Another hackneyed Auschwitz “revelation”!
See Newsletter 423
November 9, 2008
Prof Robert Faurisson
The latest issue of the German mass-circulation daily Bild announces the recent discovery of new documents on Auschwitz, writing, in particular, that one of them seems to prove the existence of a homicidal gas chamber in that camp. In Berlin, Hans-Dieter Kreikamp, head of the Federal Archives, thinks that in this “discovery” he has found the way to silence the revisionists.
In reality, there is strictly nothing new about this type of document, and the building plans of the “gas chamber” in question – Gaskammer, fully spelt out – are those of a simple “delousing facility” – Entlausungsanlage, fully spelt out as well.
Besides, a passage in the Bild article demonstrates the unease of our fraudsters. Here it is in German, followed by an English translation:
“Dass in der 11,66 mal 11,20 Meter großen „Gaskammer“ nicht Kleidungsstücke mit dem bei der SS üblichen Blausäure-Mittel entlaust, sondern Menschen vergast werden sollten, muss als sehr wahrscheinlich angenommen werden.”
“It must be considered very likely that in this 11.66 by 11.20-meter ‘gas chamber’ it was not garments that were deloused in the SS’s usual way with hydrogen cyanide, but that it was human beings who must have been gassed.”
The reader will have noted: “It must be considered very likely […] that it was human beings who must have been gassed.”
This passage was left out of the articles in the French or English-language press which have, so far, come to my attention and which claim to quote Bild.
I shall permit here myself to remind readers that I was the first in the world to publish the building plans for the Auschwitz crematoria supposed to have housed homicidal gas chambers; the spaces in question were actually either morgues, an air-raid shelter, or some other innocuous rooms. I discovered those drawings in 1976 in the camp archives and began publishing them with an article in the Spanish magazine Interviu, February 1979, a piece carrying a photo of me holding a sheet with crematorium plans altogether comparable to the ones now shown in Bild. In the nearly thirty years since then, I have never ceased going over the conclusions to be drawn from those plans and from a number of other elements, like the inspection of the purported crime scenes at Auschwitz, or, on the one hand, the scientific bibliography regarding delousing, disinfection or anti-infestation methods using Zyklon B and, on the other hand, the procedure for executing a condemned prisoner with hydrogen cyanide gas as followed in certain American penitentiaries.
Invented shortly after the first world war and still in use today under another name, “Cyanosil”, Zyklon B is a hydrogen cyanide-based substance.
From then onwards, nearly all the revisionist researchers – Fred Leuchter, Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno and many others – have made extensive use of those plans or of others still, which Bild discovers today just as someone might discover the moon or the Loch Ness monster. Indeed the anti-revisionists have also, at their end, had to publish these plans and then attempt, though in vain, to challenge the obvious significance thereof.
Such was precisely the case with the French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac. I’ll recall that he, after having deployed the formidable means put at his disposal by the Klarsfeld couple to uphold “the Holocaust” argument in general and that of the alleged homicidal Auschwitz gas chambers in particular, wound up writing that, all things considered, those arguments were fit only “for the rubbish bins of history” – Valérie Igounet, Histoire du négationnisme en France, Paris, Gallimard, 2000, p. 652.
In the end, the Bild reporter has done nothing but recycle an old rumour.
It remains to be seen whether the Jewish authorities find fault with his clumsiness or, instead, congratulate him for being so willing to help with their propaganda.
New police raid at my house
Robert Faurisson November 13, 2008
Today, Thursday, November 13, at 6:15 AM, two investigators from the Police Judiciaire in Paris, having arrived in Vichy yesterday evening, burst into my house accompanied by three uniformed policemen, not without deliberately making a great deal of noise. This caused a severe nervous shock to my wife, who, at 77, suffers from a heart condition; I now fear the possible consequences.
For the next hour and a half the armed policemen kept her, her brother and his wife (the couple had happened to be spending the night at our house) confined in a room, forbidding them to leave it. The police’s loutish behaviour was all the more inadmissible as the two investigators (officiers de police judiciaire – OPJ’s) knew of my wife’s poor state of health. They had already visited us last January 24.
That morning, upon reporting at Vichy police station to answer a summons, I was immediately placed in custody. When told that, after a questioning session, the policemen would be taking me back to my house and carrying out a search, I’d informed the OPJ’s that, as my wife had a weak heart, I had kept the matter of my summons a secret. I told them that at a certain time soon my wife would be leaving the house, and requested that they wait till then to show up for their search. However, they paid no heed to my warning and, with their untimely arrival, they had already given my wife a cardiac trauma.
This November 13 I hauled them over the coals. I told them what was what. And they calmed down.
The three men in uniform went away at 7:30 AM. The OPJ’s, a young woman and a youngish man, performed their search from 6:20 to 10:30.
I refused to answer their questions. For nearly thirty years I’ve been in the habit of responding to all questions from the police with the words: “No answer”, even if the questions are harmless ones. I refuse to collaborate with the French police and justice system in their repression of historical revisionism.
Once again, my two OPJ’s drew a blank. Once again, they found neither the computer nor the documents sought.
They came bearing five (!) warrants, the most important of these concerning my participation at the Tehran conference of December 11-12, 2006. The charges originated with then President Jacques Chirac and an essentially Jewish “anti-racist” organisation.
I ask indulgence of my correspondents beforehand should they find that, for a certain period, I leave their messages or letters unanswered. I am once more entering a time of turbulence. I have still not found a lawyer to replace Eric Delcroix, who has retired. By the way, I shall also ask my contacts not to come forth with recommendations of this or that reputedly courageous lawyer: there are in fact only cowards and inveterate swaggerers.
A model of the type: Jacques Vergès. It pains me to note how few people have seen through the act he puts on. His pet artifice, clumsy as can be, is anti-racist one-upmanship. “Barbie a racist? You must be joking! No one was ever more racist than the French colonialists or the Australians, exterminators of the Tasmanian race.”
In France as elsewhere at this moment, the Jews are demanding a greater crackdown on revisionism. As long as the State of Israel persists with its repeated provocations of the Palestinians, it will be putting itself in growing danger and, eventually, bringing about, whether it likes it or not, the Zionist regime’s disappearance. For the time being, that regime must at all costs safeguard its number one propaganda weapon: the lie that is the religion of “the Holocaust” with its alleged homicidal gas chambers.
We may expect to be treated like Palestinians. For my part, I will not give in. People sometimes find fault with me for forgetting, in my struggle, that a man’s first duty is to preserve the safety of his wife and children. But that, perhaps, is only a man’s second duty. Perhaps the first duty of a man is to be a man.
I do not lose sight of the fact than my lot remains enviable when compared with that of a good many other revisionists such as, for example, Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf in Germany, or Wolfgang Fröhlich and Gerd Honsik in Austria, or Fredrick Töben in London. I also think of the heroic Frenchman Vincent Reynouard, his wife and their seven children.
Fredrick Töben’s 40th day in custody: why no outcry?
G. Nichols, November 9, 2008 firstname.lastname@example.org
Despite the long-running open controversy in Britain over the government’s 42-day preventive detention scheme for suspected terrorists, that country quite obviously has no need of a new Act of Parliament to detain a person indefinitely without charge – something that has always been considered most un-British, denounced as a feature of “foreigner-style” justice.
It’s enough for that person to be a historical revisionist or, as the media call Australian citizen Fredrick Töben, a “suspected Holocaust denier”.
His German arrest warrant may have been thrown out of court on October 29, but he has been kept in his cell – for want of a cash deposit of £100,000 (sic), with the media saying nothing at all and no outcry coming from any quarter.
Strange? Hardly, for as one of his “defenders” puts it, Töben himself is, after all, an odious (sic) individual. If people in the public eye – including a prominent politician and some journalists – are willing enough to discuss the principle of applying the European arrest warrant in certain circumstances, there is in practice nearly no one to take the trouble to speak out against the more than month-long detention without charge of an odious individual – an avowed Holocaust denier: they don’t come any worse than that; terrorists and paedophiles pale in comparison for odiousness.
It boils down to this: with very close to 100% of the population firmly persuaded that a “Holocaust denier” can only be odious, Töben, arrested on October 1st and held, still today, by virtue of an invalid warrant – it’s a British judge, not I, who has called it so – will just have to sit out the appeal/counter appeal process in a prison cell, and no one will get very worked up about it.
That might not be the case if those Englishmen in the know and with the means – David Irving and his clique of lawyers etc. – had brought revisionism – “denial” in mediaspeak – and its solid, sober argumentation out into public, as the law in Britain still allows.
They’ve instead preferred to dabble in drivel, for the most part talking in harmony with the media.
Too bad for Töben whose case, all told, is that of just another odious criminal.
Does Britain have a Holocaust denial law?
The arrest of Frederick Toben could have implications for freedom of expression in the UK, says Padraig Reidy
On Wednesday, Frederick Toben, a convicted Holocaust denier, was taken off a plane at Heathrow airport by Metropolitan Police officers. He had been on his way to Dubai. The Met officers were carrying out a European Arrest Warrant put out by German authorities, charging Toben with disseminating materials of an ‘anti-Semitic and, or, revisionist nature’ that ‘play down above all the mass murder of the Jews, planned and implemented, by the national socialist rulers’.
This was in compliance with Section 130 of the German criminal code, which covers crimes that do not yet exist in the United Kingdom. While, in 2007, the EU adopted a directive making ‘publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide’ punishable by law, the UK (along with Ireland and Sweden) has chosen, as is its right, not to create statute reflecting this.
So why, if Holocaust denial, or ‘trivialisation’ is not a crime in the UK, was Toben arrested by UK police?
Anti-EU campaigners claimed, when European Arrest Warrants were introduced, that they would destroy the notion of dual criminality, whereby a person could only be extradited if they were charged with an offence that is a crime in both countries. Were they right?
The framework decision on European Arrest Warrants recognises 32 offences for which dual criminality does not have to apply — these include racism and xenophobia. As yet it is not clear whether the German authorities intend to charge Toben for broad racial incitement (which is a crime in the UK), or specifically Holocaust denial (which is not).
In 2003, the Daily Telegraph reported Home Office Minister Lord Filkin as saying ‘If someone went to Germany and stood up in Cologne market place and shouted the odds, denying the Holocaust, and then came back [to Britain], they would be subject to extradition under the European arrest warrant.’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2003/02/18/nxeno18.xml
This, it would seem, has come to pass.
If Toben is extradited after his hearing on Friday at City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, it may put us in the peculiar position where Holocaust denial is acknowledged as a crime by the UK courts, without actually being a crime under UK law. Index on Censorship will be following the story.
1. Posted 02Oct08 at 19:16
What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
I wish to express my outrage that the Holocaust, unlike any other historical event, is not subject to critical revisionist investigation. Furthermore I deplore the fact that many so-called democratic states have laws that criminalize public doubting of the Holocaust. It is my position that the veracity of Holocaust assertions should be determined in the marketplace of scholarly discourse and not in our legislatures bodies and courthouses.
Let’s end ‘thought crimes’ in the twenty-first century. Dr. Toben’s thoughts cannot be killed by his imprisonment.
2. Posted 03Oct08 at 12:17
Frank Fisher: Humm. “racial incitement (which is a crime in the UK)” well no, not really. Incitment to racial hatred is an offence - I don’t think it should be, and I wonder what your views are Padraig - but racism, pure and simple, isn’t, nor is persuading others to adopt racist views etc. If the German charges relate to simple publication or dissemination of racist views, then there is no dual criminality.
Regardless, this is a damn outrage - who makes the law here? There is no law forbidding holocaust denial in the UK, because there is no demand or support for such a law here. Do *you* support such a law? When Irving was jailed the british government could keep quiet and pretend it was nothing to do with them - they cannot do this now. If they extradite him they are complicit in this outrage.
Oh, and yes, they have abandoned our sovereignty into the bargain.
3. Posted 03Oct08 at 14:36 Permalink
Geseke: Frederick Toben lives in Australia. Why was he flying from the United States to the UK, to get to Dubai? Why didn’t he take a different route since he surely knows the EU laws? This is like David Irving going into Austria to give a lecture when he knew that there was a warrant for his arrest in Austria.
4. Posted 03Oct08 at 23:58 Permalink
Sophia: Perhaps Dr. Toben was visiting in Aerica before going on to Dubai. More interesting is why do YOU choose to
make an issue of the itinerary of his trip?
He did not leave the plane so it needs asking how he could he of any threat to Britain. It is mind boggling that he could be arrested while awaiting the next phase of the trip and had nothing to do with Britain or Germany. What insanity is this?
How huge are the lies that require such extreme measures to keep hidden? Sophia
5. Posted 04Oct08 at 06:01 Permalink
Syd Walker: The Zionist lobby is clearly seeking to persecute its ideological enemies, using inside connections in Britain and Germany to seek application of laws overtly introduced to fight terrorism and serious crime.
In Australia, more than 20 new ‘anti-Terrorism’ laws have been enacted in recent years, greatly constraining our civil liberties.
An example is a law which made providing Hezollah with ‘material support’ punishable by staggering jail sentences. It meant that, during the 2006 Israeli assault on The Lebanon, Australian relatives of people defending their homeland from external agression risked imprisonment in Australia for sending flowers to a funeral! By contrast, when Israeli-Australian dual nationals fighting in the IDF were killed, it was an Australian national tragedy, judging by mainstream media coverage.
It’s clear where the major push against freedom of expression is coming from - who gains and who loses.
I believe the Zionist lobby is grossly overplaying its hand in this latest case.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right and will be vigorously defended, even by people who usually find other ways to spend their time. The greater the push to criminalize beliefs, the greater the resistance. Truth does not require legal props.
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is unambiguous:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
It could reasonably be objected that The Holocaust is not a matter of opinion, but rather of a quasi-religious nature, given restrictions on free enquiry and dissent.
Even so, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has that covered too.
Here’s Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
6. Posted 04Oct08 at 06:04 Permalink
Syd Walker: Please correct spelling if you publish my previous letter. Hezollah > Hezbollah
7. Posted 04Oct08 at 06:15 Permalink
Rowan Berkeley: Hard cases make bad law, and Jewish international politics are largely about cultivating hard cases, so as to impose bad law.
8. Posted 05Oct08 at 10:20 Permalink
Llloyd: Excellent that Index on Censorship is treating the Toben case as a censorship issue, even making it the main story. I wish I could say the same for Amnesty International that actively campaigns to have revisionists imprisoned. Not even Orwell could have imagined that.
9. Posted 11Oct08 at 01:55 Permalink
Gncarlo: The world grows weary of the Jew and his political movement posing as a religion, relentlessly attacking any who don’t share his delusions of being “God’s Chosen”, but crying “religious persecution” and “anti-semitism” whenever his victims object to the lies and eternal warfare against the rest of mankind. There is hope for a brighter future though: 1. the internet offers hope that the world’s people may continue to freely exchange ideas and experiences and get at the truth despite the efforts of the Jew’s puppets in the world’s parliaments, and 2. America is beyond bankruptcy. When the world realizes this, the imperial pretensions will be dropped and the troops will have to come home. We’ll see how many of her sons and daughters Germany will be willing to imprison without an American army of occupation, and we’ll see what Israel does without the yearly tribute from the West. We live in interesting times…
10. Posted 22Oct08 at 10:00 Permalink
Paulina: Thanks for writing this.
11. Posted 30Oct08 at 13:48 Permalink
Balder: A case which could have similar implications as the Gerald Fredrick Töben Saga is going on in Denmark right now.
Here some people accused by Germany of distributing ‘Nazi-music’ are demanded extradited by the Zionist controlled regime in Germany. This is not a punishable offense in Denmark, but a court has ordered for the extradition under the European Arrest Warrant to proceed. The victims have appealed.
The treacherous Danish press which has a disproportionally large number of Jewish journalists in important positions, has not printed one discussion about the implications, and only very sparingly reported about the trial.
The Danish press has not wasted one word on the Toben case either. They purposely keep the silence of the grave while our local legislation and our nations sovereignty is undermined by Brussels and Zionist controlled Germany.
Help me break the silence and spread the word about this very similar case as well, we cannot let these controlled journalists get away with the crime of not reporting extensively on such important cases and the implications of this legislation..
The latest news about the Danish case:
October 23, 2008 - Denmark: Alleged Nazi-music distributors extradition case in court in Elsinore
By CW 3100 Creative Industries: Censorship « RHUL Creative Writers Weblog on 22Oct08 at 09:20
[...] How far should freedom of speech extend? What, for instance, do you think of David Irving prosecution as a holocaust denier? Or the recent arrest by UK authorities of Frederick Toben? [...]
Extradition bid raises fears of 'thought crime' offences
Commentary: Frances Gibb, The Times, October 2, 2008
Crown Prosecution Service lawyers will put the case on behalf of the German authorities tomorrow that Fredrick Toben, an Australian doctor, should be extradited for offences allegedly committed in Germany. The case is the latest example of the global reach of criminal laws - and of their impact between one European country and another. The extradition request is being made under the European Arrest Warrant, a fast-track procedure to allow criminal suspects to be sent between European states.
The warrant, which came into force in January 2004, abolished the principle of “dual criminality” that existed under old extradition laws. This means that someone in Britain can be extradited for something that is not a crime here - as long as it is a criminal offence in the state requesting extradition.
The reform was rushed through in part as a response to terrorism after September 11. Ministers also argued that it would speed up a cumbersome and slow extradition process, helping criminals to be brought more swiftly to justice.
Critics pointed out, however, that people could find themselves charged with an offence they did not know existed because racism or xenophobia, for example, can be interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. The spectre of “thought crime”, a person facing trial for broadcasting xenophobic or racist remarks such as denying the Holocaust on an internet chatroom in another country - as alleged against Dr Toben - was the very criticism raised against the warrant before it took effect.
At the time ministers undertook that if such “offences” took place in Britain, the perpetrators would not be extradited. However, in defence of the European Arrest Warrant it is argued that a country cannot ask for someone to be extradited on suspicion of committing a far-fetched offence that would never be a crime in most states.
Lord Filkin, then the Home Office Minister, said when the legislation went through Parliament that no one would be extradited for conduct that was legal in Britain.
Britons face extradition for 'thought crime' on net
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor, Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 18/02/2003
British citizens will be extradited for what critics have called a "thought crime" under a new European arrest warrant, the Government has conceded.
Campaigners fear they could even face trial for broadcasting "xenophobic or racist" remarks - such as denying the Holocaust - on an internet chatroom in another country.
The Government has undertaken that if such "offences" take place in Britain the perpetrators would not be extradited - but it will be for the courts to decide the location of the crime.
This opens up the prospect of a judge agreeing to extradite someone whose observations, though made in Britain, were broadcast exclusively in a country where they constitute a crime.
Legislation now before Parliament will make "xenophobia and racism" one of 32 crimes for which the European arrest warrant can be issued without the existing safeguard of dual criminality. This requires that an extraditable offence must also be a crime in the UK. Alongside the arrest warrant, EU ministers are negotiating a new directive to establish a common set of offences to criminalise xenophobia and racism.
Countries such as Germany and Austria have crimes such as denying the Holocaust which have no equivalent in Britain. Under current laws, if a British citizen committed this offence in Germany and returned to the UK, he could not be extradited.
However, this will change when the arrest warrant becomes law next year. Lord Filkin, the Home Office minister, told MPs: "If someone went to Germany and stood up in Cologne market place and shouted the odds, denying the Holocaust, and then came back [to Britain], they would be subject to extradition under the European arrest warrant."
Holocaust denial laws are in place in seven EU countries but they would be a big departure for Britain, where a risk of fomenting public disorder is needed before a thought becomes a crime.
A German historian who claimed that Auschwitz prisoners enjoyed cinemas, a swimming pool and brothels was sentenced
to 10 months in jail. [= Toben in 1999]
Lord Filkin has insisted that no one would be extradited "in respect of conduct which has occurred here and which is legal here". But when he was asked by the European scrutiny committee of the House of Commons whether comments originating in Britain but carried abroad on television or through an internet chatroom would be extraditable, he said: "It will be for the courts to decide."
While he was adamant that a British citizen would not be extradited for a xenophobia or racism offence if part of the conduct took place in the UK, the committee asked whether this principle would be made clear in the Extradition Bill now before Parliament.
The proposed EU directive would extend the offences of racism and xenophobia to include discrimination on the grounds of religious conviction - something that was dropped by the Government more than a year ago following fierce opposition.
Britain has negotiated a deal under which the offences will only apply when they involve incitement to violence. Lord Filkin said this was in line with current UK race laws.
However, Britain has been forced to concede a review after two years at which point the directive could be extended to opinions that are simply considered offensive and not just those likely to incite violence. Agreement on the directive has been held up because some EU countries want a "low threshold for criminality on these issues".
Philip Duly, campaign manager for the Freedom Association, said the Government should protect citizens from extradition for what he called "thought crimes". He added: "The Government has previously maintained that no one will be extradited for conduct which is not a crime in the UK. But here we have Lord Filkin admitting that there are circumstances which will be decided not by ministers but by courts."
A Visit with Sylvia Stolz at Heidelberg Prison on 10 November 2008,
by Gerard Menuhin – Translated by J M Damon
Following is a remarkable account written by a prominent Jewish anti-Zionist Germanophile, the son of one of the greatest concert violinists of all time, who has been savagely attacked by Zionist Jews.
As he enters the Heidelberg Justizvollzugsanstalt (prison complex) the visitor first comes to a counter protected by bulletproof glass, where he has to surrender his personal identification and visitor’s permit.
[Translator: Justizvollzugsanstalt literally “justice-carrying-out-institution:” who says German-Orwellian Newspeak lacks fantasy?]
Then the visitor has to hand over his mobile telephone, and everything is locked away in a drawer. After that he is led upstairs into a narrow waiting room, where his overcoat and wallet are locked in a storage compartment. Finally he is led through another room and into the visiting room.
The matron in charge is correct and even sympathetic as she sits down at her little table in the corner. In a little while Sylvia Stolz enters the room, wearing a dark skirt.
Her appearance is familiar from numerous photos I have seen in newspapers and TV. Her open countenance, youthful bearing and clear girlish voice also seem familiar. On the surface she appears calm and unperturbed. After a quick handshake we sit down on opposite sides of the long table.
Again a thought occurs to me that everyone should keep in mind: this German woman has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison for uttering unlawful opinions -- sentenced by a German judicial system that imposes milder sentences on foreigners who murder German citizens in Germany.
In an interview, Attorney Stolz once observed: “Germans are not inclined to chastise others.”
In view of the anti German propaganda that the Zionists and Gutmenschen (hypocritical moralizers) spin out like prayer wheels, it is enlightening to place Silvia’s observation in its historical context.
Sylvia, a vegetarian, cannot bear to see animals suffer. She came to politics by way of her observations and convictions in protecting animals.
Her sympathy for tormented animals led her to protest their cruel treatment in experimentation and mass breeding. She has to admit that mere protest and argumentation have not been successful in putting an end to such practices. The same is true of the struggle for a legitimate constitution and human rights (such as freedom of opinion and research.)
Sylvia thinks that in the liberation struggle against the repression of historical truth, the best target for attack is the criminal justice system, since that is where official repression begins.
Tangible and concrete arguments are essential. In her opinion, there is not much point to representative parliamentarianism, since present so-called democracy serves to repress rather than liberate.
She points out that present day political parties are exposed to tremendous pressure.
The parties are similar and interchangeable, and they have little interest in anything other than holding on to patronage and power. They are unable to do the right thing even when they perceive what the right thing is.
Thus, the constant threats of banishment have deformed the NPD until it is barely distinguishable from the other national parties.
Sylvia sees little hope for change in the much-ballyhooed American elections, which were followed closely in Germany.
In her opinion, Obama is nothing but a puppet.
[She is right: he is a product of the corrupt Chicago political machine backed by “big money.”
His creators shrewdly observed that by nominating an “opportunist with a suntan” they could consolidate the vote of racial minorities, whereas the white vote would be split along class, political and regional lines. The Democrats and Republicans are but two sides of the “Demublican” coin. Interjected by your translator, who apologizes for the intrusion.]
When I ask her about her personal predicament, she shrugs the question off, as though it has no significance. She is reluctant to talk about herself, but I find it interesting that in her enforced leisure she enjoys composing Bänkellieder (old-timey, melodramatic “organ-grinder” ballads.)
This genre of songs from as far back as the 16th Century deals primarily with Moritaten (popular moralistic themes), but it also deals with contemporary political commentary.
Bänkellieder relate stories of bloody murder, true love, betrayal, catastrophes and controversial political events. Bertolt Brecht’s “Three Penny Opera” is an example of this enduring literary genre.
Silvia is also writing a book about animal protection. And what does she read? Hegel! That’s all she can get.
The food at Heidelberg “Justice-Carrying-Out-Institution” is catastrophic. The menu sounds appetizing enough, but the food is barely edible. For example, today’s menu promises carrot salad, but it is so highly seasoned that it has to be washed down with oceans of water containing high concentrations of chlorine.
Does she get any fruit? Yes, but the apples have a shiny coating of chemicals that has to be washed away with hot water. It is indeed a criminal act by a criminal government to incarcerate someone – in this case a woman – under inquisitorial opinion laws and then endanger that person’s health as well. Such a situation is infuriating, unacceptable.
Anyone can put together a proper carrot salad with a little vinegar and oil – it requires no expertise, so special facilities.
It seems the kitchen staff are deliberately preparing repulsive meals or, as has certainly been the case in the past, profiting from selling the higher quality food items instead of serving it to the prisoners. A dead mouse was recently found in a prisoner’s food.
Sylvia is on good terms with most inmates, many of whom need legal advice. She would like to help them but she is forbidden to give anyone legal advice, even pro bono, for a period of five years.
Does she consider herself a martyr for Germany’s sake? Her answer: “If the price of struggling for Germany’s liberation is incarceration, then it is worth the sacrifice. Germany’s freedom is so important to me that I am prepared to sacrifice my own personal freedom.”
Would she take the same path again, if she could do it over?
With iron resolution that seems incongruous in such a vulnerable woman, she answers: “Whatever happens to me: prison has merely strengthened my conviction.”
Besuch eines Ausländers bei Sylvia Stolz, Heidelberg, 10 November 2008
Betritt man die Justizvollzugsanstalt, wird der Besucher an einer mit Panzerglas geschützten Theke nach seinem Personalausweis und der Besuchserlaubnis gefragt. Auch das Mobiltelefon muss abgegeben werden. Alles wird in einer Schublade verschlossen. Dann wird man eine Treppe hinauf in einen engen Warteraum geführt, wo Mantel und Geldbeutel in einem Schließfach deponiert werden müssen. Durch einen Zwischenraum wird man schließlich ins Gesprächszimmer geführt. Die zuständige Beamtin ist dabei korrekt, ja vielleicht sogar sympathisch. Sie setzt sich an ihr Tischchen in eine Ecke des Raumes.
Kurz darauf betritt Sylvia Stolz, deren Aussehen mir durch die inzwischen zahlreichen Abbildungen in der Presse geradezu vertraut ist, in einem dunklen Rock den Raum. Das offene Gesicht, die klare, mädchenhafte Stimme. Dem äußeren Anschein nach erscheint sie ganz ruhig und ausgeglichen. Ein kurzes Händeschütteln, dann trennen wir uns beidseitig des langen Tisches.
Unwillkürlich muss ich wieder daran denken, und jeder sollte es sich vor Augen halten: hier wird eine Frau wegen der Äußerung verbotener Gedanken für dreieinhalb Jahre inhaftiert. Von einer deutschen Justiz, die sich nicht scheut, selbst bei Totschlag - wenn er denn von Ausländern an Deutschen begangen wird - eine deutlich mildere Strafe zu verhängen. In einem Interview hat die Rechtsanwältin Stolz sich dazu folgendermaßen geäußert: „Die Deutschen an sich neigen nicht dazu, andere zu quälen.“ Angesichts der von Zionisten und deutschen „Gutmenschen“ gebetsmühlenartig verbreiteten antideutschen Propaganda lohnt es sich, über diese Meinung auch im geschichtlichen Zusammenhang nachzudenken.
Das gleiche gilt auch für Tiere. Frau Stolz, eine Vegetarierin, ist über ihre Erfahrungen und ihre Überzeugungen im Bereich des Tierschutzes zur Politik gekommen. Ihr Mitleid für die gequälte Kreatur führte sie dazu, den grauenvollen Umgang mit Tieren, die Tierversuche und die Massenhaltung, anzuprangern. Inzwischen hat sie eingeräumt, dass Argumente dagegen bislang leider nicht geholfen haben.
Wenn man gegen die herrschende Unterdrückung der historischen Wahrheit kämpfen möchte, dann ist das beste Angriffsziel die Justiz, da die Unterdrückung bei der Justiz anfängt. Hier sind handfeste Argumente das Wesentliche.
Frau Stolz ist der Meinung, dass der repräsentative Parlamentarismus keinen großen Sinn hat. Denn die (angebliche) Demokratie diene der Unterdrückung, nicht der Freiheit. Die Blockparteien stünden unter einem großen Druck. Sie seien untereinander vollkommen vergleichbar und austauschbar und nur noch daran interessiert, an der Macht zu bleiben, nicht aber zu tun, was sie für richtig hielten. Die ständige Bedrohung durch ein Parteiverbot deformiere sowohl die NPD als auch alle anderen nationalen Parteien. Zu den Wahlen in den USA hatte Frau Stolz wenig zu sagen. Obama sei doch nur eine Marionette.
Fragt man Sylvia Stolz zu ihren persönlichen Lebensumständen, so wiegelt sie ab, als ob dies ohne Bedeutung wäre. Über sich selbst spricht sie fast unwillig, aber es darf hier doch angemerkt werden, dass sie in ihrer erzwungenen Freizeit gerne Bänkellieder komponiert. Diese aus dem 17. Jahrhhundert stammende Liedform befasst sich in Versen mit Moritaten, aber auch mit zeitkritischen Inhalten. Man hört dort von schauerlichen Geschichten, von Mord, Liebe, Katastrophen und auch aufregenden politischen Ereignissen. Außerdem schreibt sie zur Zeit ein Buch über Tierschutz. Und was liest sie? Hegel. Mehr ist nicht zu bekommen.
Das Essen in der JVA Heidelberg ist katastrophal. Der Speiseplan liest sich noch ganz angenehm, aber in Wirklichkeit ist die Nahrungs fast ungenießbar. Auf dem Papier gibt es z. B. einen Karottensalat, in Wirklichkeit aber ist der, vielleicht durch einen Geschmacksverstärker, so scharf, dass Sylvia Stolz ungeheuren Durst bekommt und danach viel Wasser trinken muss. Dieses Leitungswasser aber enthält Unmengen von Chlor. Gibt es denn Obst? Ja, aber die Äpfel haben eine glänzende, mit Chemikalien durchsetzte Schicht, die nur mit heißem Wasser abgewaschen werden kann.
Es ist wirklich ein Verbrechen, einen Menschen wegzusperren - in diesem Fall eine Frau -, über den eine Gesinnungsjustiz herfällt, und dann auch noch dessen Gesundheit zu gefährden. Diese Zustände sind empörend und unannehmbar. Jeder kann sich zuhause einen anständigen Möhrensalat mit etwas Essig und Öl anrichten. Es klingt fast so, als ob das Küchenpersonal absichtlich widerwärtiges Zeug auftischt, oder, wie es schon einmal der Fall war, sich an nicht ausgereichten Zutaten bereichert, während den Inhaftierten irgend etwas Minderwertiges vorgesetzt wird. Damals wurde sogar eine tote Maus im Essen entdeckt.
Für die meisten Gefangenen findet Sylvia Stolz so etwas wie Zuneigung. Gerne würde sie die Mitgefangenen anwaltlich beraten, aber sie darf Ihnen auch keine kostenlose Hilfe anbieten, da sie mit einem fünfjährigen Berufsverbot belegt worden ist.
Betrachtet sich die Gefangene als Märtyrerin für die deutsche Sache? „Wenn der Preis die Inhaftierung ist, das ist die Sache wert. Die Freiheit ist mir so wichtig, dass ich bereit bin, meine persönliche Freiheit dafür zu opfern.“ Würde Sylvia Stolz also diesen Weg noch einmal beschreiten? Mit einer eisernen Entschlossenheit, die man dieser zarten Frau so kaum zutraut, antwortet sie: „Was immer mit mir passiert: die Haft hat meine Überzeugung nur befestigt.“
The vital role of defence lawyers
John Goldberg, The Advertiser, December 8, 2008
The Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann, said of defence lawyers in State Parliament on November 26: “I hope that when you drive your BMWs to the court, you feel proud that you are living off the earnings of those who murder and try and sell drugs to our kids.”
At first blush, this seems like a perfectly reasonable statement to make, even if a little emotional. Why should defence lawyers be permitted to act for wicked, evil people and, what is even worse, earn money doing it?
Well, the sad fact is that there is an entire industry built around wicked, evil people. The police earn a living investigating their crimes. Prosecutors are paid a salary to prosecute them. Judges are remunerated to conduct and supervise trials. If they are convicted, prison officers are paid a salary to guard them and if they are released on parole, parole officers are paid a salary to supervise them. And, yes, right in the middle of all this are the defence lawyers, usually funded by legal aid as a level that might make a manual Ford Festiva affordable, but if it is a BMW, it would need to be a very old one.
In any event, how is it determined that the people described by the Premier as murderers or who try to sell drugs to our kids are guilty of the charge? Surely only after a trial. Under our legal system, until someone is convicted, they are presumed innocent.
Back in 1992, in a case called Dietrich, the High Court said that for a serious offence, you cannot be put on trial unless you have access to representation in court. Without representation, there is no way of being satisfied that you can get a fair trial. And who provides that representation? Why, the defence lawyers.
It follows that without defence lawyers, our criminal justice system cannot function. Based on the High Court decision, courts must refuse to allow a trial to proceed if the accused requires but is unable to engage a defence lawyer.
What that means is that if you want to see people who murder or sell drugs to our kids end up in prison, they have to be convicted of an offence. That can only happen if they get a fair trial and for that to occur they must have a defence lawyer. Perhaps the Premier’s concerns could be met if defence lawyers only act for those that they consider to be innocent.
The trouble with that is that defence lawyers would then be doing the work of the courts; after all, it is the job of a judge or jury to determine guilt or innocence, not the defence lawyers, not the prosecutors, and not even the Premier.
What is even worse in that scenario is that people who appear most guilty would not be represented and would therefore never be put on trial. The truth of the matter is that we do not have enough defence lawyers. The pay is lousy and many of their clients are underprivileged and have psychiatric issues. It is an unglamorous and stressful job.
So, Mr Premier, instead of attacking defence lawyers, you should be expressing gratitude for their vital contribution to the Government’s law and order campaign.
Fredrick Töben comments – 9 December 2008:
Upon reflection, the fact that both Mrs Olga Scully and I could not get any legal representation at the matters-of-fact stage before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, speaks for itself. We were abused and ridiculed for employing alleged delay tactics because the HREOC commissioners and Federal Court judges claimed we should handle matters for ourselves. Mrs Scully did just that, then Judge Heley stated in his judgment against Mrs Scully that it was not to be a precedent-setting judgment, and MRs Scully was asked to pay $150,000 costs!
In my case I unsuccessfully appealed before three FCA judges that Justice Catherine Branson be removed from the case because of her advising me that I should go to the law library and read up cases and defend myself – this on account of my tertiary qualifications. She later handed down an ex-parte judgment, the foundation of the current contempt of court action. When SC Robin Margo, counsel for the Applicant, mr Jeremy Jones, made a similar statement during the 5-7 August 2008 trial in the Adelaide Federal Court, my legal counsel Mr David Perkins was quick to point out that I may have tertiary qualifications but “he is not a lawyer!”
SBS AUSTRALIA Reports : Holocaust revisionist faces jail in Germany: 7.10.2008
A German-born Holocaust revisionist is facing extradition to his native country, where he could be jailed for up to five years. 64 year old Gerald Fredrick Töben, who's based in Adelaide, is accused of being a Holocaust denier. Our South Australia correspondent Karen Ashford says Töben was arrested in dramatic circumstances at London's Heathrow Airport. She is speaking with Greg Dyett.
Fredrick Töben comments: I did not skip bail in 1999 and have not been sentenced by a German court because in 2000 an appeal court set down a re-trial, which was to be heard during 2004. However, Judge Adam refused to give me my defence counsel of choice, Mr Horst Mahler, and when he selected Michael Rosenthal, he refused to defend me because of fear of self-incrimination at this fact-finding stage of the proceedings.
Unconditional Victory for Revisionists
: Dr Töben Released in London without Bail, case dismissed
– George Kadar reports
, 21 November 2008
On 19 November in the afternoon Dr Töben was released after spending 50 days in a medieval prison in London.
Behind the arrest was the German warrant, worded with the linguistic skills of a ten year old child, without any specifics of dates and locations of the “crime”. Töben was charged for questioning the holocaust from his Australian website that can be read from Germany and was kidnapped off a plane coming from America and going to Dubai. After the first court hearings it was clear to this writer that Töben will be extradited within ten days to Germany where the Mannheim prosecutors already, publicly promised him five long years in prison.
HMP Wandsworth entrance with Serco prison transport
Solicitor Mr Kevin Lowry-Mullins with Lady Michele Renouf
And then Lady Michele Renouf suddenly like a protecting angel out of the clear blues sky shows up with an attorney, a top extradition specialist who spent his first 30 minutes in the courtroom telling the judge that the warrant is worthless and that his client already agreed to take the case to the highest court and is willing to spend the two years in jail to wait for the results.
Public opinion was so strongly on Töben’s side in England that the case had the potential to become a nightmare for those who cajoled the public into the swamp of the EU laws where anybody can be grabbed and delivered to the land of the EU – THE BIG HAPPY FAMILY WHERE “EVERYBODY BENEFITS” – and thrown into a convenient Gulag for thought criminals.
In addition the British Nationalist Party is on the war path against the corrupted to the bone British establishment and is due to benefit from every serious mistake it makes.
On top of that there was the danger that a legal precedent can be established if Töben wins at the high court. Therefore, after the Crown Prosecution Services indicated to Berlin that their case was on shaky ground, Solicitor Kevin Lowry-Mullins signed a consent agreement that activated an “executive order” and Töben was released from HMP Wandsworth and on the street, within the hour, no bail or any conditions, without a shred of paperwork proving that he has ever been there. Prior there was a £100,000 bail set with draconian conditions, on the edge of the impossible like they were specifically designed for the re-arrest of Dr Toben.
Behind the desperate German warrant is the deeply upset Prosecutor Klein from Mannheim who had to endure Dr Töben’s lectures on intellectual freedom repeatedly, in 1997 and 1999. As one of his last acts before retirement he signed the warrant for Töben in October 2004, hoping that Töben will be caught in a place where warrants are only served but not read by the authorities.
Fredrick Töben after his release
It seems that he was not satisfied with the seven months term Töben served in jail in Mannheim on the 1999 occasion. Now, Mr Klein was forced to see that his work of art was withdrawn by the German government and Töben walked into the sunset, spreading the word to all with an open mind.
Dr Töben is truly a seasoned revisionist who duplicated the world famous Zündel and Irving trials in Australia. After establishing the Adelaide Institute in 1994 Toben and company were dragged into never ending court cases by the Australian Jewish organizations. Töben presents a flawless lecture with the dates and names on the whole of the revisionist movement and states: “My mission is to provoke the judiciary.” He wants them to show their hand, for all to see. He also traveled the globe to spread the knowledge that revisionism created. However he goes behind the usual revisionist subjects when he states: “The Germanic and Judeo mindset are incompatible.” And here he is referring to a crash of two cultures that can not coexist. Töben is German by birth but spent most of his life in Australia.
On the day of Töben’s arrest, on 1 October 2008, the news in the media spread like Californian brushfire driven by dry Santa Ana winds. All the minor details were properly colored. Every paper dutifully repeated the idiotic lie how Töben was changing seats to avoid detection when actually he was sleeping on the US to London American Airlines flight on an empty row of seats.
After Dr Töben was released it took long days for a few articles to appear. One really had to do some hard reading to figure out that he was released unconditionally.
And something else changed: The Jewish Chronicle of London called Dr Töben a “revisionist historian”. Other, mainstream Jewish publications state that maybe, it is time to take this struggle “from the courtrooms to the classrooms”. It seems that the decades of hard labor of the IHR with Willis Carto at the helm is getting to them. The international media was silent on the occasion of this major revisionist victory.
However, not everybody was willing to allow the event to slide by so easily. Lady Michele Renouf scheduled a press conference in Central London for November 24, at . The guest of honor this time was Professor Robert Faurisson.
Lady Michele at the news conference
The media – although invited – generally shunned the event, they might have had enough of revisionism for now.
Professor Faurisson at the November 24, 2008 news conference
Professor Faurisson – as usual – delivered a fiery speech, telling us all that he does not have a lawyer anymore in France, nobody dares to defend him. He is a veteran of more revisionist combat than an average Russian soldier who made it from Moscow to Berlin. Regardless, he invited President Sarkozy to raise his objections against his views, if the President finds that action necessary.
George Kadar and Fredrick Töben
This writer only considers himself privileged to meet these men, some of the bravest and the best of their generation. The men who refused to give up.
Top | Home
©-free 2008 Adelaide Institute