BENDING TO JEWISH PRESSURE
Fredrick Töben, 27 November 2007
This is a brief addition to our 2007 newsletters and let’s hope the information does not depress you too much.
DID I bend to Jewish pressure on this day as I stood before Justice Michael Moore in Court 2, Federal Court of Australia, Adelaide? That is the question – and email responses from supporters indicate that the perception is clear: I did bend. My response is that Jeremy Jones did not penetrate me because I merely apologized to the court and not to Jones or to Australia’s Jewish community. I did not RECANT about my homicidal gassing views!
What happened last night? Around 19:00 hours my legal counsel sent me a consent court order proposal wherein I was to acknowledge and apologize for having been in breach of those all-too-vague Justice Branson Court Orders of 17 September 2002. I accepted the fact that I shall always apologize if I have been rude and crude in my language use but cannot apologize if I am factually telling the truth, as I did in the Orders A and B about the ‘Holocaust’ and the ‘Auschwitz homicidal gas chambers’.
It was decided to present these consent orders to Justcie Moore the following day.
During the brief half-hour hearing before Justice Moore my barrister, Paul Charman, stated that the apology does cast reservations on A and B but goes towards C and D of the Order.
Barrister for Jeremy Jones, Mr Margo, waxed lyrically how the material on the Adelaide Institute website hurt his client, and how Federal Court judges – Kiefel, Carr and Alsop had confirmed this on appeal. Margo did note that at the beginning of this year I had made the offer to delete the whole website if Jones could provide medical documentation that would quantify this hurt – of course such was never forthcoming because Jones is a much-seasoned self-confessed ‘publicist’ and any such hurt would be difficult to sustain under cross-examination.
Justice Moore noted what had been said and stated he would not make a finding on this matter for one or the other side. He asked me to read out the consent orders – without reservations or qualifications – which I did.
A review of the matter will be held on 28 February 2008 – and from there the matter will go where it will and, of necessity, must go.
Here is the agreement, signed and presented to the court on 27 November 2007.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. N327 of 2001
SHORT MINUTES OF ORDER
By consent, the Court ORDERS:
1. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely on the Second Further Amended Statement of Charge filed on 3 November 2007 .
2. The Notice of Motion is stood over until 28 February 2008 .
3. Liberty is reserved to the applicant to apply on 48 hours’ notice to relist the Motion and in that event leave is granted to the applicant further to amend the Second Further Amended Statement of Charge to include any alleged contempt arising or discovered after the date of these orders.
4. Costs of the Motion are reserved subject to the agreement of the parties referred to in paragraph 7.
The Court NOTES:
5. The respondent’s apology to the Court for the contempt committed by him of the Orders of Branson J made in these proceedings.
6. The respondent’s undertaking to the Court and the applicant:
a. to comply henceforth with the Orders of Branson J made in these proceedings;
b. further, to remove all files and material identified in the Second Further Amended Statement of Charge (‘the Material’) from http://www.adelaideinstitute.org and from all other World Wide Web websites the content of which is controlled by him or the Adelaide Institute by no later than 4pm on 5 December 2007; and
c. without limiting undertaking (a) not cause any of the Material to be replaced on the World Wide Web.
7. The Court notes the agreement of the parties that no application will be made for costs if and for so long as the Respondent complies with each of his said undertakings.
That is where we are now at. On our website I have added the following note of explanation:
*****Fredrick Töben comments: Now is the time to begin an action in the courts to state how hurtful any mention of the Holocaust is to German Australians, especially because through such orders, as above, it is not permitted openly to discuss the factuality of any claim made by any Holocaust survivor. Now more than ever it is still possible to defame anyone with the Holocaust allegations - and get away with it because courts have sanctioned such defamation actions. A sad day for free expression, really - still, I shall attempt to comply for a fourth time with such orders.
*Fredrick Töben comments: Here is a letter I wrote to Justice Goldberg whose letter to Mrs Joyce Steele illustrates how someone did not bend to Jewish pressure. Now this matter has become irrelevant - and I wonder whether I bent to Jewish pressure, or what other pressure was upon me today in the Federal Court of Australia.
Justice Alan Goldberg, QC
Federal Court of Australia
Law Courts Building, Queens Square , Sydney 2000
3 October 2007
Re: FCA No N327 of 2001: Jeremy Jones v Fredrick Töben
Dear Justice Goldberg
I am writing to you because of the above matter wherein a letter, written by you on 1 July 1985 to Mrs Joyce Steele, OBE, is part of my defence.
This letter is relevant in determining the credibility of what Mr Jeremy Jones wrote about Mr John Bennett in 1991.
Both matters are relevant to the above matter being heard in the FCA by Justice Moore and set down for a hearing at Adelaide on 27-28 November 2007. I enclose an advance copy of our Newsletter No 363 wherein your letter and Mr Jones’ article are reproduced.
I would like to ask you to be a witness for the defence and be examined in court. Should you not wish to appear on my behalf, then I would have to issue a subpoena and bring you to court as a possible hostile witness.
I am sending a copy of this letter to my Barrister, Mr Paul Charman, PO Box 959, Old Reynella - 5161.
Dr Fredrick Töben, PO Box 3300, Norwood – 5067
Arnold Bloch Leibler
Lawyers and Advisers
Level 21, 333 Collins Street
Melbourne , Victoria 3000, Australia
10 October 2007
Dear Dr Toben
We act for Justice Goldberg who has passed on to us your letter of 3 October 2007 relating to Federal Court proceedings No N327 of 2001. We advise that we have instructions to accept service on behalf of Justice Goldberg of any subpoenas which may be issued in the above proceedings.
Arnold Bloch Leibler - Mark Leibler, Senior Partner
The Goldberg-Steele matter was mentioned in detail in Newsletter–Online, No 363, an item that according to the Consent Orders I have to remove from our website by 5 December 2007. So, please take care of that newsletter, it now contains prohibited material. Notice its contents essentially does not deal with any of the matters canvassed in the Branson Court Orders but it proves the Jewish conspiracy – how non-Jews are pressured into silence, something MRs Joyce Steele, OBE, resisted so admirably.
I would have subpoenad Justice Alan Goldberg, now a judge at the Federal Court, to give evidence about the contents of his letter to Mrs Steele. Still, the matter is on record and it proves how Jews persecute those who refuse to bend to their pressure. But my maxim clarifies the moral dimension: Don’t blame the Jews, blame those that bend to their pressure! I bent to their pressure – don’t blame Jeremy Jones!
Even though Barrister Paul Charman appeared without fee for me, the whole matter has been an expensive exercise. I would be pleased if you can assist in replenishing our fighting fund – and Christmas time is that time where annual costs, for example, the Internet website hosting, need to be met.
I shall spend the Christmas period on an extended RELAX, and think of Sylvia Stolz and Horst Mahler who are fighting the battle in the heartland of the Holocaust drama – Germany. Just last week Mahler was found guilty for having given the Hitler salute, something Freemasons the world over do every month when they salute their masters. Note this hypocrisy needs to be exposed – so many of our judges are Freemasons, then have the audacity legally to persecute someone like Horst Mahler and send him to six months prison for it. Our thoughts are also with Revisionists in prison: Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel, Wolfgang Fröhlich and Gerd Honsik, to name only a few.
Finally, last Monday evening, 26 November 2007, the Oxford University’s debating society invited David Irving and Nick Griffin - to muchy public protest. Here is one of the more thoughtful comments about the issue published in The Guardian:
The Oxford Union was after easy publicity when it invited David Irving and Nick Griffin - but the debate can do no harm: Max Hastings, Monday November 26, 2007, The Guardian
On the Richter scale of notoriety, Harold Davidson, rector of Stiffkey, still rates near the top. Having been defrocked in 1932 for conducting a sex life exotic even by modern Church of England standards, he resorted to increasingly desperate methods to retain the attention to which he had become addicted.
His final gambit, in 1937, was to appear in a cage of lions at an amusement park in Skegness. One of the beasts, named Freddie, took exception. It mauled him before a large audience, which must have gone home feeling that the show had been worth twice the ticket money. The rector died two days later.
I have no idea whether Luke Tryl, the current president of the Oxford Union, has heard of Harold Davidson, but he favours the rector's methods. Tryl's society yesterday achieved priceless column inches in the Sunday papers, under the headline "Row as Oxford Union votes to hear Irving".
The Irving in question is, of course, David, recently liberated from an Austrian prison in which he served a sentence for Holocaust denial. The Oxford Union has invited him, along with the British National party leader Nick Griffin, to address a meeting tonight on free speech. A vote of the entire Oxford Union Society membership endorsed these invitations by two-to-one, at the cost of seeing several other prominent speakers withdraw.
The union, and for that matter all student debating societies, nowadays finds it difficult to generate publicity and lure audiences. In consequence, like TV broadcasters, it resorts to increasingly desperate measures to achieve sensation. The Irving invitation has induced the national media to take notice of tonight's Oxford event, in a fashion unthinkable if instead Harriet Harman or David Davis were the featured attractions.
It is hard to doubt that the union's motive in providing a platform for Irving and Griffin is a cynical one. Yet this still leaves me unconvinced that their appearance is heinous. Griffin leads a political group that possesses significant public support, chiefly for its opposition to mass immigration.
One of the most plausible charges against liberal Britain, and indeed against the government, is that they ignore the view of a host of people, especially in traditionally working-class areas, who are enraged by what is happening, and believe their own interests are being sacrificed to the incomers. Last year's book The New East End, by Geoff Dench, Kate Gavron and Michael Young, coolly but vividly illustrates the phenomenon.
It seems good for Oxford students to be exposed to the views of Griffin and his BNP, rather than spend their educational lives in a warm bath of Guardian decency. Members of the Union Society must be a sorry lot indeed if they are likely to catch the plague of intolerance and racism from a single evening's exposure to Griffin.
David Irving is interesting in a different way. Because I write books about the second world war, I have read almost everything he has published. Back in the 1970s, I applied to him for assistance in making contacts in Germany, and received this in full measure.
When I turned up at the doors of old Nazis, including Hitler's most intimate surviving aides, bearing an introduction from the sage of Duke Street, my welcome was ecstatic. "Ach, Herr Irving! A wonderful man. And what may I do for you, Herr Hastings?"
Their enthusiasm did not persist, I fear, after reading the works of my own which resulted. But I could endure Irving's possessing the most embarrassingly malodorous breath in London, because he provided access to people and material of historical importance.
Like Griffin, he is an unappetising human being. But so much abuse has been heaped on the man that it is often ignored that he is an energetic and original researcher, whose findings are not always perverted. His recent volumes on Churchill - self-published, because no commercial publishers would touch them - contain nuggets.
Hugh Trevor-Roper once described Irving's work Hitler's War as "the nearest thing we shall ever have to the autobiography the Fuhrer never wrote". No serious historian of the second world war can exclude Irving's books from the reading list. There now: I have provided a hostage to fortune. That sentence will no doubt pop up to embarrass me on the back jacket of Irving's next production.
Yet it is true, even if one goes on to add that he is an unashamed apologist for the Third Reich, and that most of his judgments are tortured and mistaken, sometimes grotesquely so. Such a person has usefulness, if only to test one's own ideas from the opposite polarity. Irving seeks to persuade us of some things that are not only wrong but wicked. He has also, however, provided historians with information and perspectives that help to shape our own quite different conclusions, as do some impenitent Stalinists and Maoists.
It may sound paradoxical to say that one of my first acts on becoming editor of the Evening Standard in 1996 was to tell Andrew Wilson, then its literary editor, that I was no longer willing to carry reviews written by Diana Mosley, who remained to the day of her death an admirer of Hitler.
I would have been willing to read, and perhaps publish, copy by Mosley discussing her experience as a fascist, in order that a new generation could consider and, please God, reject her views. But I could not stomach her as a regular contributor and colleague.
Irving, however, no longer seriously expects to be regarded as one of us. He is a spokesperson for the Nazi regime from its grave who almost relishes ostracism. Are we really so frightened of him in such a guise that we should refuse to hear what he says, even if we would not break bread with him?
Muslim extremists say worse and more dangerous things about Jews than Irving ever has. We excuse and even indulge them, because of our guilt about the role of Europe and the US in creating and sustaining the state of Israel. The president of Iran has denied the historical reality of the Holocaust in terms more extravagant than Irving's circumlocutions. He was recently invited to speak at New York's Columbia University, though there he somewhat temporised his views. Given the current relationship between Iran and the US, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's appearance seemed to represent a triumph for democratic values.
Of course free speech is not an absolute. It would seem inappropriate to ask Irving to speak in, say, the Palace of Westminster or to present a historical documentary for the BBC. But universities are educational institutions. Most modern students are exposed not to an excess of extremist propaganda, but a dearth. They read and hear too much conventional woolly liberalism, some of it about modern history. They need to know what sort of extraordinary and sometimes dangerous people are out there.
Student debating societies have always been foolish, self-indulgent and irresponsible. We should cherish their right to remain so. Tonight's Oxford audience has things to learn from listening to Griffin and Irving. We should possess sufficient faith in its intelligence to believe that they will be the right ones.
Merry Christmas to all Adelaide Institute supporters – card made by Hilde –
and a Happy New Year 2008!
Top | Home
©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute