Coming full circle – Where did the dream go wrong? Did it go wrong?
Fredrick Töben reflects on matters before Judgment Day 16 April 2009
A day after the Easter Long Weekend, 10-13 April 2009, I was asked: ‘What did you do?’ I replied: ‘Federal Court of Australia’s Justice Lander gave me an Easter present. Two days after this holiday break, on 16 April, he’ll hand down his judgment. So, as seems to be my habit now, alone during this four-day Easter period I invited some spirits to help me drive the devil out of this 15-year legal battle, and I also called on my guardian angels to help me cope with everything. My belief in angels helped me to see through the wonders of the Holocaust-Shoah fairy tale, and this will enable me to take the future even if I fail this coming Thursday, and so I sublimate because there is something good in everything I see! – with apologies to Abba’s I believe in Angels.
Now to some serious matters, which become relevant as the 16 April 2009 judgment in this matter will be handed down, a matter that has been going on since 1996, just on 15 years.
From the archive here are some letters that will, by showing how it all began, contextualize what will happen on 16 April 2009:
1. Letter from Adelaide Institute to Joan Sheedy, Senior Government Counsel, Human Rights Branch, Attorney-General’s Department, Barton ACT 2600:
4 July 1996
I am writing to you because your name, and letter of 4 September 2005, is on my file.
This early morning I received a telephone call from Rory Callinan, reporter of the Brisbane Courier Mail – tel: 07 3252 641. Mr Callinan wished me to respond to the matter of Rabbi Cooper’s – US-based Simon Wiesenthal Centre – complaint.
I did not know that you are investigating the Adelaide Institute – but I believe that it is the usual practice of organisations like the Simon Wiesenthal Centre to initiate something like this, then utilize its media contacts to spread the word!
If you check with the Australian Federal Police and the Human Rights Commission, I have informed them of what we are on about. We certainly believe that our work does not break any Australian law. I am still waiting for a response from the Human Rights Commission.
Meanwhile, please find enclosed a copy of our latest newsletter and also a copy of the material that we have placed on our Internet website.
A response from you at your earliest convenience, denying or conforming your action against us, would be much appreciated.
Dr Fredrick Töben, Director
2. Anthony Keane’s article: ‘Internet target of Nazi hunters’, The Advertiser, July 6, 1996:
A controversial Adelaide-based Internet site is being investigated by the Federal Government.
Holocaust-denial group the Adelaide Institute is one of two groups that have been targeted by international Nazi hunters, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.
A spokesman for the Attorney-General, mr Daryl Williams, said yesterday the Government had received a letter from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in los Angeles calling for an investigation into whether the Internet site breaches any local laws. “We are investigating the claims made by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre,” he said.
The letter says the centre has “identified over 100 different Websites which promote racist violence, mayhem and terrorism”.
“Two Australian Web sites have come to the attention of researchers at the Wiesenthal Centre,” it says.
The Advertiser yesterday logged into the Adelaide Institute site. Excerpts included:
“We reject outright that a questioning of the alleged homicidal gas chamber story constitutes ‘hate talk’, is ‘antisemitic’, ‘racist’, or even ‘neo-Nazi’ activity.
“We are ‘a group of individuals who are looking at the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust, in particular we are investigating the allegation that Germans systematically killed six million Jews…”
“We At the Adelaide Institute believe that those who level the homicidal gassing allegations at the Germans owe it to the world to come up with irrefutable evidence that this happened.”
The other Internet site under investigation, called Al-Moharer Al-Australi, is based in Melbourne.
Adelaide Institute director Dr Fredrick Töben said he would welcome the Federal Government investigation.
“But we would also like them to investigate the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the tradition it comes from, namely the Babylonian Talmud, which is the moral and legal foundation of modern Judaism,” he said.
“The Babylonian Talmud is anti-Gentile, anti-Christian, against everything non-Jewish and it is full of hate.
“The Adelaide Institute has put a complaint to the Attorney-General’s Department that the Babylonian Talmud contains hate literature and is racist, is full of bigotry, is offensive to everyone not Jewish, especially to Christians and to every decent Jew who believes in the equality of humankind, and it needs investigation.”
SA Jewish Community Council president, Mr Norman Schueler, said: “Anything that tries to rewrite history is not on, so we therefore welcome the investigation. As far as we are concerned, the Adelaide Institute has promoted things that are incorrect and are inconsistent with established fact.”
3. Letter to Attorney-General: Complaint by Adelaide Institute against Babylonian Talmud, 5 July 1996:
According to modern-day Rabbis, the Babylonian Talmud is the moral guideline of today’s Judaism. It is the educational to0ol used to train Rabbis and it is also used to educate Jewish children in the ‘moral tradition’ of Judaism.
Our study of parts of the Babylonian Talmud has led us to conclude that this so-called moral guideline of modern and ancient Jewry is partly racist, offensive to everyone not Jewish, especially Christians, and to every decent Jew who believes in the equality of humankind.
We at Adelaide Institute ask you to contact Australia’s Jewish religious and political leaders in order to get an explanation from them why such offensive anti-Gentilistic material, which we believe creates racial hatred against Gentiles, is available to everyone today, and why it is still used as a moral guideline for modern-day Jewry.
It is totally unacceptable in a predominant Christian society, which bends over backwards in order not to offend Jewry in this country and worldwide, that such racist, anti-Christian material is still used in Jewish society as a moral guideline and educational tool. It also runs totally against the multiracial and multicultural policy of the Australian government, and it also violates the United Nation’s Human Rights Charter.
We also agree with the Frankist – a Jewish sect from Lithuania whose members converted to Christianity – that the Babylonian Talmud and its pathological anti-Gentilism is one of the main reasons why we have in the past and in the present world-wide anti-Semitism.
We request that the Attorney-General’s Department undertake an investigation into the Babylonian Talmud to ascertain whether any of its contents is in breach of any Australian Law.
Dr Fredrick Töben, Director; David Brockschmidt, Associate.
And a follow-up letter to Joa Sheedy, dated 14 August 1996:
Again, when I called your office this morning, you were in a meeting and I was unable to ask you what is happening to our complaint of 5 July 1996. Would you kindly inform us at what stage the matter finds itself. If you need a person as a reference point to our complaint against the Babylonian Talmud, then I refer you to: Rabbi Brian D Fox, AM, The Congregation of the Temple Emanuel, 7 Ocean Street, Woollahra NSW 2025.
This gentleman is steeped in the talmudic tradition and thus is a propagator of the hatred material found in the Babylonian Talmud, against which our complaint is directed.
We now expect you to expedite the processing of this complaint so that matters can be resolved as soon as possible.
Dr Fredrick Töben, Director; David Brockschmidt, Associate.
4. Letter to Zita Antonios, Race Discrimination Commissioner, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, GPO Box 5218, Sydney 2001:
29 July 1996
We hereby acknowledge having on this day received your letter dated 23 July 1996.
Please be advised that we shall presently respond to same.
However, we do request of you that you send us a copy of the actual complaint made by The Executive Council of Australian Jewry so that we know who authorised the complaint and signed the letter addressed to you.
As your statement about the complaint is rather general, also send us a print-out of the particular items complained about.
In this regard would you please send us a copy of the original complaint made by Rabbi Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Los Angeles, USA, made to the Australian Consulate in Los Angeles, and directed by it to the Attorney-General’s Department in Canberra.
Please note that on 5 July 1996 we lodged with the Attorney-General’s Department in Canberra a complaint against the Babylonian Talmud. Please inform us whether you have received instructions to that effect from the Attorney-General’s Department.
Also, be advised that we have lodged a complaint with the US Attorney-General’s Department against Rabbi Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Los Angeles.
We have also referred this matter to our legal advisor.
Kindly confirm in writing receipt of this letter, and any other correspondence between us. We are requesting this in light of the fact that our previous letters to you, e.g. our letter to Sir Ronald, seem to “disappear”.
Dr Fredrick Töben, Director; David Brockschmidt, Associate.
5. Letter from HREOC, dated 6 November 1996:
Dear Mr Töben
Re: Complaint by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry against the Adelaide Institute:
I refer to previous correspondence in relation to a complaint lodged under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (the Act) by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (the Council) against the Adelaide Institute (the Institute).
In your letter dated 23 September 1993 you advised me that this complaint had been referred to your solicitor for response. As it appears that no correspondence has been received from you, or any person acting on your behalf, I now request your response to the allegations made by the Council within 14 days of receipt of this letter. You should be aware that pursuant to section 24B of the Act, the Commissioner may serve on you a notice requiring you to provide the information she has requested. Failure to respond to such a notice is an offence.
As you were advised on 11 June 1996, the Commissioner is prepared to consider anything you may wish to put to her concerning whether she should continue with this enquiry.
I enclose a copy of the Council’s reply to your request for further details concerning the above complaint. As you will see from that letter, the complaint has been authorised by Mr Jeremy Jones, Executive Vice-President of the Council.
If you require further information concerning this matter please contact me on (02) 284 9868 or toll free on 1800 021 199.
Kirsty Gowan, Conciliator
And – Kirsty’s letter of 6 November 1996 to:
Mr Jeremy Joneds, Executive Vice-President, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, 2nd floor, 146 Darlinghurst Rd, Darlinghurst NSW 2010:
Dear Mr Jones
Re: Your Complaint Against The Adelaide Institute
I refer to previous correspondence concerning the above complaint which was lodged under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (The Act).
I have written to the Adelaide Institute enclosing a copy of your letter dated 2 October 1996. I will be in contact with you again as soon as I am in receipt of further information from the Institute in relation to this matter.
Kirsty Gowans, Conciliator
6. Letter dated 18 November 1996, to HREOC’s Zita Antonios from E J Wall & Associates, Barrister & Solicitors, 1/ 2 Mahogany Court, Woodvale 6026 WA:
Re: Complaint – Executive Council of Australian Jewry – Dr Töben
We refer to our letter dated 1 August, 1996 sent to you on that date by facsimile transmission. It now appears you did not receive that letter and have continued to correspond with our client direct. We enclose a further copy of our letter (dated 1/8/96) for your information. Could you please ensure that all future correspondence is sent to us and not to our client direct.
Our client has now forwarded to us a copy of the letter of complaint by the Executive Council of Jewry.
We now enclose herewith:-
1. Our client’s letter to you (dated 13/10/96) with exhibits 1 to 10, which sets out some of the background leading to the complaint.
2. A blue plastic folder, which encloses a sample of material that our client would reply upon for his defences under Section 18D of the Racial Hatred Act. We stress that this is only but a small sample of material our client would rely upon as to put before you all the material our client has read on these issues would fill a library.
3. Adelaide Institute’s Home Page. We also provide back copies of the Journal to indicate the nature of the intellectual debate our client is attempting to arouse.
Our client’s position to this complaint, in order to assist you with your enquiries, may be summarised as follows:-
1. Our client does not admit:
1.1 that the material complained of “… is reasonably likely…to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate…”. (S18C(a) of Act; nor
1.2 that the publication of the material on the Web site was done “… because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin…”. (S18C (b) of the Act)
2. Even if S18C of the Act were to be made out our client relies upon the defences set out in S18D of the Act. The sample material supplied indicates that the publication of the material complained of was:
2.1 done reasonably, and in good faith:
(a) in pursuit of discussion or debate for a genuine academic purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest about:
i. the extent of the Nazi/Jewish Holocaust;
ii. the involvement of Zionist Jews in the Bolshevik Revolution and the crimes of Stalin in particular; and
iii. the influence of Zionist Jews with Government Agencies and the methods used by them when there is any genuine attempt to critically examine the Nazi/Jewish Holocaust or Zionist involvement in the Bolshevik Revolution or Stalin.
(b) Alternatively, the material published was fair comment on subjects of public interest and is the expression of our client’s genuine belief on these vexed topics.
1. General Comments
We make the following comments:-
3.1 Our client is aged 52 years. He holds a Doctorate in Philosophy from University of Stuttgart (also Heidelberg and Tübingen). He has taught at secondary and tertiary levels. He has little interest in material things and apart from his family, his real interests in life are of an intellectual nature, so it would not be surprising to learn his only assets are a large library and his Web site.
3.2 He is of German background. He believes the German people are today as profoundly affected by the Nazi/Jewish Holocaust as are Jewish people. Therefore the Nazi/Jewish Holocaust is of particular interest to him.
3.3 It may be that Jews would be offended, or insulted by the material published (this is not admitted) but in a robust democracy the freedom of speech exemptions –
Especially when the subject is “history” – should prevail.
3.4 On the question of Jews being offended our client makes the clearest distinction between, on the one hand, the rank and file Jews as persons and the policies of “organised Jewry” or “Zionism” on the other. To the former he affords the utmost respect and courtesy believing as he does that they are as much a victim of Zionist policies as are Gentiles. He is implacably opposed to many Zionist policies as are many outstanding Jews. As one example he submits a letter of support from that outstanding Jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky who is now himself subject to much criticism in the Zionist press.
3.5 Our client brings a scholarly approach to his subjects and on his homepage lists the Web sites where a contrary viewpoint is put. Indeed, our client regularly publishes letters from Jewish or other persons who disagree with his views. His Journals show all the hall marks of a person in search of the ‘truth”.
3.6 It is the attempt by organised Jewry or Zionists to prevent open debate and discussion about issues such as the extent of the Jewish/Nazi Holocaust that out client is opposed to and indeed it is this theme that permeates nearly all of the literature of the Adelaide Institute. The quote therefore taken from Mr Zündel’s Power letter must be seen in context. Mr Zündel had been the subject of the most intense vendetta from Zionist groups in Canada and just prior to writing his letter had his home almost completely destroyed by fire bomb.
3.7 Although few may share the views of the Adelaide Institute on these historical events, the Institute would say that this is simply because “open discussion” on these historical events has remained taboo for too long.
3.8 It would be fair to say that our knowledge of exactly what happened during the Nazi/Jewish Holocaust is not yet complete. As new archival material is released our knowledge of that period is constantly added to and what were once orthodox views are revised. We give but two examples (but our client instructs many more could be given):-
(a) It was once thought that mass gassings took place in Germany and numerous Deponents swore Affidavit evidence as “eye witnesses” of German Gas Chambers at the Nuremberg Trials. The orthodox view among Historians now is that no “mass gassings” took place in Germany.
(b) The orthodox death figure for deaths at Auschwitz was once “4 million” but has now been officially reduced to below “800.000”.
3.9 In the area of free intellectual debate no doubt that sort of revisionism will continue especially as the Soviet archives are opened up. Therefore one might pose the question: “What sort of truth is it that requires fines, imprisonment, visa refusals and now complaints to Race Commissioners to protect it?”
3.10 Section 18D of the Act remains “judicially undefined” but the words “done reasonably and in good faith” should be given their widest meaning if genuine academic debate on sensitive historical issues of the kind conducted by our client are not circumscribed.
3.11 The Complainant should be aware that this attempt to censor or suppress this Web site only serves to strengthen our client’s belief that the Complainant’s real motive in bringing this Complaint is not concern about alleged anti-semitism, but rather to curtail open debate and discussion about these important historical events.
3.12 Whilst our client will abide by the procedures laid down by law to conciliate this complaint he wishes to make it clear that he will not be a party to any settlement that compromises his academic freedom and his research for the truth about these historical events.
E J Wall & Associates,
18 November 1996.
… and the rest of what followed on from this date is now legal history. Legally unrepresented throughout these long drawn-out procedures I was defamed as not co-operating with HREOC and the FCA; Judges ridiculed my continuous cry for legal help – I am not a lawyer - and interpreted this as proving I was uncooperative and, at worst, I was in contempt of court!
My expecting the worst: Willingly bending to Jewish pressure, the legal steamroller presses on regardless to synchronise with legal global patterns attempting to enshrine the Holocaust-Shoah as the unifying principle of a New World Order.
My hoping for the best: The wild card, Palestine, emerges as a winner where legal impulses then meet the wisdom expressed in the ancient Persian Empire now utilised anew by the religious-political establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Any help from the country of my birth, Germany, in breaking this ugly Holocaust-Shoah ideological tyranny can be shelved because there state prosecutors and judges are gleefully focusing on the decision, and Justice Lander knows this – he knows the world is watching him! What a burden but what an opportunity for Australia to emerge as a defender of free expression where thoughts and opinions are not criminalized!
And now a thank you – we know that the Holocaust-Shoah believers are ruthless in pursuing those individuals who have, in particular, helped financially. I thus thank Justice Lander for refusing to make an order that would have obliged my handing over to the court a list of donations received. However, the Holocaust-Shoah believers’ reach into the private affairs of individuals is extensive and eliciting personal information is not impossible. But then we know, if such emerges, it has been obtained illegally! To date government agencies, which know more about me than I can remember, have not misused such information to the benefit of Holocaust-Shoah believers.
Thank you, and until – later?
Fredrick Töben, Adelaide, 14 April 2009.
Return to Legal 2009
From: Adelaide Institute email@example.com
Sent: Tuesday, 14 April 2009 2:45 PM
Subject: Standing firm: Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben vows to defy judge
Think on these things: - comment from APA:
“They hide the fact that the trial is another attempt to muzzle free speech.
The court is merely a proxy to enforce their Hate Crimes Law intended to put an end to free expression by convicting those who question the Holocaust-Shoah narrative.”
Please view latest newsletters – if you have the time, especially No 444 –
Holocaust denier Fredrick Toben vows to defy judge
Pia Akerman | April 14, 2009
Article from: The Australian
REVISIONIST historian Fredrick Töben has declared he will go to jail rather than pay a fine if the Federal Court this week finds him guilty of publishing material denying the Holocaust occurred.
Judge Bruce Lander is expected to rule on Thursday whether Dr Töben breached previous court orders not to publish offensive material about Jews and the Holocaust on his Adelaide Institute website.
But Dr Töben, 64, said yesterday he would refuse to pay any fine if Justice Lander found in favour of plaintiff Jeremy Jones, former president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, who brought the civil case against Dr Töben.
"If I am found guilty and a fine is handed down, I will on principle refuse to pay the fine, so that means I will have to go in (to jail)," he said in Melbourne, before a meeting with his lawyer.
Dr Töben, a former teacher, was held in Britain for nearly two months last year while German prosecutors tried unsuccessfully to extradite him on an EU warrant.
In January, he announced plans to go to Germany to fight charges of publishing "anti-Semitic and/or revisionist" material, but has now told his supporters his challenge is "on hold" because of the pending Federal Court decision.
Dr Töben also spent seven months in Mannheim prison in Germany, in 1999, for inciting racism.
He has pleaded not guilty to 28 charges alleging he breached orders by the Federal Court in 2002 not to publish offensive material on his website.
The original material breached the Racial Discrimination Act, implying that the Holocaust did not happen and doubting the existence of gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
Dr Töben was also banned from publishing material implying Jews who were offended or challenged by Holocaust denial were of limited intelligence, and that some Jewish people had exaggerated the number of Jews killed in World War II and the circumstances for financial gain. He faces a possible finding of criminal contempt if found guilty.
Justice Lander has heard that Dr Töben publicly defied the court's authority by casting aspersions on judicial officers and the legal process, promoting a view that the court was "merely a proxy" for Jews.
Letters to the Editor
GPO Box 4162, Sydney, NSW, 2001 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Stifling free speech 9 comments | Permalink
Wednesday, April 15, 09 (12:01 am)
REGARDING the Fredrick Toben case ("Holocaust denier vows to defy judge”, 14/4)), I would like to know what other national, racial or religious group gets to have its preferred version of history enshrined in law and thus declared impervious to debate. I also find it hard to understand how debate over the actuality or extent of historical events falls under the heading of racial discrimination. Surely Toben’s beliefs can be easily dismissed without the need to resort to legal measures that have the effect of generally stifling free speech?
Paul Berryman, Earlville, Qld
Vivienne: Wed 15 Apr 09 (08:54am) What about possible deniers of the Stolen Generation, the reports of massacres of indigenous people in Australia’s colonial days, our whaling history etc? These holocaust “deniers” would go into the woodwork where they belong if they were ignored. History, survivors and the records that support them speak for themselves. There is some room for the interpretation of history, but not the facts themselves!
Lotte: Wed 15 Apr 09 (08:59am) Paul Berryman, I don’t understand your need to deny the holocaust or debate the holocaust happening when it has so thoroughly been documented by the Germans themselves. I can only put it down to an evil wish to slur a whole race with idiotic and unsubstantiated opinions and deny it its real pain – this of course, does not constitute debate.
And opinion that is not based on fact is just that, a stupid opinion, made by a stupid person. To allow free speech on an event that caused death, torture and humiliation to millions is to allow even the most demented, uninformed a say. But let’s just ridicule it and you as you deserve.
Lewis Winders: Wed 15 Apr 09 (10:36am) My sentiments on this are similar to those on the Irving saga. If someone’s ideas are inaccurate and they wish to make them public, by all means let them be held up for public scrutiny and, if appropriate, ridicule. But gagging such people only gives oxygen to the conspiracy theorists, and can even make the rest of us mildly inquisitive as to what the gaggers might be trying to hide.
Max: Wed 15 Apr 09 (10:59am) \The likes of Windshuttle and Bolt are no better than Holocaust deniers every time they seek to perpetuate a myth about the indigenous population.
Mulga Mumblebrain: Wed 15 Apr 09 (11:10am) Of course Toben should be heard, criticised and ridiculed for his detestable opinions. Suppressing them only drives them underground, and gives them an undeserved cache that might induce the gullible into giving them more credence than they deserve. However, a gigantic double-standard is operating here. Holocaust denial is rampant in our society, but only where the victims, such as the over one million Iraqis killed by the US invasion, are reckoned to be ‘non-persons’ by the powerful. The standard estimation of Iraqi deaths in the media is still the risible and contemptible 90,000 of the ‘Iraqi Body Count’ which itself used to admit its figure was an absolute minimum. The use of this figure is akin to speaking of the ‘500,000’ Jews killed by the Nazis, a proposition that would evoke justified outrage. Not to speak of the gravest ‘Holocaust’ denial of all, the denial of the looming global climate Holocaust the result of human activities principally the production of green-house gases. The prospective death-toll there lies, in some calculations, in the billions, yet there is a well funded and ideologically determined industry of absolute denial that daily and incessantly attempts to obscure the truth, muddy the waters and prevent any redemptive action. Toben seems to me but a rank amateur compared to these denialists.
Matt: Wed 15 Apr 09 (11:41am) I despair at bloggers’ inability or unwillingness to read a letter or column before responding with their pre conceived positions. Where does Paul Berryman suggest he agrees with Toben or has any wish to deny the holocaust? He simply asked why some versions of history need to be legislated. I’ve often asked the same question myself. It’s pretty strange that we’ve got to a situation where you can get locked up just for saying certain things. Where does it end? For the record I have no doubts about the essential accuracy of the holocaust accounts and have great sympathy for the prejudice suffered by Jews over the last thousand years or so.
Max: Wed 15 Apr 09 (12:00pm) Lotte, I agree. But anyone denying the Stolen Generation or massacres of indigenous people despite the indubitable evidence are no less deserving of ridicule wouldn’t you agree?
Ben N: Wed 15 Apr 09 (12:18pm) To allow speech on an event that caused death, torture and humiliation to millions is a basic principle of liberal democracy, Lotte. Like it or not, we live in one.
Barak: Wed 15 Apr 09 (12:35pm) Goodonyuh, Paul! Free speech cannot be qualified, however much it offends. I think denying the Holocaust - including its extension far beyond Jews - is stupidly ignorant. But the public denials serve to remind us of it. That’s nothing but good. Anything not open for discussion is like a snake under the bed. Avoidance enhances the danger. Eventually it will bite. That’s why, for instance, I see the nagging attack by some Jews on any critical discussion of Israel’s actions in Palestine only damages Israel, and all Jews, in the long run. Which is sad, remembering the Holocaust.
Fredrick Töben : Wed 15 Apr 09 If judgment is against me, then through a legal backdoor Australia will get what Britain rejected when it released me from prison in November 2008 - holocaust denial laws as they have in Germany where it is a criminal matter to refuse to believe in the Holocaust-Shoah. Justice Lander did not have an easy task in writing his judgment. If he finds in favour of Jeremy Jones, then this will criminalise thoughts and opinions in Australia.
Top | Home
©-free 2009 Adelaide Institute