The Influence of a Man Who Denies the Holocaust
The MEMRI Report. By STEVEN STALINSKY, October 12, 2006
"There was never a single execution gas chamber under the Germans.… So all those millions of tourists who visit Auschwitz are seeing a lie, a falsification."
— Robert Faurisson, Sahar TV, February 2005
He exposed the "big lie of the alleged Holocaust." He proved that "the ‘Diary of Anne Frank' [is] a fraud" and that "the gas chambers were fabricated." When Arab and Iranian TV networks such as Al-Jazeera and Sahar need someone to discuss the "big lie of the alleged Holocaust," they go to him. When Arab and Iranian politicians such as the Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and President Ahmadinejad of Iran want to provide evidence that no "alleged crimes" were perpetrated against Jews in World War II, they cite him.
Like other European Holocaust deniers who enjoy rock star status in Iran and the Arab world, Robert Faurisson first appeared on the scene in the 1970s, when he refuted accounts of the gas chambers and the Nazis' systematic killing of Jews. "The dean of deniers," as Mr. Faurisson is known, is a sought-after interview subject in the Middle East. When Al-Jazeera devoted a program to a planned international conference of Holocaust deniers in Beirut in May 2001, it called Mr. Faurisson. "We have proved and are still proving that there was no massacre or Holocaust of the Jews, and that there were no gas chambers for the Jews, and that the figure of 6 million victims is exaggerated ... saying the truth about the biggest lie of the 20th and 21st centuries, the lie of the Holocaust," he said.
Arab and Iranian "experts" on the Holocaust frequently cite Mr. Faurisson's theories. In his 1982 doctoral dissertation at the Peoples' Friendship University in Moscow, Mr. Abbas discussed "the secret ties between the Nazis and the Zionist movement leadership." Two years later, the Jordanian publisher Dar Ibn Rushd put out an Arabic-language book based on Mr. Abbas's dissertation. "Regarding the gas chambers, which were supposedly designed for murdering living Jews: A scientific study published by Professor Robert Faurisson of France denies that the gas chambers were for murdering people, and claims that they were only for incinerating bodies, out of concern for the spread of disease and infection in the region," Mr. Abbas wrote. In January, when Mr. Ahmadinejad described the Holocaust as "a myth," Mr. Faurisson sent him a letter "expressing his full support of his remarks." The letter was heralded in the Iranian press.
On September 20, Iran's IRINN TV broadcast a report on the country's ongoing Holocaust cartoon contest. The curator of the museum exhibiting the cartoons, Masoud Shojai Tabatabai, told the station that the display proves that the "alleged crimes" that occurred at places like Auschwitz "are in fact a lie." The curator said the proof was based on "the very serious and accurate analysis of Mr. Robert Faurisson."
The editor of the conservative Iranian daily Kayhan, Hossein Shariatmadari, wrote an article on December 13, 2005, in which he cited Mr. Faurisson's lectures at the University of Lyon and one of his books, "The Gas Chambers: Reality or Legend?" The book, translated into Persian by Seyyed Abu Al-Farid Zia Al-Dini, examines dozens of documents "where the Zionists claim" the slaughter took place, "such as the gas chambers, the fabricated museum of the crematoria, Dachau in Munich," Mr. Shariatmadari wrote. Mr. Faurisson "conducted precise and scientific conversations with hundreds of witnesses and ultimately showed, with no interpretation and by means of documents only, that the affair of the slaughter of the Jews in Nazi Germany is a great historic lie."
When the United Nations announced that it would designate a day to commemorate the Holocaust in November 2005, Mr. Faurisson gave an interview to the Tehran Times. "For many years now, I have been telling my acquaintances in the Muslim world that the Jews and the Zionists want to impose the religion of the alleged ‘Holocaust' of the Jews on the whole world," he said. "… The Muslim world has been awakening from its too long torpor for only a few years. It ought to have listened to the revisionists long ago and denounced out loud the sham of an alleged German project to exterminate the Jews, the alleged Nazi gas chambers, and the alleged 6 million Jewish victims."
On October 3, 2006, a French court convicted Mr. Faurisson of Holocaust denial for statements he made on Iran's Sahar TV in February 2005. It was the fifth time he has been found guilty for "complicity in contesting the existence of a crime against humanity."
Mr. Stalinsky is the executive director of the Middle East Media Research Institute.
Anwesend: 1. alle Rechts-anwälte - RAe
2. Staatsanwalt -StA - Grossmann
3. das Gericht in der bekannten Besetzung
4. 1 Gerichtsdiener + 4 Polizisten in Uniform, alle bewaffnet + 2 x Politische Polizei
5. drei Medienvertreter, darunter Mannheimer Morgen sowie BILD, Ausgabe Rhein-Neckar, nicht jedoch Zastrow von der FAZ
6. Nur etwa 35 sonstige Zuhörer, da der Saal 5 wesentlich kleiner ist als der Saal 1, der anderweitig belegt war. Folge: Über ein Dutzend Interessierte fanden keinen Einlaß.
1. Als Ernst in den Saal geführt wird, erheben sich die meisten Anwesenden. Keine Reaktion seitens des Gerichtes / des Vorsitzenden, das kurz danach den Saal betritt.
2. RA Rieger rügt die Größe des Saales und regt an, die noch leeren Stühle frei zu geben. – Dr. Meinerzerzhagen lehnt das Ersuchen aus sitzungspolizeilichen Gründen, die er nicht anführt, ab. – RA Rieger stellt dann einen formellen Antrag, das Gericht zieht sich zurück; Der Antrag wird als unbegründet zurückgewiesen und erneut werden sitzungspolizeiliche Gründe angeführt.
3. Der Antrag von RA Bock vom 1.9.2006 auf Aussetzung der Verhandlung bis nach der Holocaust-Konferenz in Teheran wird, da angeblich NICHT verfahrensbedeutsam, abgelehnt. Der Holocaust „sei eine gesicherte geschichtliche Tatsache, und Ernst Zündel ein Holocaust-Leugner, was den Leugnungstatbestand des § 130 erfülle".
4. Dann Verlesen eines Aktenvermerkes der BKA-Beamtin Kuhl in Bezug auf Anschriftenänderung im GERMANIA
-Rundbrief sowie Hinweis auf einen FBI-Bericht v. 9.4.2001. RA Rieger beantragt anschließend das Verlesen dieses FBI-Berichtes; soll in einer der nächsten Verhandlungen erfolgen.
5. Verlesen eines sehr langen Briefes von Frau Zündel an Ernst vom 3.4.2005, der sich ua.. sehr, sehr ausführlich mit der Verteidigungsstrategie befasst und deswegen auch „angehalten“ wurde. – Auf Frage von Dr. Meinerzhagen werden von keiner Seite Erklärungen abgegeben.
6. Es erfolgt dann die Vernehmung des Zeugen Franz Kindler vom VS-Verlag, Nachfolgeverlag von Leske & Budrich in Bezug auf die Herausgabe des Handbuches Rechtsextremismus, in dem Ernst Zündel erwähnt wird. Der Zeuge ist Lektor des Nachfolge-Verlages, kennt einen Verfasser, der mittlerweile im Innenministerium des Bundeslandes NRW /Nordrhein-Westfalen) arbeitet, persönlich; dieser Thomas Rumke sei Politikwissenschaftler. --- Den Richter interessieren die Auflagenhöhe (2000 Exemplare im sogenannten freien Verkauf, 2500 von der Landesregierung NRW angekauft und über die „Landeszentrale für politische Bildung“ kostenlos an Schulen/Schüler usw. abgegeben) wegen der „Einwirkung auf die Öffentlichkeit“. Der Zeuge hat für viele Sachfragen nur ungenaue Antworten.
7. Die RAe Bock, Rieger und Dr. Schaller befragen den Zeugen hinsichtlich der „Wissenschaftlichkeit“ bei Verwendung von Ausdrücken wie Hochstapler (für Leuchter) und Exzentriker (für Zündel). Als RA Bock ihn „Rechtsradikalismus“ und „Revisionismus“ definieren läßt, kommt er sichtlich in Bedrängnis und ist erst nach Nachfassen, auch unter Hinweis, daß der Richter das anordnen kann, zu einer persönlichen Definition bereit, welche die üblichen Schablonen bedient. Dr. Schaller sagt ihm ins Gesicht, es handle sich hier um „Anti-faschistische Wissenschaft“. Dr. Meinerzhagen läßt weitere Fragen nicht zu und erteilt auch, mittels Gerichtsbeschluß, dem Antrag von RA Rieger auf Vereidigung des Zeugen eine Absage
8. Danach, ab 10.50Uhr, wird eine Pause von 15 Minuten verfügt, die indes 30 Minuten dauert. Zur Vorlesung kommt ein Schreiben einer Frau Marion Schreiber-Kellermann, Hamburg, an das dortige Landesamt für Verfassungsschutz, in dem sie sich über eine ungebetene Zusendung des GERMANIA-Rundbriefes beschwert. Dieses Schreiben führt neben einem Schriftwechsel mit dem LfV auch zur Einleitung eines Ermittlungsverfahrens gegen Ernst Zündel, das eingestellt wird, da Ernst in den USA lebt und dort derartige Äußerungen keinen Straftatbestand darstellen. Dieser Sachverhalt sei der „Dame“ auch mitgeteilt worden.
9. Es folgt das Verlesen der Angaben über Ernst Zündel aus dem „Bundeszentralregister“, Stand 3. Mai 2005. Nur zwei Hinweise auf die beiden Haftbefehle; sonst keine weiteren Eintragungen.
10. Dr. Schaller meldet sich zu Wort, um seinen überarbeiteten Beweisantrag vom Sommer 2005 zu verlesen. Das behagt weder dem Vorsitzenden noch dem Berichterstatter, die auch nach kurzer Zeit eingreifen und die Ausführungen unterbinden wollen. Daraus auch Wortgefecht mit RA Rieger. Als der Vorsitzender nach der Länge des Antrages fragt und die Antwort 37 Seiten erhält, schließt der die Verhandlung, sichert aber Dr. Schaller zu, daß er am 29. Sept. seinen Antrag vortragen könne. Auch RA Rieger kündigt einen weiteren Antrag an.
11. Es werden noch die neuen Zusatztermine mitgeteilt: 4., 19.-20. Oktober und 10. November, jeweils 09:00Uhr. – Die Verhandlung wird um 11.45Uhr geschlossen.
Günter Deckert - firstname.lastname@example.org
Weinheim/B., den 22. Sept. 2006
Translation of 22 September 2006 proceedings
Present in court: all attorneys, state prosecutor Grossmann, the judges, judge's associate, four armed police and two political police; three media representatives, not Zastrow from the Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung; the smaller court room 5 held only 35 individuals and about a dozen could not be admitted.
1. When Ernst entered the court most in the public gallery arose, and there was no reaction from the judge who himself soon after entered.
2. Legal Counsel-attorney Rieger complained about the size of the court room, requesting that the empty chairs be made available, which Dr Meinerzhagen rejects to do on grounds of security. Rieger then formally makes an application to settle the matter, and the court adjourns to consider his application - which is then rejected on the same grounds as offered before.
3. Also Counsel Bock's application to have the proceedings adjourned until after the Tehran Holocaust Conference is rejected on grounds that this conference is irrelevant to the current proceedings. The Holocaust "is a proven historical fact and Ernst Zündel is a Holocaust denier, which fulfills the denial requirements of Section § 130".
4. A reading of a memorandum of BKA-Beamtin (Bundes-kriminalamt officer) Kuhl in reference to address changes of GERMANIA newsletter, as well as a reference to an FBI report of 9 April 2000. Counsel Rieger asks that this report be read in open court, which is to be done on a subsequent hearing date.
5. A reading of a very long letter from Mrs Zündel to Ernst of 3 April 2005, which among other things concerns itself in very, very detailed form with the defence strategy, and was thus also not handed out to Ernst. There is no response to Judge Meinerzhagen's invitation for defence and prosecution to comment on the contents of this letter.
6. Witness Franz Kindler takes the stand. He is from the VS-Verlag, the publishing house successor of Leske & Budrich which published Handbuches Rechtsextremismus - Handbook of Radical Right Extremism, wherein Ernst is mentioned. The witness is editor and personally knows an author who is now working at the Interior Ministry of the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, a Thomas Rumke who is a political scientist. The judge is interested in the number of copies printed — 2000 copies to the open book market, 2500 copies bought by the state government NRW and disseminated via the central office of political education distributed free to schools and students — so that the "effect of its influence on the public can be assessed. To many of the factual questions asked the witness responds rather vaguely.
7. Counsels Bock, Rieger and Dr Schaller ask the witness to explain the scientific use of terms such as Hochstapler-impostor - for Leuchter, and Exzentriker-eccentric - for Zündel. When Bock asks him to define Rechtsradikalismus and Revisionismus, the witness feels the pressure, and only after being advised that the judge could order him to give such definitions, the witness offers his personal definition, which uses the usual cliché-structures. Dr Schaller openly states to the witness that this is all about 'anti-fascist research'. Dr Meinerzhagen does not permit a further questioning of the witness, and rejects Counsel Rieger's application to have the witness give sworn evidence.
8. Around 10:50 h a break of fifteen minutes is ordered, which extends to 30 minutes. A letter from a Mrs Marion Schreiber-Kellermann, Hamburg, to the local Office of Protecting the Constitution is read out wherein she complains of having received unsolicited a copy of the GERMANIA newsletter. Besides this correspondence there is also material concerning an application to proceed against Ernst Zündel, which is discontinued on account of Ernst living in the USA where such expressions are not criminalized. This was also conveyed to the complainant.
9. A reading follows of the particulars about Ernst Zündel from the Bundeszentralregister-Federal Central Registry - of 3 May 2005. There is mention only of the two outstanding arrest warrants, nothing else.
10. Dr Schaller requests permission to read out his revised evidence application of Summer 2005, which displeased the court and the reporters - resulting in verbal battle with Counsel Rieger. When the judge asks how long the application is - 37 pages - he closes the proceedings, but ensures Dr Schaller that he can read out his application on 29 September 2006. Counsel Rieger also advises that he has a further application to make.
11. New trial dates are set:
4, 19-20 October, and 10 November 2006, beginning at 09:00 AM. The court closed around 11:45 AM.
22. September 2006
The famous 67-year-old German dissident writer and scientist Ernst Zündel demanded summoning on Thursday, September 5, 2006, the Iranian State President Ahmadi-Nejad to his "trial" in the German city of Mannheim so that the President could confirm that the so-called "holocaust" never existed.
The Iranian President thoroughly studied Jewish allegations about the "holocaust" and is considered to the an expert in the field.
The demand contained in his lawyer's plea that Mr Zündel had to read at the "court" himself because the "judge", a certain Meinerzhagen, forbade lawyers reading pleas at the "trial" saying they contain political and historical opinions that are forbidden in Germany as far as the "holocaust" and many other matters are concerned.
The judge had used that all petitions to the court are to be presented in writing so that they could be censored for the public gathered in the courtroom. Earlier this year, the "judge" prohibited two previous lawyers of Mr Zündel to take part in the "process" suspecting them to be unbelievers in the "holocaust" myth. In his petition, Mr Zündel’s lawyer, a famous German human rights activist Jürgen Rieger, also demanded from the court to issue an order to the Federal German Statistics Office so that it finally provided data on Jewish deaths in Germany in the period 1939-1945. The issuing of this data had been previously forbidden by the World Jewish Congress, Mr Rieger said. The "court" was also requested to summon other witnesses, namely technical experts that could testify that no "holocaust" was possible in Germany because the cellars in the corrective labor camps Auschwitz and Birkenau were not hermetically isolated to serve as "gas chambers" as in modern democratic American prisons and that the production of the pesticide Zyklon B for louse control that was said to had been used as a "poison gas for Jews" stopped due to the Allies' bombardment of German factories in 1944, the petition said.
The petition was rejected as a whole as on every political trial in Germany. The next session of the monkey process is scheduled for October 19, 2006.
As on every political process in Germany, the police harassed visitors and rudely searched their pockets according the German TV Channel ARD and the newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau.
Mr Zündel has been deported from Canada in March 2005 after spending, without charge, more than 3 years for his thought crimes in American and Canadian prisons in solitary cells. In Germany the scientist is accused of denying the Jewish "holocaust" myth which is a crime in this modern democratic country. The Mannheim Orwellian and Kafkaesque "thought crime trial" continues from November 2005.
KC: Related articles: French "holocaust" myth denier convicted for giving interview to Iran's TV. World » Events // 5 October 2006, 11:53 http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2006/10/06/5839.shtml
Up-front, please let me apologize for not using correct trial vocabulary since court protocol is very different in Germany from hearings on this continent. Also, since trial transcripts are verboten, what little information I get is second-hand and, of necessity, subjective. With this report, I am doing the best that I can.
I was told that this October 4 hearing was going to be a brief, insignificant session of a couple of hours only, dealing with administrative matters. Dr. Schaller, one of the defense attorneys who had submitted a detailed summary September 29 of the geopolitical significance of Zündel’s lifelong quest for truth - " - to get to the bottom of what the heck happened at Auschwitz", as Ernst himself put it in his documentary DVD – was not going to be at this hearing, since he has to travel from Austria, an eight-hour trip each way. I did not even announce the date on the Internet, since I did not want Zündel supporters travel long distances at great expense and inconvenience to them, only to be disappointed.
As it turned out, this hearing was one of the most significant and dramatic events as yet that played in the courtroom in Mannheim. It seems that the prosecution, with Judge Meinerzhagen as its designated bottleneck, dropped all pretenses in near riotous outbursts that can only be described as bizarre, hysterical panic to keep the historical truth from coming uncorked!
Prior to this hearing, Defense Attorney Rieger had submitted a number of extensive "requests" to the court - pardon the imprecise term - asking in clear language that forensic and documentary evidence be allowed, as well as the testimony of prominent expert witnesses. I will not go into the details because the copies that I saw were in German and it is too complicated to give you a feel for what these papers summarized, other than to say that this was the first time, to my knowledge, that the defense dropped all hesitation and went on the offensive in a forceful and decisive way – a courageous strategy indeed in the wake of explicit threats to them to be charged with the same "offense" as Ernst Zündel.
After all, the court intoned over and over, the Holocaust could not be anything but "self-evident" and should not, could not, and would not be put to the test! Specifically, in reference to expert witnesses, the Zündel defense team had requested that both the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, be permitted to testify as to the harmful consequences of keeping the world in the dark by pretending the Holocaust was what it purported to be - a "fact of history" - now contested by this obstreperous Swabian in Mannheim. Several other potential expert witnesses' names were submitted who would shed light where darkness reigned, among them Fred Leuchter, the chief investigator of the dreaded "gas chambers" of Auschwitz and other major Third Reich concentration camps. One of the interesting and unknown items, for me, was a document listed that showed that Jewish factions had aborted an investigation years ago that would have more precisely determined the number of "Holocaust" victims.
Another document that Attorney Rieger had either submitted previously or tried to submit at this hearing was an Open Letter by the Iranian President to Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, in which the Iranian head of state shamed the German government for imprisoning Holocaust researchers in order to prevent the truth from coming out. Ahmadinejad is reported to have said, according to an interview in Germany's Der Spiegel in May of this year: "The extortion and blackmail continue, and people are not allowed to think about or even question the source of this extortion, otherwise they face imprisonment. When will this situation end? Sixty years, one hundred years or one thousand years, when?"
I have read President Ahmadinejad's letter in both German and English translations - it is widely available on the Net and, naturally, on the Zundelsite (www.zundelsite.org) - but to my knowledge it was utterly stonewalled by Germany's mainstream press, and Chancellor Merkel had called it a "scandalous" letter she would, of course, ignore!
One of the most dramatic moments in this hearing came when Ernst Zündel
decided to break his self-imposed silence and let them have it, Zündel-fashion, for the first time in more than 18 months. I never understood and was never given an adequate explanation of why he chose to remain silent for so long, but I utterly trust Ernst's political judgment - he must have had his reasons. This day, it seems, he had his fill - he stood up, dug in his heels, accused the court of shamelessly running a secret political show trial where only written submissions were allowed, to be read by the court at the exclusion of both public and press, and proceeded to read President Ahmadinejad's Open Letter right into Judge Meinerzhagen's horrified ears!
At that point, pandemonium!
Judge Meinerzhagen simply lost it - and started to scream, his hands shaking and his face distorted with fury, that this was an "impertinence" – in German, "eine Frechheit!" - that the defense was trying to pull the wool over his eyes by making the defendant the messenger of what, precisely, he had forbidden the attorneys to submit at risk of their own welfare! It seems that the verbal confrontation that ensued was the Mother of all Shouting Matches - it even worried the armed police at one point! Apparently it looked like it would come to blows!
Folks, please take this as an incomplete report that I am writing in the middle of the night, a continent away. I look at this newest twist in the dramatic Zündel Saga with both dread and elation. I will not even attempt to interpret what all this could possibly mean - let's simply say that finally it looks to me as though the German government, on its knees before Zion for more than sixty years, has lost its grip before the precipice and broadcast its own terror - of the inexorable Power of the Truth!
Jürgen Rieger, der Anwalt der rechtsextremen Szene, stellt Beweisanträge. Seit mindestens einer Stunde schon. Zeugen sollen seine Behauptung "bestätigen", dass es "keine jüdische Massenvernichtung im Dritten Reich" gegeben habe, dass in Auschwitz und Birkenau "keine Gaskammern existiert" hätten. Dazu sei beispielsweise das Statistische Bundesamt zu befragen, das Erhebungen zu den Zahlen der Opfer 1939 bis 1945 begonnen habe, was ihm dann "vom Jüdischen Weltkongress untersagt" worden sei. "Bauakten" von Auschwitz seien heranzuziehen; denn "in nicht vorhandenen Bunkern kann auch niemand vergast worden sein". Überhaupt sei die Zyklon-B-Fabrikation 1944 durch Bomben "fast völlig zerstört" worden. Rieger: "Wie soll die SS ohne Gas Menschen vergast haben können?"
Kein Giftgas, keine Opfer, keine Schuld. Eben darum geht es den rechtsextremen "Revisionisten" deutscher Geschichte. Vor dem Mannheimer Landgericht muss sich seit November 2005 Ernst Zündel wegen Volksverhetzung, nazistischer und antisemitischer Propaganda verantworten. Die Staatsanwaltschaft wirft dem 67-Jährigen vor, er habe in Rundbriefen und auf Internetseiten "in pseudo-wissenschaftlicher Art den Nationalsozialismus vom Makel des Judenmordes entlasten" wollen. Der Holocaust werde darin als "Lügenmonstrum" bezeichnet, mit dem man "die Deutschen in unaufhörlicher geistiger, politischer und finanzieller Knechtschaft" halten wolle. Der Angeklagte schweigt.
Verteidiger Rieger aber setzt authentisch fort, was sein Mandant in Kanada und den USA auf der "Zundelsite" begonnen hat. So wird dann Auschwitz zum "Quarantäne-Durchgangslager" mit "Grünflächen zum Hinlegen und Blumenbeeten", einer "Fürsorgeabteilung für Häftlinge", denen "Krankengymnastik" und "Erholungsurlaub" geboten worden sei. Der Vorsitzende Richter Ulrich Meinerzhagen beendet denn auch die Tirade mit dem Hinweis, die Staatsanwaltschaft werde prüfen, "inwieweit Sie sich mit der Stellung der Beweisanträge strafbar gemacht haben".
Das sorgt für Gesprächsstoff in der Pause. Ob es jetzt "gegen Rieger" gehe, raunen die Zuhörer einander mit Sorge zu. Eine Anwältin, die 43-jährige Sylvia Stolz, wurde immerhin schon im Mai von der Verteidigerbank verbannt, weil sie "Erklärungen mit teilweise strafbaren nationalsozialistischen Inhalten abgegeben" hatte. In ihrer Beschwerde gegen den Ausschluss, die der Bundesgerichtshof abwies, hatte die Anwältin konsequent mit "Heil Hitler" gegrüßt.
Wer an den Verhandlungstagen der 6. Großen Strafkammer das Mannheimer Landgericht betritt, findet sich in einer Art Parallelwelt wieder. Was seit sechzig Jahren als gesichertes historisches Wissen der Bundesrepublik gelten kann, hier ist es nicht angekommen. Etwa siebzig Leute, die meisten im gehobenen Rentenalter, sitzen an diesem Tag in dem nüchternen Gerichtssaal. Unter Neonlicht, auf grauen Plastikbänken, die meisten Bushaltestellen sind heute komfortabler ausgestattet. Freundliche ältere Herrschaften, fest entschlossen, die eigene Jugend in rosig verfälschter Erinnerung zu behalten. "Armes Deutschland", kommentiert eine Frau in den Siebzigern, altmodisch adrett in ihrer fein getupften Rüschenbluse, in sanftem Ton die Ankündigung des Vorsitzenden. Aber vielleicht würden die Richter ja zu solcher Härte "gezwungen". "Wer weiß, welchem Druck die ausgesetzt sind?" Wer an die "jüdische Weltverschwörung" glaubt, spürt deren Arm bis Mannheim.
Sie nennen einander beim Vornamen, bedauern, dass "Kamerad Heinz" heute verhindert sei, haben zum Geburtstag eines "Kameraden" eine Flasche Trollinger mitgebracht. Die muss draußen bleiben, wegen der Sicherheit. Eingangsschleusen und Taschenkontrollen empfinden sie als "Schikane". "Sehen wir so aus, als ob wir hier einen Anschlag planen?", fragt ein pensionierter Eisenbahner aus Offenburg, mit 66 einer der Jüngeren. Aber sie harren geduldig aus in der Schlange, lassen bereitwillig der alt- und neonazistischen Prominenz den Vortritt. Dem einschlägig vorbestraften Ex-Gymnasiallehrer Günter Deckert etwa, der verhinderten Verteidigerin Sylvia Stolz oder dem Rechtsaußen-Anwalt Horst Mahler, vom Amtsgericht Berlin-Tiergarten mit vorläufigem Berufsverbot belegt. "Ihr seid wichtiger als wir", weiß das Fußvolk des Völkischen.
Unwichtig aber ist dieses Publikum nicht. Zwar halten die meisten sich im Saal zurück, vorsichtig geworden wegen der satten Geldstrafen, die Richter Meinerzhagen bei Zwischenrufen und Beifallskundgebungen verhängt hat. Doch bietet dieses Publikum den Verteidigern Folie und Vorwand. Das Gericht solle "sich doch nicht dem Verdacht aussetzen", dass man seine Darlegungen "der Öffentlichkeit vorenthalten" wolle, sagt der greise Co-Anwalt Herbert Schaller, in Österreich erste Adresse für Nazi-Apologeten. Um dann 36 eng beschriebene Seiten zu verlesen, derselbe Tenor, wie schon von Rieger gehört.
Ernst Zündel, geboren 1939 in Calmbach (Baden-Württemberg), war als 19-Jähriger nach Kanada ausgewandert. Von Toronto verbreitete er seit 1976 über seinen Samisdat-Verlag Schriften und Videos, in denen das NS-Regime verherrlicht und der Holocaust verleugnet wurde. 1994 startete er mit einer revisionistischen Internet-Homepage. Als unerwünschte Person wies Kanada Zündel im Februar 2005 aus und schob ihn nach Deutschland ab. Am Frankfurter Flughafen wurde er festgenommen. Der Prozess wegen Volksverhetzung wurde vom Mannheimer Landgericht am 8. November 2005 eröffnet. Nach Paragraf 130 des Strafgesetzbuchs wird mit einer Freiheitsstrafe von bis zu fünf Jahren bedroht, wer Nazi-Gräuel öffentlich "billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost". höl
© FR online 2006 Dokument erstellt am 05.10.2006 um17:36:59 Uhr - 05.10.2006 um 19:01:13 Uhr.
Mit seiner ersten Äußerung vor dem Mannheimer Landgericht hat der mutmaßliche Holocaust-Leugner Ernst Zündel einen heftigen Streit zwischen dem Vorsitzenden Richter und der Verteidigung ausgelöst. Die Kammer warf der Verteidigung "verfahrensfremdes Verhalten" und "Missbrauch des Antragsrechts" vor.
Zündel verlas einen umfangreichen Beweisantrag seines Wahlverteidigers. Darin beantragte der 67-Jährige unter anderem die Zeugenvernehmung des iranischen Präsidenten Mahmud Ahmadinedschad. Die Kammer hatte allerdings zuvor den Beschluss gefasst, dass die Beweisanträge der Verteidigung der Kammer zunächst in schriftlicher Form vorgelegt werden müssten. Die "Umgehung" des Gerichtsbeschlusses sei eine "Frechheit", so der empörte Vorsitzende Richter.
Anwälte könnten sich strafbar machen
Vor Zündels Antrag hatte das Gericht ein Selbstleseverfahren angeordnet. Andernfalls bestehe die Gefahr, dass sich die Verteidiger mit der öffentlichen Verlesung ihrer Anträge selbst strafbar machen könnten, hieß es. Nach Auffassung des Gerichts sollen bereits zwei Anwälte Zündels in früheren Beweisanträgen die Massenvernichtung an den Juden in Zweifel gezogen haben. Die Verteidigung nutze die Anträge als "Instrument der Propagierung politischer Überzeugungen", hieß es weiter.
Eine andere Anwältin Zündels war bereits vor einigen Monaten vom Prozess ausgeschlossen worden, weil sie einen Brief mit "Heil Hitler" unterschrieben hatte.
Verteidigung moniert "unfaires Verfahren"
Zündel wird von drei Wahl- und zwei Pflichtverteidigern vertreten. "Was sie abziehen wollen, ist ein Geheimverfahren", warf Zündel dem Richter vor. Das Gericht, kritisierte zudem der Anwalt des Angeklagten, führe ein "absolut unfaires Verfahren" gegen Zündel.
Die Staatsanwaltschaft wirft Zündel vor, er habe von Kanada aus via Internet den millionenfachen Mord an den Juden in der Zeit des Zweiten Weltkriegs geleugnet.
Der Prozess wird am 19. Oktober fortgesetzt.
Iranian President: US, Britain Act Like 'Owners of the World'
By Julie Stahl CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
August 29, 2006
Jerusalem - CNSNews.com - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad challenged President Bush to an uncensored debate on world issues during a televised press conference on Tuesday. He remained defiant just two days before the United Nations deadline expires for Iran to halt its nuclear enrichment program. "I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr. George W. Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues," he said.
Ahmadinejad criticized the British and U.S. international role in the post-World War II era. "The political situation of World War II has been kept alive by the [super] powers. They have embarked on [an] arms race...in order to safeguard superiority over other nations," the Iranian news agency IRNA quoted him as saying.
The Iranian president criticized the decision-making process of the U.N. Security Council and challenged the power of the five permanent Security Council members -- among them the U.S. and Britain. "The U.S. and Britain are using such a privilege as if they were the owners of the world.
How many years should they enjoy this privilege?" he asked.
The U.S. is pushing for sanctions against Iran if Tehran refuses to submit to the Security Council's demand to suspend uranium enrichment by the August 31 deadline. Enriched uranium is essential for producing nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad inaugurated a heavy water production plant several days ago. He said then that his country would not give up what he considers his country's "right" to develop a nuclear program. He argued that did not pose a threat to "anyone, even the Zionist regime, which is the enemy."
During his Tuesday press conference, Ahmadinejad said that the establishment of the State of Israel had been based on a "myth." He previously has called the Holocaust a "myth" and suggested that the State of Israel be moved to Europe.
In a letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel last month, Ahmadinejad suggested the Allied powers had fabricated the story of the Holocaust to embarrass Germany. The contents of the letter were released this week as Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni was visiting Germany. "Is it not a reasonable possibility that some countries that had won the war made up this excuse to constantly embarrass the defeated people...to bar their progress," he wrote.
Subscribe to the free CNSNews.com daily E-Brief.
From Dr Robert Faurisson, August 31, 2006,
Iranian President is right: US and Britain act like owners of the world and the alleged "Holocaust" of the Jews is a myth. This myth is the sword and the shield of a colony called "Israel". The world is changing. US and Britain cannot act any more as owners of the world and colonies are finished. The triple myth of the genocide, the gas chambers, the Six Million will slowly appear for what it is: a gigantic historical lie.
Prof (ret.) Robert Faurisson, 10, Rue de Normandie,
F 03200 Vichy
Phone: 00 33 4 70 32 38 96
COMMENTARY: No Greater Lie
The Jews claim that Hitler invented the Big Lie. They have repeated this canard so often, that most people accept it without question. But it is totally false. It is without foundation and demonstrably untrue. It is, in fact, THE classic case of standing truth on its head.
And who is better qualified to do this than those who have introduced the word chutzpah into our language? Indeed, it was the Jews themselves who gave us the Big Lie, of which this is but the most brazen example.
For it was the German Leader who was the first to describe, expose and roundly CONDEMN the Big Lie and its use by the self-chosen ones. Here are his exact words in the book, Mein Kampf (Vol. I, Chap. 10, pp. 231-232):
"It required the whole bottomless falsehood of the Jews and their Marxist fighting organization to lay the blame for the collapse on the very man who alone, with superhuman energy and will power, tried to prevent the catastrophe he foresaw and save the nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace. By branding Ludendorff as guilty for the loss of the World War, they took the weapon of moral right from the one dangerous accuser who could have risen against the traitors to the fatherland.
"In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted, rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big.
"Such a falsehood will never enter their heads, and they will not be able to believe the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick—a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of."
This is pretty clear, unambiguous language. It completely demolishes the Big Lie and exposes those who tell it. That is why they hate Him so much.
-HE WAS RIGHT! SPREAD THE WORD! NEW ORDER, Dept E, PO Box 270486, Milwaukee - WI53227 http://www.theneworder.org
Who is Georges Theil?
Some time ago I came across the name of a man in France in trouble with the thought police. I contacted him, as I do, in order to encourage him. The lovers of truth need to know that they are not alone in their struggle, but that there are others of a kindred spirit.
Georges Theil is another star on the firmament of truth seekers, another victim in the clutches of those who love darkness more than light.
In my hands is a slim book of a mere 86 pages written by Georges Theil, called: Heresy in 21st century France, a case of in-submission. The book has a rather provocative title illustration of a medieval man on a rack. It catches the eye. It certainly caught the eye of the opinion makers and landed Georges Theil in the mire of legal proceedings out of every proportion to this little work.
In every man's life ought to come the time when he reflects on his life and ideals, the things that matter to him and the stuff he is made of. This book is not so much a learned work that dazzles the academics, it is a personal pilgrimage from the haze of publicly prescribed opinions to the clear sky of truth. And only in Truth can a man truly find rest.
For me, who functions on this plain, it has the power and impact of the revelation: I am in the presence of a fellow traveller! Obviously the Zionist opinion mill too, that is: the newspapers, the radio stations, the Television stations and not to forget that bulwark of propaganda- Hollywood-, saw a great danger in this powerful human level, that has the ability to touch the like minded ones. After all, they constantly tap into it themselves. “Make it personal”! is the motto.
Georges Theil had a series of tragedies in his young life: he lost his father at a very young age and afterwards a number of relatives and friends, which left him bereft. It forced him to think deeply about things. He was an exceptionally good student and a prolific reader. But his mind had a bend towards unusual topics. Some of the underlying thoughts that formed in him was the enigma of Germany and the German. He reasoned: “if these people on the other side of the Rhine are the close historical relatives of the French (eg. Franks etc), as no doubt they are, how is it that according to public opinion they are a barbaric, warmongering race, beyond the pale of our civilization?”
The search began, a search that lead him to the realization that the German- the Boche- is the exact opposite, a very civilized, highly developed human being and on a far broader range of the population than in other countries. He found that it is envy, racial hatred and revenge for past wars that seeks to eliminate -to genocide- the German from the face of the Earth. For this purpose were invented many tales of barbarism, belligerence and baseness, supposedly inhabiting the character of the German.
The epitome of these inventions of course is the Holocaust, the gas chambers and the myth of the 6 Million dead Jews, a tale carefully prepared long before such an event was at all possible.
Georges looked into the Auschwitz/ Birkenau complex, with maps supplied by Robert Faurisson. Here he was able to compare the structures erected after the war with the original plans. Georges familiarized himself with the shameful travesty of the show trial at Nürnberg after the war, where men were guilty from the outset just because they were Germans. He looked into the entire spectrum of the German experience, from the murders of the Polish officers, which was charged to the Germans, the torture and hangings of many innocent German men, Hitler's Germany and its amazing economic recovery, the collective memoirs of allied leadership, Churchill, de Gaulle and Eisenhower, who never mentioned gas chambers, the Rheinwiesen, where untold German soldiers died, the fate of millions of German civilians in the killing fields of Germany's Eastern provinces after the war, the plunder of Germany's industries, patents and private property and the take-over of all of Germany's top posts by Jews.
He soon discovered that an unmistakable trail in Germany's destiny always leads in one direction: the Jews. It appeared that the basic conflict was between the German and the Jew. It was like a replay on a huge scale of the age-old conflict between Cain and Abel. Abel, who was slain because of envy.
I cannot help thinking that the decline of the allied “victorious” West has something to do with the exceptional cruelty meted out to a wronged and defeated Germany.
I want to conclude this review with an insightful comment by Georges Theil's grandmother, echoing my own sentiments.
“Your grandfather, the officer, had the official job of training those Tonkinese (Asia) and of making the most efficient, the cruelest possible ''Boche-killers'' of them. ''There are twenty million Germans too many!'' Clemenceau said, didn't he? Yes. And just how many ''Boches'' were your grandfather thus able to get killed? A few, or hundreds? Thousands, maybe? France, our country, sent officers like him 6,000 miles away to train Asiatics to kill Germans, our close kin, as we were well aware; it makes me dizzy. And after all, wasn't your father perhaps the victim of a kind of immanent justice? I often think that an immanent justice struck him down; without knowing it and of course without understanding it, in 1944 he ended paying with his own life for the criminal error of our rulers whom I saw plunge France into two wars against Germany in less than 25 years...” Think on these things.
Kofi Annan opening the UN Exhibition 'Auschwitz - the Depth of the Abyss' in January 2005
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has become the worlds leading denier of the Holocaust. In Jerusalem, Noah Flug, president of the Auschwitz International Committee, of former prisoners of Auschwitz has sent an invitation to the Iranian leader to visit the death camp to see for himself. Flug has also requested that the Iranian authorities allow him to participate in an upcoming conference on the Holocaust in Tehran. In our IsraCast studio, Noah Flug talked to David Essing about why he has sent his urgent letter to the Iranian president.
'I would like to invite you to visit the Auschwitz concentration camp together with members of the Auschwitz International Committee' - that extraordinary invitation comes from Noah Flug, the president of the umbrella organization of Holocaust survivors to Iranian President Ahmedinejad.
In his letter to the Iranian leader, Flug wrote that Ahmedinejad has repeatedly cast doubt that 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis. In addition, Ahmedinejad had even written German Chancellor Angela Merkel saying the Allies may have invented the Holocaust at the end of World War II in order to shame Germany. Flug tells the Iranian president: I have come to the clear conclusion that you are lacking in knowledge of the subject and I would like to hope that you express yourself in this way as a result of your lack of knowledge, rather than malice. Perhaps the time has come for you to add to your knowledge of the subject. At Auschwitz, Flug said he would be able to show President Ahmedinejad how the Nazi extermination machine operated, killing over a million people, Jews and also non-Jews. Flug has also called on the Iranian leader to permit him to attend a conference on the Holocaust in three months time in Tehran.
JERUSALEM -- For six decades, Hilda Shlick thought her brother Simon perished in the Holocaust with several other relatives. But thanks to some online investigating by her grandkids, Shlick has been reunited with the brother she last saw in 1941. The family was living in Romania back then, and they were separated when the Nazis invaded. Shlick, 10 years old at the time, and a sister managed to escape, while the others stayed behind. The rest of the family -- parents Henia and Benzion, and brothers Simon, Mark, Karol and Eddie -- stayed in Romania, finding refuge in a basement. Shlick now lives in Israel, and during a chat this summer, her grandsons learned enough to hit the Internet and start their search. They started a search using the database of Holocaust victims at Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust memorial. That search ended with the discovery of brother Simon Glasberg living in Canada. He flew to Israel where, despite the 65 years of separation, he recognized his sister immediately. It turns out that another brother also lives in Canada. He's too ill to go to Israel, but has a son who lives there – a half-hour away from his long lost aunt. The fate of one sister, Pepi, remains unknown. She disappeared and is presumed to have been killed by the Nazis. Simon Glasberg, his brothers and parents emigrated to Canada after the war ended. Shlick and her sister moved to Estonia, where Bertha died in 1970. Hilda Glasberg (now Hilda Schlick) was born in 1931 in Chernowitz, Romania. Yad Vashem spokeswoman Estee Yaari said this was only the second known case of living siblings discovering each other through the database.
NEW YORK -- Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad broke away from events at the U.N. General Assembly to hold an informal question-and-answer session with high-powered members of America's most prestigious foreign policy think tank _ despite objections from some Jewish groups and the Bush administration.
The Council on Foreign Relations said afterward that Ahmadinejad had engaged in a "protracted punch and counter-punch" with 19 members for about 90 minutes in the conference room of a New York City hotel late Wednesday.
But it said the controversial Iranian leader had offered no new policies or opinions other than those he has aired widely on issues raging from his country's disputed nuclear program to the Holocaust.
"I'm not sure we learned anything new," CFR president Richard Haass said in a statement after the meeting. But Haass added that the Iranian leader may have learned about American attitudes from those who he sparred with _ some of them Jewish panelists who had visited former concentration camps in Poland.
Ahmadinejad has engaged in a media blitz during his trip to New York to attend the General Assembly _ giving interviews to Time magazine and CNN, among others.
But the trip to the think tank was controversial, provoking protests from Jewish groups and the Bush administration.
The New York Times, which had a reporter who is a CFR member at the private meeting, said Ahmadinejad spoke "with a tone that oozed polite hostility." He entered with "a jaunty smile, a wave and an air of supreme confidence" and ended the evening by asking Council members "whether they were simply shills for the Bush administration," the newspaper reported. It said there were no introductory handshakes before the talk began.
The newspaper also reported that the group's invitation to Ahmadinejad to talk had stirred objections from Bush administration figures and prominent Jewish leaders. It did not specify if the Bush administration had actively sought to stop the meeting.
Some Jewish leaders responded to invitations to the event by asking whether the council would have invited Hitler in the 1930s, and considered resigning from the group en masse, the Times reported. They decided not to resign after the event was changed from a dinner to a meeting, it said.
"It is more offensive to break bread with the guy," Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, told the Times. "I thought dinner was crossing the line."
Ahmadinejad has frequently called the Holocaust a "myth" and has demanded more research to determine whether six million Jews really perished in World War II.
CFR chairman Peter G. Peterson told him Wednesday that the majority of Americans _ Jews and non-Jews alike _ were "horrified" by his assertions, CFR said in a statement.
Ahmadinejad replied that he doubted that was the case for all Americans, it said.
Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni told the General Assembly session that the international community must stand up against Iran, which she claimed is pursuing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel.
"There is no greater challenge to our values than that posed by the leaders of Iran," Livni said Wednesday. "They deny and mock the Holocaust. They speak proudly and openly of their desire to wipe Israel off the map. And now, by their actions, they pursue the weapons to achieve this objective, to imperil the region and to threaten the world."
The United States is embroiled in a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. Tehran claims its goal is to generate electricity, but the U.S. says Iran aims to produce nuclear weapons.
The U.S. was required to grant Ahmadinejad a visa to travel to the General Assembly in New York this week, under an agreement with the United Nations.
The foreign policy group is filled with the country's government elite: Haass worked at the State Department under President Bush's first term while member Brent Scowcroft served as national security adviser under Bush's father, and Robert D. Blackwill directed Iraq policy at the White House. All attended the event, the Times said.
© 2006 The Associated Press
Text of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's U.N. Address
Distinguished Heads of State and Government,
Distinguished Heads of Delegation,
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen
I praise the Merciful, All-Knowing and Almighty God for blessing me with another opportunity to address this Assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran and to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community.
I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave expression of their views and aspirations regarding global issues.
Today, humanity passionately craves commitment to the Truth, devotion to God, quest for Justice and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed,and longing for peace constitute the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations and the spirited youth, who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and injustice, and replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this immense blessing.
What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity; the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against others and oppress them.
By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination, accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the resulting poverty, suffering and misery.
Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live in perpetual insecurity and danger.
Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.
Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions, where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?
A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further illustrate the problem.
A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these instruments of death? Aren`t wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.
People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its sake.
Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and the threat of their use?
The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and animosity among nations?
B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities
Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years. Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society, and instigate civil strife.
There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to eliminate the sources of instability. Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers.
It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.
Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the Government of Iraq seek justice?
Who can ensure Iraq`s security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region. Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council? Can the Security Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?
Consider the situation in Palestine:
The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants; it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. This is a great tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?
The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the raison d`être of this regime, as it has. The tragedy does not end with the establishment of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the people of the region. Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet among supporters of this regime. But these are sheer facts and not myth. History has unfolded before our eyes.
Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.
Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support or protection. Why?
At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of Parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international community.
Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally besieged Government? And why can`t the Security Council take any steps?
Let me here address Lebanon:
For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the Security Council of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were persistently repeated. Why?
In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this Council fulfill its responsibilities?
C. Lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community
I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak to the injustices against them.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights? Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a bleak record of using them against humanity.
Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other countries?
The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is indeed a source of grave concern.
Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn`t it erode the credibility and effectiveness of the Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the Council to maintain security?
A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression.
Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful;
Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance and promotion of peace and tranquility;
For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged; that must not violate human rights.
-Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.
-Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council, which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?
-The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only second class in the world order.
The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?
Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of collective security.
How long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the entire organization and its affiliated agencies.
The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.
Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently, needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective. Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment, of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working methods of the Council.
Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn`t this generation or future generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to live?
Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.
It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be guaranteed.
Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.
Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.
Human beings are all God`s creatures and are all endowed with dignity and respect.
No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community".
Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.
Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.
It is for this reason that we state:
Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.
All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security. We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.
All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the sweet events and developments in today`s world.
We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a better life for current and future generations.
Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics, spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.
Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good, Virtue, Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice, peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of justice and virtue.
The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also its Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.
He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?
I emphatically declare that today`s world, more than ever before, longs for just and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.
0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice, the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers and among those who strive for his return and his cause.
Is Iran's President Really a Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Islamo-fascist who has threatened to "wipe Israel off the map"?
Putting Words in Ahmadinejad's Mouth
By VIRGINIA TILLEY
Johannesburg, South Africa August 28, 2006
- continue at http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html
UK Chancellor gets award for Holocaust education
Jimmy Chisholm portrays Shylock as an orthodox Hasidic Jew in the Lyceum's Merchant of Venice.
Flyers for play spark fury in Jewish community
TIM CORNWELL ARTS CORRESPONDENT
THE director of Britain's leading Jewish organisation has called for the Royal Lyceum theatre in Edinburgh to apologise for the "pain" caused by flyers advertising its play, The Merchant of Venice.
The flyers show the actor playing Shylock, the Jewish moneylender in Shakespeare's play, dressed in the costume of an Orthodox Hasidic Jew. "And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?" it declares in bold letters.
Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, said he was not objecting to the play itself; it was the pairing of picture and text in the flyer that made a stereotypical image of a Jew driven by money and revenge.
"It's a play with many layers that explores prejudice," he said. "But that falls by the wayside in the flyer when you see what a lot of people think a Jew looks like, with the words about revenge."
He also questioned the historical accuracy of the image, saying the Hasidic movement did not emerge until the 18th century in eastern Europe, long after Shakespeare's day.
A Lyceum spokeswoman said: "The character of Shylock, dressed accurately as a Hasidic Jew, is appropriate within the context and historical setting of the Lyceum production."
The production took Shakespeare's themes of cruelty, loneliness, alienation and religion and "put them in a contemporary setting", she said.
Jewish community leaders in Edinburgh and Scotland also expressed strong concern about the flyers and posters yesterday, widely distributed around Edinburgh and the region.
Hilary Rifkind, chairman of the Edinburgh Hebrew Congregation, said: "Shakespeare's play is a subtle, nuanced picture of prejudice and its effects. This leaflet is not subtle.
"It invites an antisemitic reaction to contemporary Jews, and it has caused offence in the local Jewish community."
The play launches the autumn season at the Lyceum tomorrow night and runs for a month. Jimmy Chisholm plays Shylock. It is directed by the theatre's artistic director, Mark Thomson, who has overseen a string of recent successes there.
He says the play explores the terrible dynamics of religious divides, ancient and modern, that "poison and destroy".
The theatre's spokeswoman said: "To be honest, we are surprised by this response to our advertising material. The text is a direct quote from one of the most powerful scenes in the play."
The theatre had received just one letter of complaint, she said, which was being dealt with by its chairman.
The Merchant of Venice, in which Shylock demands a pound of flesh as security for a loan, has long touched nerves. Modern directors have handled it in different ways, turning Shylock into a sympathetic or outrageous character or cutting certain lines.
However, this week's row comes against a sensitive backdrop. The UK parliamentary committee against antisemitism recently confirmed a rising number of incidents in Britain, including 92 violent attacks on Jews since July.
In the Edinburgh Fringe this year, there were newspaper reports of comedians beginning to use Jewish jokes again.
There is also deep sensitivity over Israel's bombing and blockade of Lebanon in response to Hezbollah attacks. Neo-Nazi graffiti recently appeared on synagogues in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Ephraim Borowski, the director of the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities, said: "It is particularly inappropriate that the Lyceum should choose to advertise its production with a picture of a contemporary Orthodox Jew alongside a quotation about revenge that resurrects a traditional antisemitic stereotypes."
One Edinburgh resident, who asked not to be named, said: "The idea that these posters could be up in schools throughout the Lothians region is just astonishing."
Mr Benjamin said he had had a dozen complaints about the flyer, not all from Edinburgh.
This article: http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1405412006
Last updated: 23-Sep-06 01:04 BST
Top | Home
©-free 2006 Adelaide Institute