Showing posts with label Frederick Toben. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Frederick Toben. Show all posts

Thursday, November 20, 2008



Dr. Fred Toben released after 50 days in British jail: Victory for Revisionism

Fredrick Töben was released from jail in London today because the cowardly government lawyers dropped their appeal. He will return to Australia.

The government's probable reasoning: The application of the European Arrest Warrant to somebody who had broken no British law was barmy. The present Attorney General, Baroness Scotland, went unambiguously on record in 2003 in the House of Lords, assuring that such an application would not be possible.

AR Butz

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/index.html


Another account of Töben's victory is given in the Jailing Opinions site.

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:

http://www.codoh.com/author/faurisson.html
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/FaurisArch/FaurisArch.html

Bibliography [1] The Australian Online, October 11 2008

Wednesday, October 29, 2008


Suspected Holocaust denier wins his legal fight against extradition


Fred Tobin wins battle !

on 29th October 2008

Dr Gerald Toben today won his fight against extradition to Germany where he is wanted for publishing anti-Semitic material on his website
Suspected 'Holocaust denier' Dr Gerald Toben today won his fight against extradition to Germany where he is wanted for publishing anti-Semitic material on his website.
Dr Toben, 64, a prominent Australian academic, is wanted to stand trial for posting the alleged diatribes between 2000 and 2004.
The German authorities claim they are 'of an anti-Semitic and/or revisionist nature'.
In the European Arrest Warrant issued in October 2004, he is accused of approving of or playing down the murder of the Jews by the Nazis.
But District Judge Daphne Wickham ruled the warrant invalid as it contains inadequate detail about the offences.
It neither states the name of the website nor where the propaganda is said to have been published from - merely referring to the 'world-wide internet'.
After discharging Toben, Judge Wickham granted him bail pending an appeal by the German authorities.
But he was not expected to be released today, after she imposed a series of strict conditions including a £100,000 security.
Grey wavy-haired Toben, smartly dressed in a suit, appeared pleased on hearing the judge's decision from the glass-fronted dock at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.
The public gallery was packed with his supporters.

Judge Wickham rejected an argument from Melanie Cumberland, for the German authorities, that the required information could be acquired.
The judge said: 'Compliance, in my view, cannot be fulfilled by a drip-feed of information as and when the issuing authority provides it.
'I find that the particulars are vague and imprecise, I find the warrant invalid and therefore discharge the defendant.'

She added that she had not been required to decide at this stage whether the alleged crimes were valid extradition offences.
Toben has been in custody since October 1, when he was arrested at Heathrow Airport on a flight from America, on his way to Dubai.
He was refused bail at that time because it was feared he could easily evade the authorities.
Ms Cumberland opposed bail today but Ben Watson, defending, successfully argued it would be 'abhorrent' to keep him behind bars any longer.
His other bail conditions include residence at an approved address, written confirmation from the Australian High Commission of which passports he holds, and not to access the internet.
He is also banned from giving press interviews. These were safeguards 'to prevent any public order act offences', said Judge Wickham.
Toben claims he will not get a fair trial in Germany.
The controversial author was reportedly jailed in 1999 at Mannheim prison for breaching Germany's Holocaust Law Section 130, prohibiting anyone from 'defaming the dead'.
Toben's Adelaide Institute website has drawn criticism for many years.
In 2000 he fought an order by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission in Australia to remove its 'offensive' content.
The commission claimed it breached Australia's Racial Discrimination Act.
Toben completed his Dr of Philosophy course at the University of Stuttgart in 1977 and taught in schools and colleges all over the world.
He founded the Adelaide Institute and is the author of 10 books on education, political science and history.
When his Heathrow plane was cleared of passengers flamboyant Toben moved seats which officers suspected was a bid to evade detection.
When cautioned he replied: 'You can't arrest me on British soil.' At an earlier hearing he accused the 'world press' of wrongly portraying him as 'horrible, terrible, vicious' and said: 'I must respond to that, because this is nonsense.'

Attempting to reassure the court he would not jump bail, he added: 'The world is my prison.
'I'm well known and to suggest there's no honour in my person is to slander me.'

Toben went on to claim he could not be tried in Germany due to 'double jeopardy', referring to ongoing proceedings on the same issue in Adelaide.
He also suggested the new warrant was a re-hash of the old matters he was convicted of in 1999 but with a 'cyber-crime' veneer.
Toben appeared to admit he left Germany without serving his prison sentence after paying 6,000 Deutschmarks for bail.
He said: 'I can't defend myself in Germany because if I open my mouth the prosecutor says I'm in contempt.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1081579/Suspected-Holocaust-denier-wins-legal-fight-extradition.html
NWN: This is only a partial victory as Dr.Tobin was released on £100,000 bail.

Friday, October 24, 2008

NO REMEDY FOR JAILED BRITISH "HERETICS"


Los Angeles, California

Two jailed writers who were convicted in Britain of Internet hate speech on a U.S.-based website will be forced to remain in special asylum proceedings with no right to a bail hearing, a Los Angeles Immigration Court judge ruled October 14, 2008.


"That is a very bad blow to their hopes of freedom in the near future, and indeed to all asylum seekers and defenders of free speech in the United States," said Paul Ballard from the United Kingdom, coordinator of a legal defense fund for the pair known as the "Heretical Two" (based on the website www.heretical. com).


The pair, Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle, have since July14 been in the custody of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in a Santa Ana, California contract detention facility, after disembarking that same date from a plane at Los Angeles International Airport, where they immediately asked for political asylum.
They fled Britain after being convicted July 11 in a Leeds courtroom of inciting racial hatred for publishing writings such as "Don't Be Sheeple" and "The Holohoax," including some published on Sheppard's website operated from a server in Torrance, California. Ballard noted that British law since 1986 allows for criminal conviction for speech if the subject speech is "likely to result"in the "stirring up" of racial hatred.
A conviction requires no proof of violence or intent. During the trial competing expert witnesses were called to testify as to whether Jews, an offended group, were a "religious" or "racial" group, since British law does not criminalize stirring up religious hatred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
The Heretical Two, who consider themselves political satirists and nonviolent gadflies, are the first persons to be prosecuted in Britain for Internet speech made on a Web server in another country, says Ballard.


They were charged under Britain's Public Order Act of 1986 and are subjected to penalties enhanced by the British Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2000. Since that time, Britain has arrested another man, Frederick Toben, an Australian, for speech denying "the Holocaust," based on a German arrest warrant issued for Toben.
Toben was taken into custody October during a layover at Heathrow Airport. "These two alarming cases are related in that both of them are attempts by the British Crown to criminalize speech regardless of where it takes place and whether it is legal in the place where it was made," noted Bruce Leichty, a San Diego County attorney who was retained in September to represent the Heretical Two.
The October 14 Los Angeles Immigration Court decision in the Sheppard and Whittle cases leaves the two in need of the remedy of habeas corpus (literally: we have the body), a process which federal legislators in the U.S. have made more difficult and costly for immigrants in recent years, according to Leichty.


Leichty said the actions of the U.S. government to date have added insult to injury. "Here are two British individuals who published speech that was legally protected in the United States,for which they were criminally prosecuted in Britain," said Leichty, " and now the case has taken an even more Kafkaesque turn since the one country that should be protecting them from imprisonment in Britain has instead thrown them into U.S. jail for
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3


an indefinite period of time, based only on the fact that they requested political asylum. "Refugees are protected by international treaty; no country should treat political refugees like these two have been treated,particularly where they enter the host country legally." Leichty notes that Homeland Security admitted in its Immigration Court brief that the two were admitted to the United States under the U.S. Visa Waiver Program, and that until they made their request for political asylum at Los Angeles Airport DHS had no reason to suspect or detain them.
Once the two told their story to airport officers, however, DHS attempted to revoke its decision admitting them to the U.S. and to declare the two "inadmissible" on the ground that they entered with the intent to stay in the U.S. as immigrants, which Leichty says is both preposterous on the facts of the case and in any event not within the powers of airport officers." It is well established that an asylum claimant does not give up his non immigrant status simply by telling his host country that he needs the protection of political asylum."


The special type of proceeding that the two were put into,called an "asylum-only proceeding" where immigration judges do not have the authority to release the alien from detention, is used in connection with the Visa Waiver program only for asylum applicants who are not already admitted into the country, or those who have overstayed their authorized periods of stay--neither of which applied to Sheppard and Whittle when they sought asylum. But Leichty says that Immigration Judge Rose Peters turned a deaf ear
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
to these points and ruled that DHS officers had "discretion" to issue the notices that put the two into the special proceedings. Leichty said that, although the recent and more notorious arrest of Frederick Toben in London involves a German extradition request, he is not aware of any request by the U.K. for the extradition of Sheppard and Whittle, and in any case the United States typically does not extradite persons who are convicted of crimes which are not crimes in the U.S."


It is clear that obsessive security apparatuses in two different countries have now run amok, by respectively making criminals out of dissidents and by locking them up even though they are not criminals.


One does not have to share the views or style of the Heretical Two to appreciate the threat posed by this type of case to individual rights and liberties.""The laws under which Sheppard and Whittle were prosecuted could just as easily be used to subject nonconformist American publishers to criminal penalties in Britain."


Sheppard has described his website as a mixture of"blasphemies, heresies, and scientific and general interest material" established to promote his ideas on subjects such as politics, race and gender relations. He holds an Honors bachelor's of science degree in mathematics from the University of Sussex and published two medical scientific papers prior to becoming a publisher and web developer. Whittle is a First Class Honors B.A.graduate in languages and linguistic science from the University of York, and has written numerous books. Sheppard says he and Whittle were prosecuted based on the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
charge that their writings could be viewed by persons in England and Wales, and not even on any evidence that the writings had actually been viewed by anyone other than a police officer who downloaded material for the purpose of bringing charges. "Both men state that they were living peaceably and civilly in Britain until the police disrupted their lives by raiding their flats and seizing their papers and property," says Leichty.


The British press has repeatedly referred to them as the "race hate pair." "There are people who want to criminalize `hate speech' in the U.S., too," noted Leichty. "But as officers of the court,attorneys should remind people that even speech perceived as hateful deserves protection. One man's `hate' may be another man's passion or critique, or even another man's creed. The United States should lead the way in showing disapproval of those nations who have sought to restrict the nonviolent expression of opinion and belief. "The Heretical Two are no more criminal than many of our American forebears who fled repression to settle this country--and no doubt they may say repugnant things just like other blogging Americans.


Ignore or despise them or ridicule them if you wish,dialogue with them if you dare, but don't imprison them."

In choosing Los Angeles as their destination, the pair had hoped to visit with other dissidents at the Institute for Historical Review, Costa Mesa, one of whom had been designated by the defendants as an expert witness in their British case on the historicity of various standard Holocaust accounts, said Leichty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
Ballard says the U.S. imprisonment of the two, and the legal costs associated with their defense, caught British nationalist activists by surprise.


Asylum claimants are on their own in the U.S. unless they can afford attorneys. "This is such an important case with such far-reaching implications that my colleagues and I could not simply let Simon and Stephen languish in detention without counsel," Ballard said.


Ballard is spearheading the Legal Defence Fund that has been set up in the U.K., which he says is accepting contributions in all currencies addressed as follows:


Croydon Preservation Society, P.O. Box 301, Carshalton, Surrey, SM5 4QW, United Kingdom.


"The need for American participation in legal defense costs is critical," he urged. "American interests are at stake here, too."


In a letter from prison, Sheppard wrote: "Detention is stressful and disorienting. [We] appear before the Immigration Court shackled hand and foot....[We] have no access to the legal material and evidence which is stored in the baggage [we] carried on arrival....[ We undertook our action to seek asylum] as a matter of principle, as a political gesture to protest an iniquitous British law which inhibits free speech and the democratic process." To win political asylum in the U.S., claimants must prove that they have a well-founded fear of persecution in their homeland, on one of several grounds including political opinion.


While U.S.courts have frequently stated that "prosecution" does not equate to"persecution, " there are cases where confinement and prosecution under repressive laws have been held to constitute persecution, says Leichty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
Leichty is best known previously for representing Ernst Zundel, an internationally known Holocaust revisionist and publisher who in 2003 was arrested in Tennessee, taken away from his U.S. citizen wife, and deported to Canada on the pretext that he had missed an INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) appointment.


After Leichty was hired to succeed Zundel's first Tennessee immigration lawyer, Zundel won the right to a hearing in Knoxville federal court, but his initial bid to overturn his deportation on habeas corpus grounds was rejected in an unpublished decision of a federal court of appeals in Cincinnati, and Leichty says he and Mrs. Zundel are now prosecuting Zundel's remaining claims in Knoxville.-30-

Tuesday, October 21, 2008


Frederick would like to hear from you !


Gerald Frederick Toben P/N XF9993
HMP Wandsworth
PO Box 757

Heathfield Road

Wandsworth

London

SW18 3HS
(The pic is of Dr.Fred Tobin with Hutton Gibson, film star Mel Gibsons Dad)
NWN: Please send Fred a letter at the above address........................

Wednesday, October 15, 2008


Toben court appearance 17th October 2pm

The next hearing in this case is at 2pm on Friday 17th October listed all afternoon.
Dr Töben is currently in HMP Bedford. Our solicitor will be speaking to him on videolink Thursday at 2pm.

On the 10th October the matter was listed s2 Extradition Act argument, that is, an argument to discharge proceedings on the basis that a legal challenge of the validity of the warrant, in that it is insufficiently particularised, and if unsuccessful a bail application.
The magistrate refused to hear our defence barrister, saying she would hear only the bail application.
The defence did not find that sequence for conducting his case in his client's best interests and after taking instructions that hearing and bail application was moved to the case's next date which is for this Friday 17th October at 2pm.

Regards
Michèle

Ingrid Rimland on BNP statement about Töben arrest


Tony,

Nick Griffin's Attack on Fredrick Töben

Since you circulate to your email list news, views and propaganda from the BNP (in the interests of free speech) would it not be right and proper for you to forward not only the bulletin from Ingrid Rimland (below) but also this, my commentary on the issues her bulletin raises (likewise in the interests of free speech)?

As you well know, Ingrid Rimland's husband, Ernst Zündell, is serving a five year term in a German jail, having been kidnapped by federal government authorities from the USA into Canada, and from Canada into Germany, for "Holocaust Denial" statements which are not unlawful in the USA. Zündell had been found not guilty, on appeal, of a charge relating to "Holocaust Denial" in Canada many years before.

Ingrid Rimland's introductory comments to the BNP item deserve a wider audience. That wider audience also needs to be aware of the spin which Gri££in/BNP is deploying on this topic. This is where my commentary comes in.

The BNP's attack on Fredrick Töben for "Holocaust Denial", is artfully packaged within a criticism of the EU extradition warrant system.

In this instance, Töben, a citizen of Australia, published on his Australia-based web site "Holocaust Denial" material, an act which is not illegal under Australian law. "Holocaust Denial" is likewise not illegal under British law.

Nevertheless, whilst on a flight from the USA to Dubai he was dragged from his plane which had made a short refuelling stop at London Airport by British police purporting to enforce an arrest warrant issued in Germany where "Holocaust Denial" is a crime.

At the time the EU arrest warrant system was accepted by the British government, assurances were given by government spokesperesons that nobody would be extradited from British soil on an arrest warrant from another EU nation where the act specified on the warrant was not a crime in Britain.

I have no doubt that the article on the BNP web site was written by Gri££in himself. Its content is similar to an article recently published in the Daily Mail by the Jewish-Zionist media harpie Melanie Phillips.

Though abominating Töben and his views, Phillips admits that the EU arrest warrant procedure employed in respect of the Töben case is alien to British concepts of justice and free speech. Her husband, Joshua Rozenberg, formerly legal corespondent to BBC Radio 4, who now holding a similar post with the Daily Telegraph, no doubt briefed her on the fine points.

Gri££in's article, in terms of its attack on Töben's views, is incredible in view of his own writings about the "The Holocaust" in 'The Rune' and other nationalist publications not so very long ago.

A friend of mine from National Front days, Peter Berbridge, who during the 1990s toured Auschwitz and other German concentration camps in Poland and Germanyi, and who took many photos of the sites, received a letter from Gri££in begging to have access to the photos for republication in a "Holocaust Denial" publication.

Since becoming leader of the BNP, Gri££in has done a 'volte face' and is now brown-nosing the Jews in the hope of Jewish patronage. I have been warning about that trend in my 'Electronic Loose Cannon' e-bulletin for the past seven or eight years -- in the face of criticism that what I was publishing was "dispiriting" and "negative".

How can one be "uplifting" and "positive" about a wretched traitor who is fawning to the Jews in the hope of advancement of his personal career?

I note in the Gri££in/BNP article the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is criticised because UKIP members of the European Parliament (where the BNP has no members) voted in support of a Jewish-inspired motion on the subject of "Holocaust Denial".

This motion, as I recollect, demanded that the governments of all EU member nations enact legislation to:
- criminalise "Holocaust Denial" where it was not already an offence;
- implement arrest warrants for "Holocaust Denial" issued by other EU nations; and,
- impose heavy fines and long terms of imprisonment on all convicted of "Holocaust Denial".

The BNP article is quite right about UKIP's voting record on that motion. I broke a friendship with somebody who I had known since NF days (Andrew Moffat) who is now a UKIP member and a former parliamentary candidate, who refused to disassociate himself from his party's support for that wicked EU Parliament motion.

UKIP justified its support for the motion on the grounds that if it did not, then the media would depict the party as "anti-semitic" or even as "Holocaust Deniers". This is exactly the kind of explanation Gri££in and his associated spin doctors are giving for the BNP philo-semitic positioning!

More to the point: I cannot recollect seeing any BNP denunciations of the EU Parliament motion at the time it was debated and carried, or of the proposed use of EU-wide arrest warrants for "Holocaust Denial". If any such criticisms were published, then they were so discreet as to be designed to escape attention.

Thus the current BNP denunciation of UKIP on that topic is sheerest humbug.

I will not attempt to subject the entire Gri££in/BNP article about Töben to analysis. I will merely refer to the comments concerning "....his silliness in getting involved with events of 70 years ago...."

The suggestion that events of 70 years ago -- or even 700 years ago -- are irrelevant to the current predicament of Mankind is self-evidently absurd -- or in this case, an appeal to wilful ignorance. The post-Gri££in-as-Chairman intake of BNP members do not seem to me to be the sharpest knives in the drawer.

So far as "The Holocaust" is concerned, the Jewish narrative is having an immediate and continuous impact on our lives at this moment and for the foreseeable future. I specify only two of several points of impact:

1) Our Psychological Environment:

The huge propaganda industry that has been built up around "The Holocaust" is forever pumping out material designed to make ALL gentiles NOW (not just Germans and their allies of 70 years ago) are being made to feel an unbearable burden of guilt about the Jews.

It is designed to make it psychologically (to say nothing of legally!) impossible to criticise not just the Jews as a whole, but any individual Jews. It provides Jewry with a 'carte blanche' to do what they like and, more often than not, to get away with it. Jewry is using "The Holocaust" to create for itself the dream of a never-expiring "Get-Out-Of-Jail-For-Free" card.

This situation is warping our laws, our educational system and many other aspects of our culture. It allows phenomena such as the current Credit Crunch swindle by the bankers to be transacted without a thorough-going investigation of who are the ultimate instigators and beneficiaries of the banking scam.

2) The Threat of a World War Erupting in the Middle East:

The longest-running sore in international relations post WW2 is the crisis in the Middle East, specifically, the conquest by Zionist Jews of the land of Palestine in order to create Israel, and the resultant ethnic cleansing by warfare, war crimes and utmost cruelty of the Palestinians from their land.

There are now hundreds of thousands of Palestinians living in terrible conditions in refugee camps outside Palestine. Many hundreds of thousands more live in concentration camp style conditions within the West Bank and Gaza, conditions imposed on them by Israel's armed forces.

The only way Israel has been able to get away with this is as a result of:

(a) the vast amount of money and weaponry poured into Israel by the USA prompted by the American Jewish community's financial and media domination of the body politic in that country; and,

(b) by the deployment, worldwide, of a never-ending stream of "Holocaust" propaganda to make white gentile nations allow the Jews to steal the Palestinians' land as a kind of compensation for "what happened" to them during "The Holocaust".

Even if every single word of the Jewish "Holocaust" narrative was true -- and that must be open for free debate and investigation by those who wish to devote their time to it -- on what basis must the villagers of Palestine be dispossessed, humiliated and crushed so as to provide compensation for the Jews?

There is NO legal or moral basis for any such development. It is an outrage.

Apart from a few individuals, most of us in "the West" cannot see that outrage on account of the dense fumes of "Holocaust" propaganda. We cannot hear the screams of Palestinian families as American-made giant armoured bulldozers crush them in their homes, because our ears are still ringing to wailing Jewish violins in the latest "Holocaust" film.

It is to that blind and deaf (and stupid?) constituency among the British electorate that Nick Gri££in hopes to make his appeal, thus compounding and reinforcing the wickedness of Zionist-Jewry.

But the followers of Islam throughout the world, especially the Arabs, are not blind to this injustice. They see it and hear it and feel it most keenly. And after 60 years of "the West" ignoring the outrage, they have started to fight back. Palestine is the key issue of all the Islamic "terrorists".

Every other crisis issue in the Middle East is linked to Palestine and to the determination of "the West" to meddle everywhere in that region, not for oil, but to create a situation of perfect security for Israel.

Thus for Gri££in to say that investigating "the Holocaust" is an irrelevance and a "honey-trap" for British nationalists is not a statement of objective truth, but a statement of his submission to the money-power and media-power of Jewry.

He would like to sit at Jewry's table, but if he cannot do that, then at least he hopes to pick up the bones of patronage which may be thrown from it in his direction and in direction of other even more obedient dogs.

Regards,

Martin.

P.S.: I hear that John Tyndall's former loyal lieutenant, Richard Edmonds, has been co-opted by Gri££in on to the BNP Advisory Council. I suppose this is on the basis that it's better to have a foe on the inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in. To all intents and purposes, Edmonds has been neutralised. He is now merely an item of camouflage. (NWN : Emphasis !)
========================================================



From: Ingrid
Reply-To: irimland@zundelsite.org
To:
Date: Monday, October 13, 2008 6:08 PM
Subject: BNP: Toben Case Highlights Danger of EU Gestapo

--
Comment: I am always saddened to see groups like the BNP genuflect
before the enemy, but ignoring the obvious - not that it's going to
help them any! - this article contains useful comparisons between
today and yesterday.
=====

Article printed from The British National Party News:
http://www.bnp.org.uk


Posted By BNP News On October 3, 2008 [1]

Toben Case Highlights Danger of EU Gestapo

The arrest of Australian national Gerald Frederick Toben at Heathrow
airport at the request of the German government on Holocaust-denial
charges cuts to the very heart of the EU super state Gestapo danger.

The BNP has no truck with Holocaust Denial, regarding it as a
self-defeating honey trap aimed at diverting attention away from the
real issues facing Britain in 2008, namely the effects of mass
immigration and the loss of our national identity.

The real issue with the Toben case is not, therefore, his silliness
in getting involved with events of 70 years ago, but actually the
frightening ability of EU states to order the arrest of other state's
nationals - for thought crimes which are not even offences in most
countries.

This is a direct assault on personal and civil liberties, the
suppression of which Europe was supposed to have liberated itself in
the war against Fascism more than six decades ago. It is incredible
to think that the nations of Europe - who fought so hard to rid
themselves of Nazi and Fascist dictatorships, should themselves
resort to those very tactics.

This is rank, dire, wretched hypocrisy of the worst degree, and shows
that the era of Nazi book burning has been reborn in the form of the
EU - and modern leftist regimes.

The EU Gestapo works like this: A person of any nationality - Britain
included - says or thinks something which is not a crime in his home
country. An EU state issues an arrest warrant, and can order the
police of a third state to arrest that person anywhere in the world,
and bring that person back to the EU state for trial.

The police have no discretion in the matter: they are forced to act
by the EU super state.

The last time Europe experienced such a thing was during the witch
burnings of the Middle Ages, the Nazi era, and the tyranny of
Communist-ruled Eastern Europe. The EU has excelled itself over
these eras.

At the very least, the Nazis made no pretence of being democratic,
and were open about their aims. The EU, on the other hand, lies and
pretends to be democratic, when in fact it is just as totalitarian,
if not more so, than the worst witchcraft trial judge or Nazi book
burner. In fact, the Nazis never reached Britain, whereas their
spiritual descendants in the EU bureaucracy now have.

Euro-sceptics, including those who support UKIP, will doubtless find
these events a confirmation of all they fear about the EU Gestapo
super state. But Ukip supporters should also be aware that in January
2005, Ukip MEPs voted for these laws which are now being enforced for
the first time on UK territory.

Not content with lying to their supporters, the Ukip MEPs have
actively taken part in the suppression of British civil liberties,
and deserve to be punished for this collaboration with the Fascists.
_______________________________________________
Zgrams mailing list
Zgrams@zgrams.zundelsite.org
http://lists.zgrams.zundelsite.org/mailman/listinfo/zgrams

Thursday, April 05, 2007

Subject: Help Dr. Fredrick Toben; Help Free Speech - online video

Help Dr. Fredrick Toben; Help Free Speech - online video

RIGHT-click on the links and select "save target as" to download videoclip to avoid any buffering problems, or you may also click directly on thelink to view the video.

LARGE VIDEO (26 MB)> http://www.honestmediatoday.com/HelpDrToben2.wmv

SMALL VIDEO (8 MB)> http://www.honestmediatoday.com/HelpDrToben.wmv>

What happens when a Police constable is ordered to stand against the very people he swore an oath to protect ?