislation. Its negotiators conduct their talks, for the most part, without publicity.
Belgium is a case in point: In 1993, the country passed an unprecedented law that allowed citizens to press criminal charges against anyone suspected of crimes against humanity, with few restrictions.
Unlike Britain, for example, Belgium allowed for arrest warrants to be issued against accused individuals even if they were outside the country and had never entered into its jurisdiction.
Using this law, 23 survivors of the 1982 massacre in the – Lebanese Sabra and Shatila refugee camps filed a complaint in 2001 accusing Israel's then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon - and other Israeli officials, of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
A tense debate ensued, with Israeli and American diplomats arguing the law's flaws. In 2003, the law was changed, stating that Belgian courts will only have jurisdiction over international crimes if the accused or the victim is Belgian or a Belgian resident, or if Belgium is required by treaty to exercise jurisdiction over the case.
More recently, Livni met last month with British Foreign Office Minister Kim Howells to discuss the problems British law posed for IDF officers. Howells acknowledged that the problem burdened both countries, and pledged to try and resolve the situation rapidly.
But not all countries are revising their laws. Spain's Supreme Court, for example, last year overturned a 2003 decision that blocked the country from prosecuting the perpetrators of human rights violations in Guatemala, affirming the need to bring international criminals to justice, regardless of their citizenship or where they committed their crimes.
Israeli legal experts agree that the lawsuits are harmful in the long
term. But, in an apparent indication of the issue's sensitivity, no official could be found in the Foreign Ministry or the army who was willing to comment on the record.
"While no immediate threat is evident," said an Israeli official who would speak only on condition of anonymity, "the damage, in the long run, accumulates.
Such lawsuits deeply embarrass us, and they create - a false impression that Israel is a singularly unlawful state." (Zionists can now go back to Playing Themselves as Victims.)
The irony of this wave of legal challenges, said Israeli officials, is that they rely on aspects of international law originally devised, in part, as a response to the Holocaust.
During the Nuremberg trials, a concept of International Jurisdiction began to take shape, according to which states may claim criminal jurisdiction over persons suspected of crimes against humanity regardless of the perpetrator's nationality or the location of the crime itself.
One of the most famous international cases invoking this principle was Israel's prosecution, in 1961, of Nazi criminal Adolf Eichmann.
The United States does not allow citizens to file such criminal complaints. But U.S. law does allow for civil suits. A class-action suit was brought last December in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by a group of Lebanese nationals charging Moshe Ya'alon, the Israeli army's former chief of staff, and Avi Dichter, the former head of the Shin Bet, with war crimes for their roles in the 1996 bombing of the Lebanese village Kafar Qana, an incident that caused the death of more than 100 civilians.
Ya'alon is currently serving as a research fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The plaintiffs sued under the Alien Torts Claims Act of 1789, which grants jurisdiction to U.S. federal courts over "any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."
The act has been invoked many times, albeit with scant success, in cases involving everything from - a Holocaust survivor suing the National French Railroad Company for the deportation of Jews to Nazi death camps - to a suit filed against Texaco for disposing of waste in the Ecuadorian Amazon.
The complaint against Ya'alon, filed on November 4, 2005, accuses the former head of army intelligence of having "command responsibility" in the 1996 attack. The case, said Judith Chomsky of the Center for Constitutional Rights, an organization that helped bring the lawsuit against Ya'alon, stands a good chance.
"A recent Supreme Court decision has recognized that the statute provides that an alien can bring a claim if the claim is based on violations of the law of nations, or customary law, which is universal, obligatory and specific," she said.
"For example, you can't torture people, and no nation has the right to say, 'I'm staying out of this rule; I'm going to torture people anyway.'" The complaint, she said, with its meticulous description of the attack's damage to lives and property, falls within that realm.
Israeli officials declined to comment on the Ya'alon case.
2 October 1941 - 31 July 2006
It is with sadness that I place this notice on our website, and although I have always maintained that no one is indispensable, I grieve with heavy heart the terrible loss of a dear friend and colleague
Adelaide Institute's Assistant Director
Mr Geoffrey Muirden
who closed his eyes and mind forever this morning
Monday, 31 July 2006, at 10:02am.
Mrs Helen Muirden
advises the funeral service will be held on
Friday, 4 August 2006, 2:45pm
Springvale Botanical Cemetery
on behalf of Adelaide Institute's Supporters
Contact Mrs Helen Muirden:
Australia: Mobile - (0)409708323
Landline - (03) 95878748
Dear Helen, dear Relatives and Friends of Geoffrey Muirden – 4 August 2006
Although no one is indispensable and we all inexorably undertake this final life’s journey, Geoff’s departure strikes me hard because he was just entering his mature phase of life, having just become a senior citizen where reflective contemplation – the unhurried and objective evaluation of one’s life’s work – begins.
I have known Geoff for almost a quarter of a century and throughout this time very much valued his personal engagement, first as a teacher, then, freed from classroom constraints, as a vigorous and empathetic concerned citizen who would not passively see injustices done to the numerous individuals who hit the proverbial establishment brick wall.
Geoff, indeed, was a courageous and tenacious fighter for free expression, truth in history, and for the adoption of a sensible approach to multiculturalism, and to the most recent issue – that of terrorism. Geoff often argued that the threat to terrorism had been overstated and that enacted terrorism laws were a threat to our democracy.
Thankfully Geoff’s written legacy is preserved in large parts on the Internet. He published his thoughts widely – Adelaide Institute, Australian Civil Liberties Union, Independent Australian,Neil Baird's Newsletter, The Barnes Review, the Herald Sun, among others.
When in 1999 I was otherwise indisposed in 1999 Geoff took over the running of Adelaide Institute, on whose website appear some of Geoff’s most brilliant written pieces, the latest of which was a research paper on Florence Nightingale that he originally presented at the Melbourne Unitarian Church. He also in detail debunked The Da Vinci Code and the ‘Holocaust’.
Together with John Bennett of the Australian Civil Liberties Union, Geoff researched and developed numerous Law reform submissions that were subsequently published in Your Rights and on ACLU’s website.
Geoff was always a welcomed and sought-after speaker by patriotic organizations such as The League of Rights, and his pioneering origin eminently qualified him for such an important task. His ancestors arrived on the South Australian mainland during the middle 1800s and to this day in Adelaide the Muirden College remains a private learning institution.
One of Geoff’s delights was his cat Annabelle – and when she died he grieved for her in no uncertain terms.
Many a times I spent with Geoff where his innate sense of justice was tested to the limits – to the point where he would invoke the Phantom – the Ghost who walks – and we would break out laughing at the silliness of it all. His sense of humour always enabled us to contextualise our work and to bring some balance into it.
As you are all aware, Geoff liked his food – but it was of secondary importance to what was going on in his mind. Forever the gentleman and scholar, Geoff was also deeply religious. He had planned on formalising his religious interests by completing a Ph D, and he shrugged off initial opposition to this plan that came from a member of a university’s philosophy faculty. The academic had advised Geoff that most members of staff were atheists and thus Geoff, as a theist, would have problems finding a supervisor. Geoff knew that atheists who claimed to believe in ‘nothing’ contradicted the very essence of their own existence – which is physical proof that an act of creation has taken place.
Geoff did not fear death – but he would have been angry with himself that there was still so much work waiting for him to be done. There was just not enough time to research, to reflect and to write on the many issues that moved him.
I think I may safely assume that Geoff is now at rest and at peace with himself – and that his spirit fills many of us with that urgency which was Geoff’s hallmark – a sincerity befitting a beautiful mind. Geoff, I’ll miss you.
A sad incident after the funeral service
Owing to the usual Melbourne peak-hours traffic chaos that occurs on a Friday afternoon, we decided not to stay for tea and coffee. Before setting off in the car a Nordic-looking, tall, blond young man approached me. Softly he introduced himself as Geoff's nephew. He said he appreciated what I had said about Geoff, and he has had a look at Adelaide Institute's website. Then his tone altered and an urgency flowed into his still soft voice: " I am deeply offended by your comments."
I said that what I had stated about Geoff's work is a fact. He then continued to repeat the matter of being offended by what I had said, stating among other things that he lost family members in the 'Holocaust'.
Fortunately Mr Mohammed Hegazi had also come along to pay his last respects to Geoff. The young man continued to state that he had seen the numbers on the arms, that family members had died in the 'Holocaust'. Mr Hegazi challenged him directly by responding: "It's a lie."
The young man became more agitated and I stated that perhaps this was not the right time to get into a lengthy discussion about matters 'Holocaust', and that he should feel free to contact us via Email so that we could resolve the issue by thrashing it out in writing. Without responding he walked off.
Mohammed Hegazi comments:
I could not help thinking about the Jew at the funeral: Was he really a nephew of Geoff? If so, is it possible that he wasn't aware of his uncle's work? What amazes me is that his statement was an exact replica of that of the Jew at scrabble; "I lost X members of my family in the Holocaust…", to the extent that I couldn’t help completing it for him by mentioning the tattooed numbers on their wrists. Now, add to the repertoire this response in future similar encounters: When they reach the part that says, "I am offended by your denial of the Holocaust", one should reply, "and we are not offended by your strong belief in a myth. What is offensive is your attempt to impose your belief on us."
Fredrick Töben responds
Geoff Muirden's brother married a Jew, and now this ancient Scottish family name has a Jewish branch. This is how it is done - wherever pure non-Jewish names exist the attempt is made to incorporate a Jewish factor into it. The most blatant example of such method of claiming/absorbing something for themselves is the way in which Adolf Hitler, still the unique evil for some Jews, is then insulted by claiming there is 'Jewish blood' in him.
Top | Home
©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute