Thursday, November 13, 2008

Should History be Decided in a Courtroom?

Dr. Frederick Toben – Why is he in Prison in London?

Background: Dr. Toben is an Australian citizen and founder and director of the Adelaide Institute and author of works on education, political science and history.

He completed a Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Stuttgart in 1977.
In 1999 he was imprisoned for nine months at Mannhein, Germany for breaching Germany's Holocaust Law, Section 130.

In 2002 a judgement was passed in the Federal Court of Australia that prohibits him from questioning/denying the three pillars on which the >Holocaust-Shoah<> stands

Integrity: the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles that you refuse to change

The following letter gives a good summary of the issues involved and was written at the time of Dr. Toben’s 1999 imprisonment in Germany, by Robert Faurisson - a former French Professor of literature.

My friend Frederick Toben – by Robert Faurisson

If my Australian friend Frederick Toben is in jail in Germany it is for three reasons--factors for which I share responsibility.
First, he became a convinced revisionist essentially by reading my own historical material, of which he has published several articles and essays in translation in his country.
Second, after visiting me for the first time in Vichy (France), he decided to investigate the alleged Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz (Poland) in exactly the way in which I had advised him to do so: essentially, to examine the remains of the so-called Nazi gas chamber or Krematorium-II in Birkenau and thus see with his own eyes that there were no holes in the roof for the alleged pouring of Zyklon B pellets, and to remark, consequently, that no gassing operation could ever even have begun in that place, the center of the entire "Holocaust" story. In other words, to state: No hole, no "Holocaust."

Third, it is because, after his second visit, that he decided to go and put some questions to a public prosecutor in Mannheim named Heiko Klein, although Dr. Toben and I both knew that he might well be arrested and thrown in jail.

A man deeply attached to his native land and sincerely distressed by the Niagara of lies told about Germany, F. Toben wanted to achieve something that no revisionist had yet done. I am the one who supplied him with the tools for the job in the form of the following ideas:
*On the one hand, we have "exterminationists" asserting that Germany committed an unprecedented crime, especially with an unprecedented weapon.
*On the other hand, we have "revisionists" asserting that this is a lie, a defamation, a calumny.

*The question is, "Who is right?"

*Where should such a question be put? Should it not be in Germany first, the people being, in principle, the most concerned?

*More precisely, the question should be put to "Bonn" (in April 1999, when F. Toben last visited me, Berlin was not yet the capital of Germany), or to "Ludwigsburg," or to "Arolsen-Waldeck."
*The trouble is that "Bonn" is interested in "political truths," not historical truths. The job of "Ludwigsburg" is essentially to define official truths about this or that camp. "Arolsen-Waldeck" closed its "Historische Abteilung" in 1978 precisely because the place was being visited by people asking questions.

And I said to my friend F. Toben that he should go and visit not an institution in Germany but an individual German, and as a matter of fact, the right man in the right place was the public prosecutor, Heiko Klein, the individual who seemed most certain of his right to jail people who did not respect the official truth about Auschwitz.
I remarked to him that he would thus be the first to go and ask an individual in authority: "Why exactly do you throw revisionists into jail?" He would in this way get the answer straight form the proverbial horse's mouth.

This had never yet been done by any revisionist "in camera clausa," eye to eye. It would be as if, in 1610, someone visited the presiding judge who had found Galileo Gailei guilty of heresy. Should we not be keen to have the account of that man? From a historical point of view, it would be very valuable today to get an individual answer from Pontius Pilate (assuming that the story of Jesus and Pilate is not mere fiction).

Of course. Heiko Klein is not a judge, only a prosecutor. Still, his power in the matter is considerable. His name will go down in history as that of a major figure in a major historical problem. Why not go and visit this man, even at the risk of being jailed? History deserves that such risks are undertaken and sacrifices made, for its sake.
When on the walk back toward his car at the conclusion of our meeting, I remarked to him: "Frederic, you know, don't you, that you may go to jail?," he replied, "Yes."
I said "Good luck!," and I, for one, thought that we revisionists were fortunate to have such people on our side.

There you have essentially what I would say if ever I were allowed to testify in court on behalf of my friend Frederick Toben.

Conclusion: Is it not time that free discussion of historical events is allowed in Society as well as at Universities and other learning institutions? What is there to hide? The truth is a pre-requisite for the integrity and advancement of society.
Further reading for inquiring minds:

Bibliography [1] The Australian Online, October 11 2008


Anonymous said...

Can't they apply to a Judge in Chambers for a bail application ?

Kevin Hughes said...

Pity he's not a mason!

PTR said...

Bail has in fact been granted following the judge's dismissal of the warrant (and pending the prosecution's appeal).

The problems are:
a) bail security was set at £100,000, which takes a while to get together - note this is cash security to be paid into a court bank account, not just a surety;

b) extraordinary bail conditions were imposed. As we have seen this week in the case of Abu Qatada, breach of such conditions can lead to the state attempting to revoke the bail (which in this case would forfeit the £100,000).

The conditions in Dr Toben's case include not speaking to the press, not addressing any public meetings, and not using the internet - as well as the usual sort of thing about his bail address and signing at the police station every day.

Aspects of these conditions need to be specified more clearly even after the £100,000 has been assembled.

Richard Chadfield said...

Why is it illegal in many countries and dangerous in other countries to ask intellegent questions about 'the' holocaust? Why car'nt we examine ,without hindrence or fear, the origins of the second world war and the controvesy of the concentration camps?
If all we have been taught is true why are laws needed to stop us asking questions?
Surely the truth needs no laws to defend it. Surely ,if what we have all been taught is true, then the authorities would welcome investigations since such investigations would prove their correctness and the falseness of their critics. Is my line of thought reasonable?
Generally ,when laws are passed and enforced to support an opinion/belief it is because that opinion/belief underpins the power structure of the day and is a false opinion/belief that can not bear rational examination. The obvious example of such laws are those which attempted to support religious othodoxy against the discoveries of science (rational thought) in the 15th and 16th centuries.
Over the last sixty years a great investment has been made in 'the' holocaust. What is this investment? Ask yourselves some questions such as: how many historians have staked their intellectual reputations on the the accepted orthodoxy? How many politicians have done likewise? Now here is a slightly more important question to ask yourself. Namely, how much money from how many countries has been paid in compensation for the holocaust? (and to whome?) And if the holocaust had not happened would the state of Israel have come into existence?
Just imagine. If the holocaust were not true ( a purely imaginary thought for the purpose of the augument) a lot of countries might be asking for a lot of money to be returned and a lot of 'intellectuals' and politicians might be facing ridicule and ruin.And, most importantly, what would the position of the state of Israel be?(created,we are told, as a consequence of the holocaust) That is a power structure would be undermined and ruined.
In our world (in my opinion) falsehoods are readily embraced if they support entrenched power and the truth equally readilly discarded if it does not support entrenced power. Unfortunatly my belief implies that our world (at this moment) is utterley corrupt and requires ever more stringent anti free thought laws to maintain its-self. So for the moment things will only get worse.

Anonymous said...

"Why is it illegal in many countries and dangerous in other countries to ask intellegent questions about 'the' holocaust?"

Because, if the truth were allowed, there would be a real holocaust. You only have to look at what the supposed holocaust has achieved politically, and finacially, to know that. If the truth ever got out the Jews would be destroyed in every country for all eternity.

Anonymous said...

Jews are victims?


Since when?

Anonymous said...

I want to know why every nation has to feel guilty for wanting to discuss history. Imagine if blacks started screaming that 60 million died and historians had only set it at 5 million. Would people be jailed for stating 5 million?

I used to feel sorry for Jews, but this just makes me sick.

Watch this and see how Jews treat other people.

Anonymous said...

Even if 6 million Jews did die, so what. Jews have killed a 100 times that amount throughout history. Where are the museums and memorials to those victims?

Anonymous said...

The only true thing that Griffin ever said

"I am well aware that the Orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat … I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie and latter witch hysteria."