Published by the Institute for Historical Review

http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/denial.shtml

In recent years, considerable attention has been devoted to the supposed danger of “Holocaust denial.” Politicians, newspapers and television warn about the growing influence of those who reject the Holocaust story that some six million European Jews were systematically exterminated during the Second World War, most of them in gas chambers.

In several countries, including Israel, France, Germany and Austria, “Holocaust denial” is against the law, and “deniers” have been punished with stiff fines and prison sentences. Some Jewish community leaders have called for similar measures in North America. In Canada, David Matas, Senior Counsel for the “League for Human Rights” of the Zionist B’nai B’rith organization, says: [1]

“The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews, including two million children. Holocaust denial is a second murder of those same six million. First their lives were extinguished; then their deaths. A person who denies the Holocaust becomes part of the crime of the Holocaust itself.”

Often overlooked in this controversy is the crucial question: Just what constitutes “Holocaust denial”?

Six Million?

Should someone be considered a “Holocaust denier” because he does not believe – as Matas and many others insist – that six million Jews were killed during World War II? This figure was cited by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. It found that “the policy pursued [by the German government] resulted in the killing of six million Jews, of which four million were killed in the extermination institutions.” [2]

Yet if that is so, then several of the most prominent Holocaust historians could be regarded as “deniers.” Professor Raul Hilberg, author of the standard reference work, The Destruction of the European Jews, does not accept that six million Jews died. He puts the total of deaths (from all causes) at 5.1 million. Gerald Reitlinger, author of The Final Solution, likewise did not accept the six million figure. He estimated the figure of Jewish wartime dead might be as high as 4.6 million, but admitted that this was conjectural due to a lack of reliable information.

Human Soap?

Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he says that the Nazis did not make soap from the corpses of murdered Jews? After considering the evidence – including an actual bar of soap supplied by the Soviets – the Nuremberg Tribunal declared in its Judgment that “in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.” [3]

In 1990, though, Israel’s official Yad Vashem Holocaust center “rewrote history” by admitting that the soap story was not true. “Historians have concluded that soap was not made from human fat. When so many people deny the Holocaust ever happened, why give them something to use against the truth?,” said Yad Vashem official Shmuel Krakowski. [4]

Wannsee Conference?

Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he does not accept that the January 1942 “Wannsee conference” of German bureaucrats was held to set or coordinate a program of systematic mass murder of Europe’s Jews? If so, Israeli Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer must be wrong – and a “Holocaust denier” – because he declared: “The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at.” In Bauer’s opinion, Wannsee was a meeting but “hardly a conference” and “little of what was said there was executed in detail.” [5]

Extermination Policy?

Is someone a “Holocaust denier” if he says that there was no order by Hitler to exterminate Europe’s Jews? There was a time when the answer would have been yes. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg, for example, wrote in the 1961 edition of his study, The Destruction of the European Jews, that there were two Hitler orders for the destruction of Europe’s Jews: the first given in the spring of 1941, and the second shortly thereafter. But Hilberg removed mention of any such order from the revised, three-volume edition of his book published in 1985. [6] As Holocaust historian Christopher Browning has noted: [7]

“In the new edition, all references in the text to a Hitler decision or Hitler order for the `Final Solution’ have been systematically excised. Buried at the bottom of a single footnote stands the solitary reference: `Chronology and circumstances point to a Hitler decision before the summer ended.’ In the new edition, decisions were not made and orders were not given.”

A lack of hard evidence for an extermination order by Hitler has contributed to a controversy that divides Holocaust historians into “intentionalists” and “functionalists.” The former contend that there was a premeditated extermination policy ordered by Hitler, while the latter hold that Germany’s wartime “final solution” Jewish policy evolved at lower levels in response to circumstances. But the crucial point here is this: notwithstanding the capture of literally tons of German documents after the war, no one can point to documentary evidence of a wartime extermination order, plan or program. This was admitted by Professor Hilberg during his testimony in the 1985 trial in Toronto of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel. [8]

Auschwitz

So just what constitutes “Holocaust denial”? Surely a claim that most Auschwitz inmates died from disease and not systematic extermination in gas chambers would be “denial.” But perhaps not. Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, a Princeton University professor, wrote in his 1988 study Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ in History: “…From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz , but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called ‘natural’ causes than by ‘unnatural’ ones.” [9]

Even estimates of the number of people who died at Auschwitz – allegedly the main extermination center – are no longer clear cut. At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. [10] Until 1990, a memorial plaque at Auschwitz read: “Four Million People Suffered and Died Here at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945.” [11]

Is it “Holocaust denial” to dispute these four million deaths? Not today. In July 1990, the Polish government’s Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel’s Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead. [12] In 1993, French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, in a much-discussed book about Auschwitz, estimated that altogether about 775,000 died there during the war years. [13]

Professor Mayer acknowledges that the question of how many really died in Auschwitz remains open. In Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? he wrote: [14}

“… Many questions remain open ... All in all, how many bodies were cremated in Auschwitz? How many died there all told? What was the national, religious, and ethnic breakdown in this commonwealth of victims? How many of them were condemned to die a 'natural' death and how many were deliberately slaughtered? And what was the proportion of Jews among those murdered in cold blood among these gassed? We have simply no answers to these questions at this time.”

Gas Chambers

What about denying the existence of extermination "gas chambers"? Here too, Mayer makes a startling statement: “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable." While Mayer believes that such chambers did exist at Auschwitz, he points out that “most of what is known is based on the depositions of Nazi officials and executioners at postwar trials and on the memory of survivors and bystanders. This testimony must be screened carefully, since it can be influenced by subjective factors of great complexity.” [15}

Höss Testimony

One example of this might be the testimony of Rudolf Höss, an SS officer who served as commandant of Auschwitz. In its Judgment, the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal quoted at length from his testimony to support its findings of extermination. [16]

It is now well established that Höss’ crucial testimony, as well as his so-called “confession” – which was also cited by the Nuremberg Tribunal – are not only false, but were obtained by beating the former commandant nearly to death. [17] Höss’ wife and children were also threatened with death and deportation to Siberia. In his statement – which would not be admissible today in any United States court of law – Höss claimed the existence of an extermination camp called “Wolzek.” In fact, no such camp ever existed. He further claimed that during the time that he was commandant of Auschwitz, two and a half million people were exterminated there, and that a further half million died of disease. [18] Today no reputable historian upholds these figures. Höss was obviously willing to say anything, sign anything and do anything to stop the torture, and to try to save himself and his family.

Forensic Investigations

In his 1988 book, Professor Mayer calls for “excavations at the killing sites and in their immediate environs” to determine more about the gas chambers. In fact, such forensic studies have been made. The first was conducted in 1988 by American execution equipment consultant, Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. He carried out an on-site forensic examination of the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek to determine if they could have been used to kill people as claimed. After a careful study of the alleged killing facilities, Leuchter concluded that the sites were not used, and could not have been used, as homicidal gas chambers. Furthermore, an analysis of samples taken by Leuchter from the walls and floors of the alleged gas chambers showed either no or minuscule traces of cyanide compound, from the active ingredient of Zyklon B, the pesticide allegedly used to murder Jews at Auschwitz. [19]

A confidential forensic examination (and subsequent report) commissioned by the Auschwitz State Museum and conducted by Institute of Forensic Research in Krakow has confirmed Leuchter’s finding that minimal or no traces of cyanide compound can be found in the sites alleged to have been gas chambers. [20]

The significance of this is evident when the results of the forensic examination of the alleged homicidal gas chambers are compared with the results of the examination of the Auschwitz disinfestation facilities, where Zyklon B was used to delouse mattresses and clothing. Whereas no or only trace amounts of cyanide were found in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, massive traces of cyanide were found in the walls and floor in the camp’s disinfestation delousing chambers.

Another forensic study was carried out by German chemist Germar Rudolf. On the basis of his on-site examination and analysis of samples, the certified chemist and doctoral candidate concluded: “For chemical-technical reasons, the claimed mass gassings with hydrocyanic acid in the alleged ‘gas chambers’ in Auschwitz did not take place … The supposed facilities for mass killing in Auschwitz and Birkenau were not suitable for this purpose…” [21]

There is also the study of Austrian engineer Walter Lüftl, a respected expert witness in numerous court cases, and former president of Austria’s professional association of engineers. In a 1992 report he called the alleged mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers “technically impossible.” [22]

Discredited Perspective

So just what constitutes “Holocaust denial”? Those who support criminal persecution of “Holocaust deniers” seem to be still living in the world of 1946 where the Allied officials of the Nuremberg Tribunal have just pronounced their verdict. But the Tribunal’s findings can no longer be assumed to be valid. Because it relied so heavily on such untrustworthy evidence as the Höss testimony, some of its most critical findings are now discredited.

For purposes of their own, powerful special interest groups desperately seek to keep substantive discussion of the Holocaust story taboo. One of the ways they do this is by purposely mischaracterizing revisionist scholars as “deniers.” But the truth can’t be suppressed forever: There is a very real and growing controversy about what actually happened to Europe’s Jews during World War II.

Let this issue be settled as all great historical controversies are resolved: through free inquiry and open debate in our journals, newspapers and classrooms.

Notes

1. The Globe and Mail (Toronto), Jan. 22, 1992.

2. Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal (IMT “blue series”), Vol. 22, p. 496.

3. IMT “blue series,” Vol. 22, p. 496.

4. The Globe and Mail (Toronto), April 25, 1990; See also: M. Weber, “Jewish Soap,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991.

5. The Canadian Jewish News (Toronto), Jan. 30, 1992, p. 8.

6. See: Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die: Report of the Evidence in the Canadian ‘False News’ Trial of Ernst Zündel (Toronto: Samisdat, 1992), pp. 192, 300, 349.

7. C. Browning, “The Revised Hilberg,” Simon Wiesenthal Annual, Vol. 3, 1986, p. 294; B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), p. 117.

8. B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), pp. 24-25.

9. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The ‘Final Solution’ in History (Pantheon, 1988), p. 365.

10. Nuremberg document 008-USSR, in IMT “blue series,” Vol. 39, pp. 241, 261.

11. B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), p. 441.

12. Y. Bauer, “Fighting the Distortions,” The Jerusalem Post (Israel), Sept. 22, 1989; “Auschwitz Deaths Reduced to a Million,” The Daily Telegraph (London), July 17, 1990; ” Poland Reduces Auschwitz Death Toll Estimate to 1 Million,” The Washington Times, July 17, 1990.

13. J.-C. Pressac, Les Crémetoires d’Auschwitz: La machinerie du meurtre de masse (Paris: CNRS, 1993), p. 148. See also: R. Faurisson, “Jean-Claude Pressac’s New Auschwitz Book,” The Journal of Historical Review, Jan.-Feb. 1994, p. 24.

14. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? (1988), p. 366.

15. A. Mayer, Why Did the Heavens Not Darken? (1988), pp. 362-363.

16. IMT “blue series,” Vol. 1, pp. 251-252; Nuremberg document 3868-PS, in IMT “blue series,” Vol. 33, pp. 275-279.

17. Rupert Butler, Legions of Death (England: 1983), pp. 235-237.

18. See: R. Faurisson, “How the British Obtained the Confession of Rudolf Höss,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986-87, pp. 389-403.

19. See, for example: B. Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die (1992), pp. 469-502. See also: M. Weber, “Fred Leuchter: Courageous Defender of Historical Truth,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-93, pp. 421-428
( http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p421_Weber.html )

20. “An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz ‘Gas Chambers’,” The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1991, pp. 207-216.

21. G. Rudolf, Gutachten ueber die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den ‘Gaskammern’ von Auschwitz (London: 1993) ( http://www.vho.org/D/rga/ ); The Rudolf Report (in English) ( http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/trr/ )

22. “The ‘Lüftl Report’,” The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1992-93.

This essay is adapted from a text first published in 1992 by the Canadian Free Speech League.

About the Author

Barbara Kulaszka is a Canadian lawyer who practices law in Brighton, Ontario. She is best known for her work in free speech cases. During the 1988 “Holocaust trial” in Toronto, she served a co-counsel (with Doug Christie) for defendant Ernst Zundel. In 1999 she was awarded the “George Orwell Award” by the Canadian Free Speech League.

Print Friendly Page

Google Search: Andrew Bolt Racial Vilification Decision

Editorial: Court muddies the waters for free speech

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/editorial-court-muddies-the-waters-for-free-speech/story-e6freabl-1226154437456

Melvin Mansell | The Advertiser | September 30, 2011

THE full ramifications of this week’s Federal Court judgment against Melbourne columnist Andrew Bolt for breaching racial discrimination laws are still unknown.

But there is no doubt the decision has further muddied the waters for proponents of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

[snip]

There is perhaps a tendency to take for granted concepts such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

But to remain a free country we need to be able to discuss any subject without fear. If you don’t like the views of Andrew Bolt the answer is not to shut him down. The answer does not lie with less debate. The answer lies with more debate, more talking, more exchanging of ideas.

Anything else diminishes us as a society.

(To Melvin Mansell,)

While I agree with your defence of Andrew Bolt, I say bollocks to your hypocrisy! As Editor of the Adelaide Advertiser, you are guilty of shutting down discussion, exchange of ideas and debate on any subject that does not match your totalitarian, Marxist ideology. That you choose to defend Andrew Bolt is not testimony to your belief in freedom of speech, but is instead testimony to your belief in a dictatorial press, libelling the non-politically correct as a matter of due course. You rightly fear for your own livelihood, but you are a bloody hypocrite and you know it.

Cailen Cambeul of Oaklands Park.

Print Friendly Page

It appears that a certain racial and religious element didn’t like the truth being told about the Oslo murderer. See http://sacreator.com/blog/norway-mass-murderer-anders-behring-breivik-is-anti-racist-pro-homosexual-and-pro-israel. Ah well, at least unlike last time, they were very polite and left within minutes. And without confiscating any computer equipment and tax records this time! They were in and out so fast I didn’t even get a chance to say the five words: “I have nothing to say.”

So if somebody tries to tell you that we do not have a political or ideological police force in Australia, tell ‘em their dreamin’.

Cailen.

Related
http://sacreator.com/blog/sa-government-raid-2006
http://sacreator.com/blog/to-the-police-complaints-authority

Question: Are you required to allow police into your home if they are not carrying a warrant?

Answer: No. See Plenty v Dillon – 1991 – HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.

Print Friendly Page

Peter Veness: Adelaide Advertiser | April 27, 2010

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/breaking-news/no-free-speech-for-racists-says-robert-mcclelland/story-e6frea73-1225858945012?

“FREEDOM of speech only goes so far and it does not stretch to racism,” Attorney-General Robert McClelland says.

“It may well be appropriate to set some limitation to public expression of hateful material,” Mr McClelland said.

He said cyber-racism was a growing area of concern for the Human Rights Commission. Eighteen per cent of racism complaints handed to the Commission in 2008-09 were about racist internet material, up from nine per cent in the previous year. [more ...]

Just what is determined as “hate speech” or “racism?”

• Anything to do with White people alone.
• Anything to do with pride for White people.
• Any demands by Whites for truly equal rights.
• Racially stereotyped humour aimed at non-Whites.
• Anything a Jew, Black or other non-White “feels” is racist.
• Anything the government or government appointed officials think non-Whites feel is racist.
• et cetera ….

And just what is not determined as “hate speech” or “racism?”

• Jewish pride, Black Pride, Black Power, Asian Pride, et al …, Gay Pride and anything remotely politically correct.
• Jewish Supremacist groups for a Greater Israel.
• Jewish lies and propaganda: Whether it’s from the Christinsane Bible or modern day politicians making up stories of atrocities by other people against the Jews.
• Racially stereotyped humour aimed at Whites.
• Blacks kicking the hell out of Whites for fun.
• Blacks demanding the extermination of Whites.
• Non-Whites participating in and glorifying in the pack rape and murder of White girls.
• Asians refusing White customers in their shops and restaurants.
• And the list goes on ….

The most typical and yet oddest case of “racist” or “hate speech” is when a White person attempts to make a complaint about any of the above and the person making the complaint is often accused of “racism” themselves for merely voicing a grievance, because non-Whites carrying out discriminatory practices against Whites are protected by the accepted customs of political correctness. Society laughs this off as a form of deserved “reverse racism” and does absolutely nothing about it. Hate speech laws are nothing more than the government protecting the hate speech of non-Whites while destroying the morale of Whites who do believe in actual equal rights or those who rightly wish to separate themselves such as we Creators do and pursue their lives with the same self determination guaranteed to ALL non-Whites. Hate speech laws as practiced in Australia are an attempt by the federal and state governments of Australia to prevent any further resistance to the cultural extermination and eventual genocide of White Australians! Doubt me? Take a look at modern South Africa; that is the future of Australia.

The intention of the government is to crush all disagreement with policies such as “Sorry Day” and changes to National Holidays such as ANZAC Day and Australia Day to make them completely multicultural/multiracial, with any emphasis on White Australian culture denounced as “racist” in origin and practice. If this policy comes to fruition, all political dissidents not towing the politically correct line will be silenced.

It has already been stated by local governments and the media that White Australians carrying or bearing the Australian flag on a National Holiday should be picked up by the police and forced to move on or be charged with whatever offences possible.

In the United States, orders that originated with Jewish Supremacist group, the Anti-Defamation League (known as the Anti-Defamation Commission in Australia) were passed out to law enforcement agencies around the country ordering them to harass any White person who looks like they may be an American Patriot. i.e. Flag carrying, bumper sticker wearing White Americans, former soldiers – anyone that may be construed as in opposition to the latest, freedom hating governmental bureaucracy in control today. And if you believe that can not happen in Australia, then I am informing you now that it is already happening. I recently put a Southern Cross on the back window of my car and I’ve already had police following me around without reason. It has nothing to do with my driving, the condition of my car or how it looks, as my car is in good condition and is a generic, run of the mill locally made vehicle in a sea of hotted-up and race-ready from the factory cars – but it does have that Southern Cross on the back window and that’s what makes it different to the others. And according to the media, Aboriginal supremacist groups, your average left-wing liberal, ad nauseam …, just that symbol alone shows that I am a White patriot and that makes me a “Nazi,” which means I am fare game for any form of abuse by the modern political police and petty government bureaucrats.

So if you are unsure, pay attention: Today, if you are White, you have already lost the right to call attention to anti-White government policies. Today you are not allowed to call self-hating White race-traitors to account for their actions. Today, if you are White, you are not permitted to call attention to the racist behaviour of non-Whites. Yet today, even though every avenue of complaint for White people is blocked by bureaucracy, it is still not illegal to be a White dissident. Tomorrow will not be so easy. Tomorrow, even the thought of standing up for yourself will be a criminal offence. So stand up for yourself and your children’s future now, because when tomorrow comes, it will be too late. For tomorrow, we go to war.

When you wake up, come and join us at Creator Forum http://CreativityAlliance.com/forum, where the fightback has already begun.

Cailen.

Print Friendly Page

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/22/2778046.htm

The radio broadcaster Alan Jones and his employer 2GB have been ordered to pay $10,000 in damages and apologise to the Muslim leader Keysar Trad. …

The tribunal said the broadcasts included Mr Jones’ view that Australia is not a multi-racial but a mono-cultural society, and that this mono-culture was under threat from the “enemies within.”

Mr Jones spoke about “car hoons” – which he identified as “Lebanese Muslim youths” – and their disrespect for police.

The tribunal says Mr Jones also interpreted an allegedly inflammatory speech by a Lebanese-Australian cleric as an excuse for or incitement of sexual assaults by Muslim men upon non-Muslim women. …

The tribunal found that Mr Jones’ commentary, when taken as a whole, was unreasonable.

“Rather than dispassionately analysing the evidence and commenting on it, Mr Jones appears to have been induced or stimulated by his own preconceptions to place highly exaggerated and distorted interpretations on the few objective facts apparently known to him,” the ruling said.

“Sometimes you get the impression they don’t realise how much hurt and how much risk their comments create,” he said.

“They create risk of harassment, risk of physical abuse and risk of intimidation, risk of loss of jobs.”

http://sacreator.com/blog/2009/08/04/another-hypocritical-article-from-the-msm The decision from the Australian Press Council in relation to a smear article by one of Australia’s media hacks can be found below the original article and comment at the bottom of the page.

Yes, the media with their unfounded stories do “create a risk of harassment, risk of physical abuse and risk of intimidation, risk of loss of jobs,” – I for one can testify to that fact – and I did point that out to the Australian Press Council and Human Rights Commission, but when you are White and not a follower of a megabucks multicultural religion, you and your beliefs just do not matter one iota to august bodies like the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and the Australian Press Council.

Get a move on White Australia, your time is fast running out.

Cailen.

Print Friendly Page

BEYOND THE DARKLANDS: In 2000, a series of brutal Lebanese gang rapes took place in Sydney. The gang leader was 18-year-old Bilal Skaf, who with his brother Mohammed, organised the abduction and rape of four girls in three separate attacks, one of them lasting more than six hours. Up to 14 men were involved, with the youngest just 13.

Print Friendly Page

Originating Article Details:

Advertiser Editorial: Jail a price Toben should have to pay
The Editor, Melvin Mansell: The Advertiser | August 15, 2009
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25931848-5006336,00.html

Although he does follow the MSM practice of synchronised intolerance for views that grate against the politically correct grain, the Editor of the Adelaide Advertiser, Melvin Mansell, believes that Dr Toben is anything but censored and sites as proof that almost 100,000 pages on the internet have been produced in support of Dr Toben. Whether true or not, there certainly is a tightly knit community that are manipulating the law in an attempt to silence Dr Toben, and the Editor of the Adelaide Advertiser is at the forefront of the cheer squad.

According to Mansell,

Jail is not censorship, it is a message from the community in which he seeks to live that his unfounded statements of fact are not only historically incorrect – they are offensive, unacceptable and denigrate not only the memory of the millions who had their lives snatched from them but also the daily struggle of those who survived the horror.

As perfect a definition of censorship as any that I’ve ever read.

Mansell then goes on to claim that imprisonment can only enhance Dr Toben’s appeal to what Mansell clearly thinks are a delusional minority that have been rejected by society and live in a fantasy world of make believe that does not mesh with government sanctioned beliefs cited by Mansell et al and enforced by tyrannical jurisprudence. Mansell further goes on to cite Adolf Hitler’s writing Mein Kampf whilst in prison and Nelson Mandella’s gaining support for his anti-Apartheid crusade as evidence that censorship is clearly not the case here.

Although he claims otherwise, Mansell’s article is an attempt at damage control and manipulation to convince your average, everyday Australian, that censorship of speech does not exist in Australia. While often in the same sentence, Mansell singles out those who may question official doctrine for humiliation, with an overall tone that in no uncertain terms attempts to justify why those who do question official doctrine deserve to be humiliated, ostracised and imprisoned.

Cailen.

What a piece of scum you are. If someone says something you disagree with, you lock them in prison rather than debate with them. I do not doubt that if the death sentence was still on the books, you would be demanding a public hanging. The “Holocaust” is not an incontestable “truth” because it is proven history. On the contrary. It is an incontestable “truth” because ancient war propaganda morphed into politically correct laws designed to protect minority groups from actual truth that could possibly harm their status within the community, were it to be known. Therefore, the unadulterated truth still remains to be seen. Voltaire once said, ‘Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers.’ You sir, have twisted Voltaire’s words and judged a man unfit to live in your politically correct society because the questions he asks, may one day be answered in a way that does not fit your idea of utopia.

Cailen Cambeul of Oaklands Park

Print Friendly Page

Background: In 2002, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia found that Töben’s website “vilified Jewish people”, and ordered Töben to remove offensive material from his site. [Wikipedia.]

According to The Advertiser’s Court Reporter, Sean Fewster,

HOLOCAUST “revisionist” Fredrick Toben has finally been silenced and jailed for repeatedly insulting and abusing the Jewish race via the Internet. [Full story here.]

Being of German origin, Dr Toben, like all German people surviving the horrors of World War II, and their descendants, has himself been and continues to be vilified, and forced to live with consistently offensive material in his day to day life. i.e. All forms of media – historical, fictional and those purporting to be newsworthy, and government bodies have and continue to vilify the German people (and anyone else who happens to seek the truth) with a monstrosity of lies for unethical political gain. It was this vilification that caused Dr Toben and others like him (although I am not of German origin, I include myself in this), to actively seek the truth in all matters pertaining to the Jewish “Holocaust” of World War II. What he discovered has become a bitter piece of crow pie for many Jewish people and their politically correct counterparts who would rather swallow a lie, than taste an unpalatable truth.

While in Germany it is now for all intents and purposes a guaranteed prison sentence of three years if you even dare to question the Jewish “Holocaust,” here in Australia, the federal and various state government like to pretend that those that live in Australia, live in a land where every man, woman and child are treated with equal respect, regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation or religion. This is in fact a lie. Australian society is divided into a multitude of uneven sections of race, sex, sexual orientation and religion, with a wall dividing those who are politically correct from those deemed politically incorrect. Those who fit in with today’s politically correct standards are on the side of the wall that grants freedom of speech and religious rights. That is where all Jews stand. Dr Toben on the other hand, is a White, heterosexual male with politically incorrect ideals of truth and honour. As such, he has no protection and is a constant target for the armies of the PC Brigade and Jewish supremacist groups such as the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

This is how it is in Australia:

• If a respected group from the politically correct side of the wall feels offended and is unable to get its own way, they can sue the person or persons from the politically incorrect side of the wall and expect to win in any court of the land.
• Once the politically correct have won the case, the court can then determine what it will undoubtedly claim society demands as an appropriate sentence for even harbouring inappropriate, politically incorrect thoughts – never mind speaking out or acting on those thoughts.
• Sentence is passed. Clang! Mind your fingers.

Oh, there might be some scare tactics between the initial sentencing and eventual imprisonment, just as there was in Dr Toben’s case, but that is just a ploy to get others who themselves are not entirely enamoured of the PC Brigade to see reason and logic where there is none, and accept injustice when it ultimately triumphs – as has happened for Dr Toben.

Don’t believe me? Consider the words of Justice Jeffrey Spender as he passed sentence on Dr Toben.

“This is not a case concerning the Holocaust, or gas chambers, or the Jews.

“This case was and is about the orders of the court… and obedience to the orders of the court is not optional.”

The case did and does concern the “Holocaust,” gas chambers and Jews. For that is precisely what Dr Toben was ultimately sentenced for: Denying “Holocaust” dogma and seeking out the truth. Anything else is sheer legal bunkum.

Cailen.

Related Articles: http://sacreator.com/blog/?s=toben

Print Friendly Page

Print Friendly Page

Michael Harvey: Herald Sun | June 19, 2009

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25657370-661,00.html

VICIOUS attacks against Indian students have prompted the Rudd Government to consider a legal crackdown on hate-mongers.

Investigations have started into creating a specific offence of inciting violence against an individual on the basis of race.

While state assault laws already deal with thugs who personally commit attacks, the potential federal changes would focus, for example, on those responsible for sending SMS messages that urge acts of violence on individuals.

Existing sedition provisions of counter-terrorism laws cover incitement on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity – but only against groups, not individuals.

Attorney-General Robert McClelland has raised the prospect of redressing the balance in response to the alarming spate of assaults on Indians in Melbourne.

This would be achieved by bringing forward a key part of the Government’s review of counter-terrorism laws.

In comments to Parliament this week, Mr McClelland said the Government was in the processing of responding to Law Reform Commission recommendations to change sedition laws.

“Currently there is at the federal level, as you would be aware, an offence of inciting violence against a group of individuals on the basis of their race, religion or ethnicity,” he said.

“As part of a response to recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission, the Government is examining the possibility of amending that offence to include a criterion of inciting violence against an individual on the basis of that individual’s race, religion, ethnicity or nationality.”

In 2006, the commission recommended alterations including changing the offence’s title from sedition to “urging violence” and repealing obsolete provisions.

The Brumby Government moved this month for judges to take hatred – motivated by race, religion, gender or sexual orientation – into account as an aggravating factor when considering sentences.

Comment:
The following comment was submitted to the editors of the Herald Sun.

This is thoughtcrime law where a simple smack in the teeth and a deliberately false report of a racial slur will gain you a longer prison sentence than a psycho who gets their jollies brutally bashing another almost to death. To make matters worse, just like existing State and Federal Racial Vilification Laws, this law will not be used to protect all people, but will be used as a wedge placing the protected “minorities” on one side of the fence and unprotected White Australians living in fear of false accusations on the other. But then, what would you expect from governments that approve of legislation allowing discrimination against White heterosexual males in the workplace?

Cailen Cambeul of Oaklands Park, SA.

Print Friendly Page