Browsing: News

Radical Press Legal Update #13

Dear Supporters of Free Speech and a free Internet,
Tuesday, May 28th, 2013, saw the return to the Quesnel provincial court house of myself and my dear and lovely wife for yet another appearance on the charge of ‘willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ as written in Canada’s criminal code sec. 319(2).
At this stage of the proceedings it has become virtually impossible to know what to expect beforehand when attending them. The last time I went on May 16th I was greeted with a completely new strategy by the Crown when they informed the court they had decided to go for a ‘direct indictment’ rather than have the case unfold in a normal manner by allowing me to present evidence at a ‘preliminary inquiry’ in order to determine whether or not the Crown actually had sufficient and viable evidence to warrant proceeding to a trial.
Crown told the court that they were awaiting a decision by the B.C. Attorney General’s office that would confirm this and that they expected it would happen prior to May 28th.
Well, as we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men, that decision by the AG’s office didn’t manifest and so the Crown told Judge Morgan that they would have to postpone that part of the proceedings until a later date at which time they fully expected that the Attorney General’s office would make up its mind one way or another.
Judge Morgan, the Honourable Judge who has been attending to my case from the beginning and who was absent on the previous court appearance, looked over the documents that were awaiting him when he entered the court room in order to get the drift of what had taken place on May 16th. He noted that I had filed an application for particularization of the Crown’s disclosure material and in perusing the document he read out excerpts to the court wherein it was stated that because of the volume of materials (over 1000 pages) presented that it was virtually impossible for me to address what specific posts on my website the Crown deemed to be ‘hatred’. After doing so he addressed the Crown prosecutor, Jennifer Johnston, and asked her what she had to say about it.
The Crown’s response was rather vociferous and protracted, the main thrust of the argument being that the Crown was not legally bound in any way, shape or form, to divulge to the defendant the specifics of what posts they intended to argue were the ones they felt might prove to a court of law that I was guilty of the said offence. In the words of Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnston, ’ There is no case law anywhere’ that says they are bound to do so.
Crown then further worded its argument to the effect that by doing so they would be giving away to the defendant their strategies and in saying that CC Johnston then proceeded to hand to the Judge a number of photocopied pages taken off my website that referred to an online book written by Elizabeth Dilling titled, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. The document that Judge Morgan was presented with first was the Forward to Dilling’s book giving an overview of her various works and her experience in dealing with the negative influences that had come to bear upon America during the course of World War II and afterwards by Zionism.
Judge Morgan quickly scanned the page and then, giving Crown counsel Johnston a rather quizzical look, asked her if this was the sort of thing that Crown was planning to present to the court as evidence?
CC Johnston then launched into a somewhat convoluted and forceful explanation bordering upon become a diatribe. She told the Judge that the article in question was an example of how the defendant’s website was presenting the writer as a credentialed and erudite researcher and writer when it fact (and this was not stated but inferred in her comments) she was really just another anti-Semitic hate monger using the excuse of communism to spread lies about the Jewish Talmud and that the Forward to her book might be compared to a sexual predator who, by sending out an email to someone online telling them about a wholesome family camping trip and inviting them to attend, by stealth and deception lures the innocent (and presumed) youth into meeting with them so they can then violate them sexually!!!
It’s at times such as these that keeping a calm, straight face in the court room becomes extremely challenging.
After her presentation Judge Morgan then stated that he could sympathize with the fact that there was such an abundance of disclosure and that I might well be overwhelmed by it. He said that he was unable to give me any legal advice but that he felt that I should consider bringing this matter up in my Rowbotham application as an illustration of why I felt it was vitally necessary to have counsel to represent me in the event of a trial.
With respect to the Rowbotham application the Judge asked me whether I had filed it and I told him that I had sent off the proper papers to the government but that I was awaiting further word as to whether or not Crown would get their ‘direct indictment’ decision which was to have happened today. Earlier the Crown had informed the Judge of the letter which I had been sent from the legal department for the AG’s office instructing me to either file a Rowbotham application for a counsel to represent me at a preliminary inquiry or to wait and file an application in the event of a trial. I told Judge Morgan that I had gone no further with the application pending today’s appearance because I didn’t know which way the Crown was going with the case. He appeared to have no problem understanding what I was saying.
Judge Morgan then decided that it was not the time make any decisions regarding any of the matters that came up and that he would, once again, have to postpone the case to a later date when Crown felt that they would know for certain whether a direct indictment was happening or not. Crown concurred with him and suggested that they might know better by the end of June or the early part of July, 2013. At that point the Judge instructed me to go to the office next to the court room after adjournment and I would be given the exact date when I was to return.
Following his instructions to me I asked the Judge if I might speak. He gave his permission and I then told him that I wished to register a strong objection to the manner in which Crown was continually making reference to Radical Press and comparing the website to either cases of child pornography or else, as in today’s arguments, cases of sexual abuse. I told the Judge that I felt this was highly unfair and prejudicial and that there was no comparison to what I publish and what the Crown was attempting always equate with those two references. The Judge then said that my objection was registered and following that the case was adjourned to Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 1:30 pm.

{ Add a Comment }

Judaism: A Conspiracy Against Jews, Humanity?

Judaism: A Conspiracy Against Jews, Humanity?
Written by Henry Makow
[email protected]
Save the Males
Friday, 17 November 2006
On his web site ‘Crescent and Cross,’ Mark Glenn argues that Christianity and Islam are natural allies who are being lured into a ‘clash of civilizations’ by Neo Con Jews (fronts for Illuminati bankers) plotting to ‘divide and conquer.’
The father of eight children, Mark, 40, sees himself as a friend and ‘liberator’ of the Jewish people. He believes mankind will never achieve peace until Jews are freed from bondage to their leaders’ hidden agenda. Judaism is a conspiracy against both Jews and the human race.
Mark’s 2003 article ‘Israel We Bless Thee’ is a classic. When it was run by Al Jazeerah, the ADL forced the Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar to issue an apology! What an honor Mark!
Last week Glenn wrote a very provocative article entitled ‘Judaism is Nobody’s Friend.’
Why is it OK to criticize Christianity and Islam but not Judaism? he asks. After all, Judaism is at the root of Zionist excesses.
Referring to the Talmud, he argues that organized Judaism is basically antagonistic to Christianity and Islam:
‘While the other two Middle Eastern faiths …elevate the virtues of humility, charity and righteousness, Judaism … legislates haughtiness, supremacism and callous disregard for other human beings…Gentiles exist to serve the Jews. Rape of gentile children, murder, lying, theft, usury, things condemned in every other religion are given full sanction in Judaism when it benefits the tribe…’
‘Does anyone in the room remember …the Crucifixion of Jesus? …Judaism’s involvement in WWI and WWII? Bolshevism? The destruction of the moral, political and economic fiber of every country in the West? Hundreds of millions of dead children through abortion? The destruction of families and the elevation of sexual deviancy as a virtue?’
‘And of course, last but certainly not least, the war to end all wars that is taking place in the Middle East and which bears the fingerprints of the Pharisees all over it.’
‘… If indeed Christianity sprang forth from Judaism, why then does Judaism maintain …that Jesus was a sorcerer and a sexual deviant who suffers in hell by being boiled in a cauldron of semen and feces for daring to oppose the Rabbis and that His holy mother Miriam was a ‘harlot who mated with carpenters’ ?’
‘…It is all another ruse to get Christians to fight Judaism’s wars on the pretext that somehow [Jews and Christians] share something in common when in truth they do not…’
‘Judaism is nobody’s friend, and the sooner that the rest of us–Jew and non-Jew alike–come to realize this, the better off we will be. Get rid of it. It is a cancer. Cut it out and throw it away, as Jesus instructed that we do. It has never and will never be of any benefit to mankind. We cannot live in any kind of ‘peaceful co-existence’ with it. It is a declaration of war, and as long as it exists out there, mankind will never have peace.’
WHAT’S AT STAKE
I applaud Mark’s courage and particularly agree when he writes: ‘There is only one thing that is truly sacred and beautiful in this fallen world, and that is the truth and even when it is at its ugliest…’
Ultimately we are not controlled by force but by our minds. The world has become a behavior modification laboratory. ‘Believe what you are told not your common sense or intuition.’
Gradually, we are transformed into better slaves by the education system or into slugs or demons by the mass media. A malevolent occult force controls us with lies. Elite Jews play too great a role in this process and in manipulating and suppressing the truth.
‘Truth’ is the heart of the argument between Jesus Christ and the Pharisee Jews. Who will define it? Who will say what is right or wrong? Man or God?
Christ said that God is Reality; i.e. Truth, Love, Goodness, Perfection self evident. There is a moral and natural order. We must eschew the call of the world (which enslaves us to our lusts) and remake ourselves as better human beings in God’s image.
The Pharisees want to sever our connection to God and make us worship their ‘experts’ instead. They say man is God. Puny monkey, man is all there is. We have no relation to God, to race, nation, family, ancestors or posterity. They distract us while secretly plotting a Talmudic tyranny based on their terror.
Ultimately, this argument is about who will be God and who will own the world. Will it be God (represented by Christ or Mohammed or Moses) Or will it be the Pharisees who took control of Judaism in about 70 AD and based it on the Talmud and Kabbalah.
They use the ‘Chosen People’ (among others) as pawns and scapegoats to advance the agenda of Illuminati central bankers. Rather than become complicit by denying it, Jews need to disassociate and oppose this agenda.
THE UGLY (BUT LIBERATING) TRUTH?
The above picture will strike many Jews as unpleasant and unjust. To understand the problem, we must turn to those branded ‘anti-Semites’ by Jewish leaders because they don’t want Jews to know the truth.
According to Edith Starr Miller, (Lady Queenborough) Pharisee Judaism is not a religion at all, but a secret society posing as a religion, a ‘sect with Judaism as a rite.’ She cites Moses Mendelssohn who wrote ‘Judaism is not a religion but a Law religionized.’
I have also heard rabbis say the Judaism is not a religion but ‘a way of life.’ True religions oppose worldly desire and demand that we obey God. Judaism regards the accumulation of wealth and power as a sign of Divine favor. ‘Success’ is the religion.
The God of Judaism is the Jewish people. Jehovah is the Jewish alter ego. He loves only his own tribe. Polls show most Jews don’t believe in God and define themselves as ‘secular humanists.’ Man is God and will create his own heaven on earth in defiance of the Creator’s blueprint.
In a secret society, only the adepts know the real purpose. The rank and file is manipulated with warm platitudes and lies. The ‘innocent’ who is unfit to know the ‘ugly truth’ becomes a valiant defender of the faith and ideal recruiter. This also applies to Freemasonry which seems to be modeled on Judaism. Both secret societies advocate killing any member who reveals its secrets.
The real purpose of Judaism and all secret societies, Miller says, is to advance the agenda of the super rich.
‘Regardless of their exoteric objects, the esoteric aims of most societies are all directed toward the same end, namely: the concentration of political, economic and intellectual power into the hands of a small group of individuals, each of whom controls a branch of the International life, material and spiritual, of the world today.’ (Occult Theocracy, p.661)
Western society, perhaps the whole world, is based on the secret society model. You cannot rise unless you are favored (or deemed useful) by the Illuminati, the highest rung of Freemasonry. We are in the position of the rank and file, lied to and manipulated.
Miller cites an expert on Judaism Flavien Brenier who compares the goals of Judaism with Freemasonry: Securing political power and gradually modifying ‘the conceptions of the people in the direction of their secret doctrine.’ (80)
Jews are correct to deny that they consider non-Jews cattle. This esoteric knowledge contained in the Talmud and Schulhan Aruch is known only to adepts. Miller has six pages of citations from these texts but I doubt if 5% of Jews are aware of them (81-87.) (See also Michael Hoffmann, ‘The Truth about the Talmud’)
The Jewish author of a new book on the Yiddish language confirms Miller’s finding: ‘The Jews are not merely out of step with Christian civilization, they hold it in utter contempt.’ (Michael Wex, Born to Kvetch, 2006, p.24)
What fault could they have with a gospel that preaches human brotherhood and putting others before yourself? Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?
It denies their special claim.
Then what better people to use to destroy Christian civilization? Think of a child that doesn’t want to grow up. One who thinks he can do anything he wants. Who doesn’t have to consider others. Who is never wrong and so never admits it. Who thinks any criticism is motivated by irrational hatred i.e. ‘anti Semitism.’ Who wants the State to be his family and and tell him what to do. Think Illuminism, Communism, Modernism. Think modern man.
CONCLUSION
The cry of ‘anti Semitism’ is often a dishonest and disingenuous way to disarm opposition to the Illuminati bankers’ very real stealth plan for global dictatorship masked by sham democracy. This New World Order plan clearly states its intention to snuff out freedom, democracy, private property, family, nationhood, religion, and ultimately the human spirit.
The ideology of a chosen people suits the super rich and imperialists, who view the mass of humanity as cattle or ‘useless eaters’. If history is any gauge, Jews and Freemasons who fall under the spell of organized Jewry will be sacrificed. You can see this in the support the Illuminati gives to both Zionist and anti-Zionists forces. Communism and Nazism were both created by the Illuminati to bring about world war and destroy each other.
Jewish self examination and soul-searching are long overdue; I welcome Mark Glenn’s challenge.
————
See also Texe Marrs’ Video â€őIlluminati Babylon” and Ted Pike’s Video on roots of Jewish misanthropy ‘Why the Middle East Bleeds’ and his article ‘Jewish Kabala: Root of Middle East Violence’ and my ‘The Riddle of Anti-Semitism’ and ‘The Jewish Conspiracy is British Imperialism’

{ Add a Comment }

Eighty Years of Infamy by Arthur Topham

‘This dynamic volume [Germany Must Perish!] outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the German nation and the total eradication from the earth, of all her people.’
‘It is a definite obligation which the world owes to those who struggled and died against the German yesterday, and to those who are fighting him again today, as it is the bounden duty of the present generation to those yet unborn, to make certain that the vicious fangs of the German serpent shall never strike again. And since the venom of those fangs derives its fatal poison not from within the body, but from the war-soul of the German, nothing else would assure humanity safety and security but that that war-soul be forever expunged, and the diseased carcass which harbors it forever removed from this world. There is no longer any alternative: Germany Must Perish!’
~ Theodore N. Kaufman, Germany Must Perish!, Argyle Press, Newark, New Jersey, 1941
On Thursday, March 23rd, 1933 the newly democratically elected Chancellor of Germany Adolf Hitler and his cabinet, in a vote taken in the Kroll Opera House in Berlin by the Reichstag on proposed legislation known as the Enabling Act the ‘Law for Removing the Distress of People and Reich,’ were given a four year mandate to rule Germany, unrestrained by Parliament. The vote, when taken, was: 441 for and 84 against.
On Friday, March 24th, 1933 one day after this historic event, world Jewry openly declared war on Germany.
JudeaDeclaresWarGermany 700
Thus was set the stage upon which Germany and the world at large would be continually forced to bear witness to world Jewry’s endless and psychopathic vengeful obsession with their ongoing campaign of vitriolic lies, racism and HATRED toward the German people and the German nation.
2013 marks the 80th anniversary of this planned strategy of intentional conditioning of generation upon generation of western civilization’s citizens to fear, loathe and despise first and foremost the National Socialist Party of Germany (termed ‘NAZI’ by the Jew media), its leader Adolf Hitler and then, by extrapolation, the German people as a whole.
After eight decades of defamation and endless slurring it begs the question as to why world Jewry would continue to, as the saying goes, flog a dead horse over and over and over again? To what (or whose) advantage is is to constantly harken back nearly a century in order to reinforce what is now, thanks to the tireless efforts of historical revisionists, evidently the most profoundly provocative and colossal LIE ever foisted upon the world?
A day never passes when the so-called ‘mainstream media (msm)’ doesn’t make mention of either Adolf Hitler or the Nazi’s or the purported ‘Jewish Holocaust’. Relentless and hard-hearted as the tax man or the bill collector the Jew-controlled msm, like the ancient Mariner in Coleridge’s famed poem, holds the general pubic’s attention hostage with its ‘glittering (tv) eye’ while spinning out its slanderous tales of endless misery and woe and persecution, all of which is maliciously and willfully designed to shore up a deceit that is now unravelling before the world thanks to the miracle of the Internet.
Only those born before 1933 could honestly say that they lived in a period of history when libel of Germany wasn’t an all-pervasive reality and the numbers of people living today who are of that age and still conscious of their former world are few and far between.
Those of us born after world Jewry’s 1933 declaration have all been subjected to the unceasing assault on the German nation that still persists today.
It was writers like Theodore N. Kaufmann, quoted above, who spear-headed the intentional promotion of HATRED toward Germany prior to America’s involvement in a war that Hitler and the German nation never wanted and never were guilty of causing. Kaufmann and world Jewry’s aim was to change the attitude of the American people; one that was then either neutral or pro-German rather than anti and twist the truth about Hitler and the National Socialist government and their amazing accomplishments from 1933 until 1939. And so his hate-filled screed titled German Must Perish! was promoted by the most prestigious msm publications in the USA when it appeared in 1941 prior to America’s entry into the conflict. Magazines like Time and newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post lauded the idea of absolutely destroying the German nation and the German race as a whole referring to the grotesquely contemptible concept as a ‘SENSATIONAL IDEA!’
GermanyPerishF&BCovers copy 3
Once world Jewry was successful in dragging the USA into the war via their choreographed ‘Pearl Harbour’ maneuver all stops were pulled out and the vicious denigration of Hitler and Germany began in earnest never to abate even to this day.
Canadian children growing up during the war years were subjected to all the anti-German hatred propaganda that was carried in the media. Images of Hitler and the ‘Nazis’ were ever-present and for all the German Canadian citizens throughout the nation the devastating effect of such vile and systematic psychic abuse worked its way into the minds and subconscious of those who, prior to world Jewry’s intensions, had been respected members of Canadian society.
HitlerSnowball 2
HitlerDartboard
When the war finally culminated in a victory for Soviet Communism, world Jewry and so-called western ‘democracy’ in 1945 one would think that soon thereafter the hatred and vilification of the German people would have slowly wound down but that was not to be the case.
In February of 1945 the Allied powers met to sign the Protocol of the Yalta Conference.It was then that U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt first articulated the policy of ‘Unconditional Surrender’, a demand that the Axis powers yield to the Allies without concessions or negotiations. It was Douglas Reed in his 1956 book The Controversy of Zion, who stated in Chapter 42 of his book aptly titled ‘The Talmudic Vengeance’, that it was an act of ‘blind vengeance’ which meant that ‘the enemy would not be granted peace at any price whatever, and this was the absolute reversal of all ‘principles’ previously proclaimed by the Western leaders….
‘Thus at Casablanca in 1943 the decision to wreak vengeance was first taken. This was the background to the ‘Morgenthau Plan’ of September 1944 (obviously first devised in Moscow, then drafted by Mr. Harry Dexter White for his superior, then forwarded by Mr. Morgenthau to Mr. Roosevelt, who with Mr. Churchill initialed it), the spirit of which pervaded the Yalta Conference and its Protocol. Mr. Roosevelt’s later expression of astonishment (‘he had no idea how he could have initialed this’) and Mr. Churchill’s words of regret (‘I had not time to examine the Morgenthau Plan in detail … I am sorry I put my initials to it’) are both voided by the fact that both then signed the Yalta document, its child and the charter of vengeance.’
Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 2.35.32 PM
No sooner had the Yalta Protocol been signed than the propaganda machines in Canada started churning out their deceptive misinformation regarding what this Protoc0l truly meant for the German nation.
After world Jewry achieved their ‘unconditional surrender’ of Germany (thanks to Roosevelt and Churchill), and the Bolshevik Communists were victorious in gaining full hegemony over all of eastern Europe including Poland and half of Germany then came the next phase of hate animosity toward the German people as the Jews, aided and abetted by their Marxist/Communist compatriots, began to reveal their quintessential ‘ace-up-the-sleeve’ scheme of blaming Hitler and the National Socialists and Germany itself with having ‘holocausted’ 6 million Jews during the three year period when anti-German collaborators had been placed in work camps throughout eastern Europe.
crucifixion-
It was an old ruse that had been attempted numerous time before throughout the early part of the 20 century but now that world Jewry was able to conspire with Stalin and their Communist counterpart and fabricate false and incriminating ‘evidence’ of such a deed the picture changed dramatically. Using the moral abomination called the Nuremberg Trials, a pseudo-legal process not unlike that of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its attendant Tribunal, where truth is no defence, the victors, via torture, terror and trauma, were able to force ‘confessions’ out of former German military leaders that was then cultivated into fields of propaganda which yielded an endless supply of an adulterated diet of falsehoods for generations to come.
Nuremberg1
Reed also tells us that by 1945 world Jewry’s U.S. propaganda ‘hate’ wing, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith was already carrying out ‘a high-powered educational program, geared to reach every man, woman and child’ in America through the press, radio, advertising, children’s comic books and school books, lectures, films, ‘churches’ and trade unions. This program included ‘219 broadcasts a day’, full-page advertisements in 397 newspapers, poster advertising in 130 cities, and ‘persuasions’ subtly incorporated in the printed matter on blotters, matchbox covers, and envelopes. The entire national press (‘1900 dailies with a 43,000,000 circulation’) and the provincial, Negro, foreign-language and labour newspapers were kept supplied with, ‘and used’, its material in the form of ‘news, background material, cartoons and comic strips’. In addition, the A.D.L. in 1945 distributed ‘more than 330,000 copies of important books carrying our message to libraries and other institutions’, furnished authors with ‘material and complete ideas’, and circulated nine million pamphlets ‘all tailored to fit the audiences to which they are directed’. It found ‘comic books’ to be a particularly effective way of reaching the minds of young people, soldiers, sailors and airmen, and circulated ‘millions of copies’ of propaganda in this form. Its organization consisted of the national headquarters, public relations committees in 150 cities, eleven regional offices, and ‘2,000 key men in 1,000 cities’.
Constantly beating and pushing their hate-filled anti-Semitic drums, world Jewry’s unremitting mind control operations have carried on right up to the present with book after book and magazine article after magazine article and newspaper clipping after newspaper clipping eulogizing the ‘6 Million’ and lying through their teeth about mythical ‘Nazi’ atrocities in Germany’s ‘death camps’.
Pulp fiction propaganda such as that depicted in the graphics below are typical of the Jewish publishing houses and reflect their psychotic obsession with publishing HATRED toward the German people.
Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 3.43.23 PM
EichmannPropaganda copy
HolocautBook copy
Recently I was in a book shop perusing the shelves when I spotted the following title ‘Hitler’s Daughter.’ I couldn’t believe my eyes. Upon looking at the book I realized that it had been published by Scholastic Books the famed publisher of children’s literature.
When the Jew say there’s ‘no business like Shoah [holocaust. Ed.] business,’ the lesson truly sinks home when one considers the depth of depravity that they will sink to in order to brainwash future generations into believing their insane paradigm of opprobrium against the German people.
Hitler’sDaughter copy
The Final Solution
The triumph of world Jewry over the past eighty years is something to behold. Since 1933 they have worked overtime in an all out effort to flush Germany down the shit hole of history. In the process millions of otherwise sincere and honest individuals have been slowly and steadily insidiously conditioned into believing lies of such a magnitude that only now, after ten decades of deception are they finally beginning to lose their grip over the minds of the masses as the Internet and dedicated historical revisionists continue to make headway in their dismantling of the myths of the 20th century that have perpetuated a degree of HATRED never before witnessed on such a global scale.
Any such force willing and capable of deceiving the world on such a gargantuan scale is obviously not unaware of what has been taking place since the advent of the net, email and social media sites such as Facebook where these topics are slowly permeating and drawing more and more attention. The sense of desperation and panic on the part of world Jewry is palpable. If a person has been studying these events over the past quarter century or longer they can taste it in the rarefied air of cyberspace with each passing day. The pillars are beginning to shake and the deceivers are in a mode of defence that they’ve never had to contend with for a very long time. What to do? How do we stop the sheeple from becoming informed of our Great Deception and becoming aware and concerned people?
Those who have been controlling the historic dialogue since 1933 have always displayed one trait the fervent need to CONTROL the non-Jewish gentiles (or goyim/cattle as they are wont to refer to the rest of the world’s population). Laws must be enacted to prevent the Truth from getting out and the overall population eventually realizing to what degree they have been lied to all their lives. Laws? What sort of laws could possibly prevent the people from debriefing themselves at this advanced stage of the game? Why HATE LAWS! Laws that will penalize and imprison those who are exposing our planned program of global deception. Laws that will make Truth an invalid, useless reason to speak out against the infamy. Laws that will make any factual evidence irrelevant. Laws that will make it a crime just to DENY that world Jewry’s interpretation of history might possibly be skewed and biased in favour of their own New World Order agenda for global dominance. Laws that will prevent the population from coming to the only plausible and reasonable conclusion that makes common sense, that being, the creators of the HATE LAWS are the very same folks who have been spreading universal HATRED toward the German people for the past eighty years. In other words Hate Laws for the haters and prison and fines and censorship for the Truth seekers of the world who are now on to their scam. Oi veh! what can you say?
Screen Shot 2013-05-22 at 5.22.38 PM
Well, given my own predicament and the fact that I have been under extreme attack by world Jewry myself for over six years now, I have pondered this question again and again and finally a solution that appears to be almost self-evident now that it came to my mind has arisen.
When the Jewish lobby groups here in Canada who have been instigating and pushing their ‘HATE LAWS’ realized some years ago that sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was actually a double-edged sword and some Muslim groups had the unmitigated audacity to turn these same laws upon the Jews they quickly began an all out effort to have sec. 13 of the Act removed from the statutes*. What that exercise illustrated was that any such ‘HATE’ law, be it in the domain of the Human Rights Commissions or the Criminal Code of Canada is amenable to all Canadians, not just the Jewish lobbies. Thus the obvious answer to the goyim’s woes.
It’s time for Canadians of Germanic descent to stand up and take the bull by the horns and stop simply accepting their fate as victims of world Jewry’s program of hatred and instead become pro-active and utilize these same laws in their own defence. It’s time to stop retreating and time to go on the offensive. Time to reach out and grasp the sword of Truth, pick it up and begin to wield it, challenging the haters by applying the same hate crime laws to the actual perpetrators.
Let us fill our courtrooms around the nation with Section 319(2) ‘HATE CRIME’ complaints against every Jewish person and Jewish media conglomerate and Jewish publishing house that has been spewing forth their vitriolic hatred against the German people for the past eighty years. Let us see how they like it when THEIR freedoms and their ‘rights’ to defame and slander the German people are suddenly challenged from every quarter. Let us see how our federal government likes it when they have to investigate and act upon each and every legitimate grievance that the German people of Canada have to offer them in the way of injustice, prejudice and discrimination to their ethnic community. And let us see how the Jewish-controlled msm reacts to this unprecedented move by ethnic German Canadians who finally say to the government and to the world ENOUGH!
Prologue
I am certain that somewhere beyond this third rock from the Sun there must be a place of peace and truth where honesty and love prevail and children grow up free of mental conditioning so they can spend their productive adult lives doing positive and life-enhancing things that make them happy and joyful and fill their hearts with laughter. In such a place I imagine is where Adolf Hitler now resides watching over his people awaiting the day when their great sacrifices of 1939 to 1945 will eventually be vindicated and along with that vindication will come the release of the rest of the world from the restraints and the deception that have been imposed upon us all.
God be with us all.
———
* At the moment it is sitting in the Senate awaiting final reading and approval by the Conservative government of Canada.
The Radical Press would like to pay a special thank you to Mr. Ian V. Macdonald for granting permission to use three of the Star Weekly front page illustrations from his superb book ‘Star Weekly at War’ in this article.

{ Add a Comment }

Statement of Roy Arthur Topham regarding his Arrest on May 16th, 2012 on the charge of ‘Willful promotion of hatred CC 319(2)’

ARREST STATEMENT OF ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM
REGARDING HIS ARREST AND INCARCERATION BY THE RCMP ON
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16TH, 2012 IN QUESNEL, B.C. ON THE CHARGE OF:
‘Willful Promotion of Hatred CC 319(2)’
Posted May 16th, 2013 on 1st Anniversary of this Event
By
Arthur Topham
[Editor’s Note: In the interests of freedom of speech and freedom of the Internet I am posting my ‘Arrest Statement’ which my former lawyer Mr. Douglas Christie advised me to write soon after my arrest on May 16th, 2012. His wise counsel was that this case would likely drag on in the courts for years and by the time it came to trial (should such an event arise) that many of the details of my recollection of that fateful day would by then be hazy and doubtful. Acting on Mr. Christie’s advice I wrote out a detailed description of what took place that May morning last year. It’s an interesting picture of what can happen to you here in Canada should the Jewish lobby decide they don’t like being criticized. Read. Heed. And please pass it on to your friends and associates. ~Arthur Topham]
On Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 I started out my work day travelling out to my mining property on the 2400 Rd off the Barkerville Hwy to meet up with the Petro Canada fuel truck at 9:30 a.m. I was having the company fuel truck filled with 1200 gallons of diesel fuel for use during the upcoming placer mining operations for this season. When that was completed I returned home to my residence at 4633 Barkerville Hwy and prepared for a trip up to Prince George where I had to go to the Richie Bros. Auctioneers site to pick up some mining equipment that my business associate had recently purchased at an auction on May 10th. My business partner and wife, Shastah Topham, came along with me and we left our home at approximately 11:00 a.m. heading west toward Quesnel.
Plans had also been made ahead of time to meet another mining associate at Princess Auto in Prince George at 1 p.m. and between the two of us we would haul equipment back to my placer claims on the 2400 Road.
Due to the fact that the Petro Canada fuel truck was a bit late in arriving at the site plus the additional time necessary to fuel the 1200 gallon truck I was running behind schedule by about half an hour.
We were travelling in a 2009 Chev pickup owned by my mining associate with whom I am presently in a Joint Venture Agreement.
When one leaves my property at 4633 Barkerville Hwy you must turn right on to the Barkerville Hwy in order to travel toward Quesnel and Hwy 97 the route necessary to travel in order to get to Prince George. The section of Hwy 26 (Barkerville Hwy) that runs past my residence stretches in a straight line for approximately 1 km. As soon as I pulled out on to the road I immediately saw that there was a white pickup truck sitting adjacent to the eastbound lane of highway just before the road descended down a small dip and passes Cottonwood Historic Site.
As we drove toward it I remarked to my wife, ‘There’s the cops sitting there. Looks like they’re either waiting to catch Willie again or maybe they’re doing surveillance on Don Carter’s property. Don Carter has been experiencing ongoing harassment by the Canadian Revenue Agency over the past few years and has also had numerous encounters with the RCMP in conjunction with the CRA.
As we approached the white pickup we could see two men in dark clothing sitting in it trying to look as unobtrusive as possible. Again I said to my wife, ‘If we weren’t running so damn late I’d stop and asked them if they were lost or needed any assistance.’
As we crested the dip and passed Cottonwood Historic Site I noted that within a minute or so the white pickup was now following us. I asked my wife is she was buckled up (she was) and then I set my vehicle on cruise control at about 95 cpm. The limit was 90 kph so I knew that at least if the cops were going to stop me they wouldn’t have the excuse that I was speeding.
As we proceeded on toward Quesnel Shastah was spoon-feeding me my breakfast as I drove because we were too late for me to sit down at home and eat before leaving. I remarked to my wife that the cops were likely watching us through their binoculars and wondering what she was doing. We also were discussing the vehicle that was now so obviously tailing us. It’s always a joke for the locals around Cottonwood when the police come and try to set up either a surveillance vehicle or radar to catch unwary speeders. The cops never seem to understand that when you live in a very small, tight-knit community that everyone in the area is very aware of who drives what type of vehicle and when they see a vehicle parked on the side of the highway with people sitting in it they know right away that they’re either broke down or else cops.
We continued along the highway talking about cops and related issues until we reached the top of 11 Mile Hill. When one begins to descend you are overlooking the Fraser Valley viewshed and can see westward for over a hundred kilometres. About half way down I noted that a regular white coloured RCMP van with the usual bells and whistles was now directly behind the white pickup. At the same time, due to the steep grade of the hill, I was also watching my own speedometer to make sure I didn’t begin coasting beyond the 100 km speed limit. As we neared the bottom of the hill the RCMP van’s lights came on. I told Shastah and proceeded to slow down and pull over on the right hand side of the highway just where the road levelled off.
I asked my wife to open the glove box and get the vehicle insurance out. At the same time I reached for my wallet in order to get my driver’s license ready to show the police.
By the time we did these two tasks more police vehicles arrived and there were suddenly four or more of them along the side of the highway. I rolled down my window and in the rear view mirror could see three or more officers approaching the rear of the truck. One of them called out to me by name saying ‘Mr. Topham, would you get out of the vehicle and come to the rear of the vehicle.’ Knowing that I was driving my business partner’s 2009 Chev Silverado and wasn’t registered to me, I knew immediately that these officers were not not just stopping me on a whim or that they didn’t know who they had been following. I called out of my window, ‘Do you want to see my driver’s license. One officer, who I realized later was the leader of the pack (Terry Wilson), repeated his command that I get out of the vehicle and again I asked him if I should bring my license to which he answered in the affirmative.
Leaving Shastah inside I got out and walked to the rear of the truck. I was immediately approached by an officer who I assumed was in charge. He introduced himself as Terry Wilson and then told me that I was being placed under arrest. Immediately following that another young male officer came up to me on my left carrying a clipboard in hand and told me that he was going to read me the charge and then proceeded to state, ‘there are reasonable grounds for believing that the following offences have been committed: ‘Wilful Promotion of Hatred contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.’
He then asked me if I heard and understood what the charges were and in the same breath also said that I had the right to remain silent and that anything I said could and would be used against me. I told him and the rest of the cops standing around that they had no right to be charging me with said crime and their alleged ‘hate’ crime was nothing but more bogus charges likely brought on by Agent Z and B’nai Brith Canada and that this whole charade was nothing more that an extension of the Section 13 complaint charge that Agent Z had filed against me back in 2007. Meanwhile Wilson and his crew were all standing by with their trusty little digital voice recorders going.
After my little rant I acknowledged that I understood the charges even though I disagreed with them and the Terry Wilson proceeded to tell me to turn around and place my hands on the back of the truck so that he could handcuff and frisk me. When I turned around I noted that other officers, including a female one, had gone to and were talking with my wife Shastah on the passenger side of the vehicle.
When I realized that they were going to haul me off to jail I told Wilson that I would like to leave my personal effects that I had on me with my wife before he handcuffed me and he said that would be okay. I emptied my pockets of cash, keys, a memory stick that had on it a jpg of a Cariboo Placers Mining and Exploration Co business card that I had recently designed and was planning on taking to the printer in Quesnel. Wilson immediately grabbed it and asked what I had on it. I told him but I could sense that he already had it in his mind that possibly he had in his possession some incriminating evidence to back up the phoney charges and he held on to it. I also removed a small Swiss Army pen knife, diamond grit knife sharpener, lighter and then my regular Swiss Army knife which I was carrying in a leather case on my belt. I also removed my wrist watch and laid all of these articles on the retractable cover that was over the box of the truck.
After placing all of my personal effects on the deck cover I put my arms behind my back while Wilson did his thing and placed some plastic cuffs on me. All the while his manner and that of the other arresting officers was civil and congenial and ‘friendly’ to the point of being extreme. They addressed me as ‘Mr. Topham’ and then asked me if I preferred to be addressed as either ‘Mr. Topham’ or ‘Arthur.’ I told them that Arthur was fine.
After Wilson fastened the handcuffs on me I asked him if I could go around the truck and speak to my wife before they took me away. He said that would be okay and then when I went to move another officer came up and held my arm when I began to walk saying that I should be careful not to fall down. I had to laugh to myself at their overly feigned concern for my physical welfare given that I normally am out either in the bush or on my mining claims where I’m climbing over logs or boulders. When I approached Shastah I told her that they had arrested me and were going to take me into town to jail and that she should come to the back of the truck and get my personal belongings. At this point my wife had a look of incredulity on her face and looked at the officers standing around her and said something to the effect, ‘Are you guys serious? You’re going to arrest my husband?’ She was obviously becoming quite distraught. I told her that she would have to drive the truck when they took me away. She was unfamiliar with it as we had just acquired it as part of the business venture that we were in. She got out of the vehicle and came around to the rear where I had placed my personal effects and began putting them in a plastic bag. I then asked her to give me a kiss good bye as I had no idea of how long we might be separated from each other.
Wilson then told me that he would be taking me in to the Quesnel RCMP station and then two young officers held me and steered me toward a smaller, unmarked police vehicle. As we walked along the shoulder of the highway the female cop on my left introduced herself to me saying that her name was Normandie Levas and jokingly remarked that she was the better looking of the lot and that she would assist me in getting into the vehicle with the handcuffs so I didn’t have any trouble. They placed me in the back seat on the passenger side and then the two of them got in and proceeded to drive toward Quesnel with Normandie Levas driving. The female cop placed her digital voice recorder on the divider between the two seats and repeated to me that I was being recorded and then proceeded to elicit conversation from me. Having already told me first off that she was the better looking, attractive cop I jokingly commented to her that little good would it do me as there was no way I could even grope her with my hands behind my back.
It was about a 15 minute drive to the Quesnel police station and as we drove along the two cops got into talking about one thing or another. Again, Normandie Levas asked me if I preferred to be called ‘Arthur’ or ‘Mr. Topham’ and I told her the story about how I had been a school teacher for a number of years and that I had grown tired of hearing ‘Mr. Topham’ ‘Mr. Topham’ all the time from the children that I taught. She asked me what grades I had worked with and I told her that I mainly worked in the elementary level although I had later subbed in the high schools in Quesnel. I also described to her how I had started out my teaching career working in the federal Indian Day School system and from there moved to Wells, B.C. back in 1975 and had since lived in the area for the greater portion of the last forty years.
At one point while we were travelling down the highway I noted that Normandie was speeding well beyond the limit which was max. 90 km and I told her and she slowed down. The conversation turned to gold mining and I asked them if they were aware of the tv series called Gold Rush Alaska and they intimated that they were. I then proceeded to tell them about a local placer miner who was doing very well and was planning to start a made in BC version of a tv series similar to Gold Rush Alaska and that I’d just watched a trailer for it. The BC version was called ‘Gold Diggers.’ I jokingly told them that maybe I could get them parts in the new upcoming drama and the male cop said that he had always wanted to be a movie star. I laughed and said that he would be better off being an honest cop rather than getting involved with Hollywood as it was run by the Jews and he’d eventually have to sell his soul to the Devil if he got caught up in it. Neither of the two cops reacted outwardly to my remark but I was certain they were thinking that they had got a juicy bit of racist hate mongering against the Jews regardless of the fact that what I had said was the truth.
When we arrived at the station and Normandie pulled in to the parking lot at the rear where all the cop cars were parked I asked her if they were going to put a hood over my head so that the local folks wouldn’t see them marching me into jail with handcuffs on. I was of course being facetious but she then turned around the car and proceeded to drive it into the building itself where a door was opened and we entered in. The two cops got out and Normandie then proceeded to remove her gun from her side and placed it in a box outside the door leading into the station. When she did so I noted that a digital clock on the box read: 12:12 p.m.
I was then escorted into the station and led to the booking desk where I saw Terry Wilson standing in the hallway waiting for me. A young cop inside the office came up with a form in his hand to fill out and for me to sign regarding my personal effects and as he approached me asked me how I was. I thought to myself, ‘Do they really expect you to give them an honest answer given the circumstances?’ and then remarked something to that effect. Terry Wilson then proceeded to ask me some questions about whether or not my home was locked or was wired with any explosive devices or if I had any firearms? I told him, facetiously, to watch out for the ‘grow op’ and that yes, I did have firearms in my home and that two of them were loaded (a Marlin 22 and a Winchester 30-30) and in my bedroom and he should be careful. I also told him that I had two other unloaded rifles upstairs, a 22 calibre and a 30-30 Winchester.
It was at this point that he told me he was going to frisk me again before putting me in a cell and that I should remove me belt and my suspenders and my shoes. I said yes, I guess I’d better remove my suspenders so I couldn’t hang myself while in jail by ‘suspending’ myself from the ceiling!
I then signed the form for my belongings and we proceeded to the jail cell with me walking in my stockinged feet. Wilson said that it would likely be two or three hours before I heard from him and also asked me if I had a lawyer that wished to call. When I mentioned Douglas Christie Wilson said that he knew Doug and would call him. He acted as if he and Doug were old high school buddies but then I thought to myself that yes, being in the ‘hate’ business I’m sure that he would be aware of Mr. Christie. It was about 12:20 p.m. when I was placed in a cell and the door locked. Wilson said he’d come and get me if he could get in contact with Mr. Christie.
Not too long afterwards Wilson came and opened the door and asked me to go down the hall to a small room where there was a seat and a phone hanging on the wall. He said he had got a hold of Mr. Christie and that when Doug called that a staff person in the office would re-direct the call to the phone in the room and that I would then be able to speak to Mr. Christie in confidence. I just smiled at Wilson when he said this knowing how the system works. I waited in the room and then the call finally came through and I spoke to Doug Christie. He advised me not to tell the police any more that I had to and that he would monitor the situation. I briefly explained what took place and then let the cops know I was done and they escorted me back to the jail cell.
I remained incarcerated throughout the afternoon and into the evening. One one occasion Wilson came again to the cell and got me to go and speak with Mr. Christie who had told me that he would be concerned if I was still being held after a few hours and not released. I didn’t realize at the time that Wilson was telling me it would be just a couple of more hours that the search warrant was for 1700 hours to 2100 hours and that I wouldn’t be released until after they had completed their search of my home.
Around 5 or 6 p.m. someone came by and opened a slot in the door and placed a tray on it with what appeared to be food and drink. They then hit the door with what sounded like a dog chain and left. No voice to say a meal was there. I stared at the tray and thought to myself that there was no way in hell I would accept food under these circumstances. I began to reflect that just a day or so before I was reading about a massive hunger strike that has been going on in Israel where thousands of Palestinians were being held in jail for upwards of years without having been charged with anything. There had been a world-wide call for solidarity with the hunger strikers, their conditions being extremely worse than mine, and so I said to myself that I would fast in solidarity with these political prisoners of the apartheid, Jews-only state of Israel rather than eat upon command. About a half an hour later another shadowy figure walked past the door and hit it again with the chain presumably to remind me that there was food on the tray. No human voice just the sound of metal on metal.
Later on when Wilson returned he asked me why I hadn’t eaten any of the food and I told him about the Palestinians and how I was fasting with them in solidarity. I doubt whether he knew what I was talking about and he said that if there was something else I might like to eat that he would try and get it for me. I hadn’t looked at what was on the plate so I didn’t know what it was. The styrofoam cup likely had coffee or juice in it.
Eventually around 10 p.m or later Wilson finally arrived and I was let out of the cell. He told me that he would be taking me upstairs to an office where my personal belongings would be returned and where we would be having a discussion regarding the charges that would be, of course, digitally recorded. At no point in our conversation did Wilson indicate that our conversations were being video taped. As I was emerging from the cell I looked Wilson in the eyes and asked him just what the charges were. He said that I was being charged for publishing ‘hatred toward the Jewish population.’
He also told me that even though I was now out of the cell that I was still considered to be under arrest. I proceeded barefoot upstairs to a small office and sat down. Wilson then laid his digital voice recorder on the desk and left the room for about three to five minutes without telling me where he was going. When he returned he gave me copies of the Search Warrant, the Undertaking Given to a Peace Officer or an Officer In Charge which contained the alleged offence of ‘Wilful Promotion of Hatred’ under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code occurring in ‘Quesnel, BC’ from April 28, 2011 to May 14, 2012 plus a ‘PROMISE TO APPEAR’ document. I informed Wilson at that point that my council had instructed me not to sign any documents and he was fine with that.
Wilson then began his attempt to initiate conversation with me. I had been instructed by my council not to engage in any discussions but I failed in that regard when Wilson began talking about how he had been reading the materials on my website RadicalPress.com over the course of the past year and longer and that he had concluded, based upon particular articles,that it was indeed a ‘hate’ site. I countered his remark by stating to Wilson that possibly in his mind he felt it was a ‘hate’ site but that was pure speculation on his part for the alleged complaint by Agent Z and Agent Y was far from substantiated nor was it determined yet by a court of law at this point. He then went on to compliment me on my writing abilities saying that I was a very good writer but immediately launched into the same old standard arguments used by the Jewish Zionists making mention of the fact that I had on my website articles by Eustice Mullins plus the the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Surely, he remarked, I must know that that small booklet was just a work of fiction designed to implicate the Jews in crimes for which they were innocent. I replied that whether the work was fictitious or not it now stands as a roadmap of the 20th Century clearly delineating the proposed agenda for the Zionists and that the record of events shown throughout that period were solid evidence that the booklet was a preconceived agenda for global hegemony on the part of the Rothschild/Zionist Internationalists. I told Wilson that anyone who had seriously studied 20 century world history (and here I made a point of stressing that I was referring to history written by those who were not pushing the Zionist version of history as it is found in the mainstream media) could easily see that the all the major pieces of the puzzle fell into place in terms of understanding how the Protocols, in fact, outline what the Zionist Jews planned to do in order to gain absolute control over the media, the economy, the judicial system and the political and social structures that comprise the framework upon which the world’s democratic system is based. I could see that Wilson was struggling with the notion of differing versions of history as opposed to just one.
Wilson then brought up the subject of an article which I had posted on my site titled, Israel Must Perish! He began to tell me how it was an extremely hateful piece of writing and that he wondered why I had written and published such a hate-filled book. I had to laugh aloud (and I did). At the same moment I also thought to myself, ‘This person is supposed to be the head honcho in charge of determining what is and isn’t to be determined ‘hate’ literature and he doesn’t have a clue what is going on here.’ When he said, in a matter of fact tone that I had gone to the trouble of actually publishing this book and posting it on my website I told him that he had the whole thing wrong. I had NOT written such a book. The truth of the matter was that all the vile, hateful statements contained in the supposed book which he thought I had written were, IN FACT, verbatim, direct quotations from a real, actual book written by a Zionist Jew by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman and published in the United States of America back in 1941. The original book was called GERMANY MUST PERISH! and I had taken this booklet and written a parody of it in order to enlighten the public as to who the real perpetrators of supposed ‘hate literature’ were. I don’t think that Wilson understood what a ‘parody’ was and I could also see that he was having trouble understanding what I was explaining to him. I had the distinct impression that he was not happy with the fact that the one article which he apparently felt was conclusive proof that I was publishing ‘hatred toward the Jewish population’ was, in fact, merely a poignant example of their own style of writing being turned upon itself in the form of an imitation in order to highlight their utter malfeasance when it came to denigrating the German people. It was also quite evident to me that the choices of articles which Wilson had used in his interrogation had been supplied to him by Agent Z and Agent Y as absolute examples of ‘hatred’.
Wilson kept on going on about other materials but I was done with any further discussion and told him so. He then asked me how my experience in jail was and whether or not I was satisfied that I had been treated well. I said that I felt I was generally treated in a respectful manner with one exception. Oh he said and what was that. I then point-blank asked him whether or not he wiped his ass after taking a shit. He looked a bit taken aback but replied that he did. Why then did he put me in a cell for close to twelve hours without providing me with the basic necessity of toilet paper so that in the event I had a bowel movement that I could at least wipe myself? Did he expect me to take a crap on camera and then attempt to wash my ass in the little stainless steel sink that was provided and afterwards use my T-shirt to dry my hands? His response was that I could have called out to a guard or the jail keeper down the hall if I was in need of having a crap and that they would then provide me with the necessary accoutrement for the job. I told him that he should have informed me of this process prior to locking me up and leaving me without the bare essentials to attend to any toileting that might arise. Wilson had no further comments to make and then an attendant arrived with my personal belongings and after putting my belt back on Wilson walked with me down to the front entrance of the police station where he let me out the front door. There waiting for me was my dear, distraught wife Shastah.

{ Add a Comment }

Who are the original creators of ‘Hate Crimes’ and Hate Crime laws? by Arthur Topham

Dear Readers and Free Speech Advocates,
I’m writing on the eve of the first anniversary of my arrest and incarceration last May 16th, 2012 by the B.C. ‘Hate Crime Team’ when I was charged under sec. 319(2) of the criminal code of Canada with the crime of ‘willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.’’
The two complaints that led to my being charged under this specious act were laid against me by a B.C. representative of B’nai Brith Canada and a serial complainant in numerous other cases involving ‘hate crimes’ who’s also a sycophantic toadie of the Jewish lobby here in Canada
Since that time I’ve been immersed in a legal battle with the B.C. courts because of this trumped-up charge.
On May 16th I must again appear in court to deal with more matters related to my current attempts to find myself a new legal counsel to assist me in having this spurious charge tossed out and the case dismissed. I will be providing a further legal update following tomorrow’s events but for now I wish to remind readers once again of just who the real purveyors of so-called ‘hate’ truly are and how long they’ve been carrying on this charade in order to cover up their own actions over the past century and longer.
One of the biggest beefs that both these two charlatans had with my website, which subsequently became perfectly clear to me when the arresting officer Det. Cpl. Terry Wilson was talking to me while I was in jail, (and which I subsequently noted in my Arrest Statement to my former lawyer, Doug Christie) was the issue of an article that I had posted on my site dealing with the 1941 book Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann.
I had written a satirical parody of Kaufmann’s book back in May of 2011 and titled it ‘Israel Must Perish!’ and took some of the more juicy, hate-filled quotations out of it and substituted the words ‘Nazi’ and ‘Germany’ and ‘Hitler’ and a few other German words with synonymous Jewish words like ‘Jews’ and ‘Israel’ and ‘Netanyahu’, etc. in order to highlight the hypocrisy of the Jews in daring to accuse the western world of being eternal haters of the poor, downtrodden Jews throughout history.
Somewhere, in the shallowness of their conniving, degenerate minds, they figured that this parody/satire would somehow stand up in a court of law and prove to the world that I, rather than them, was the real disseminator of so-called ‘hatred’ and ought to be treated like a common criminal, found guilty, tossed into jail, and to have my rights and freedoms as a Canadian citizen removed from me.
For the record I want readers to know about this classic of Jewish hate literature and thus I’m republishing here my Introduction to the original article plus the url to the original book of Kaufmann’s so that people can go and look at the abhorrent mind that first created this ugly and obscene proposal for the complete and total annihilation of the German people.
What readers must also realize is what is printed on the back cover of Kaufmann’s book as shown in the graphic below. Three of most revered U.S. publications still operating today, and all Jewish owned, were promoting Kaufmann’s book back in 1941 in order to turn the American public away from decency, justice and truth and twist their perceptions of Germany and Adolf Hitler into the same grotesque mindset that conjured up this classic demonic-inspired book; one openly advocating the total extinction of the German people.
And these are the same folks who are desperately trying to subvert every democratic nation in the world into obeying their ‘hate crime’ legislation that they’ve surreptitiously slipped into the statutes of former free nations via lobbying and pressuring and intimidating politicians of every stripe.
Now that folks is what I call chutzpah.
Please try to pass this article on to every free speech lover that you can. The Canadian public and the world at large needs to know just who the real, originators of these ‘hate crime’ laws are.
Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press.
———————-
The Book that Hitler Fears
Germany Must Perish!
by Theodore N. Kaufman
Newark, N.J., Argyle press
Copyright 1941
RadicalPress Editor’s Introduction [from original post]:
Seventy-two years have now passed since Theodore N. Kaufman published his infamous, hate-infused book, Germany Must Perish! Over the course of these last seven decades the Zionist Jews have been working relentlessly to create in every democratic nation so-called ‘Human Rights’ legislation that would contain special sections dealing with ‘hate crimes,’ the type of which they themselves obviously had perfected back before the USA had even entered WWII.
Here in Canada, in the mid-1970s, the Jewish lobby began in earnest their surreptitious efforts to silence Canadians by working through Ontario’s then Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan. Callaghan, obviously pressured by Jewish groups who wanted to silence one of their critics, John Ross Taylor, began lobbying the Federal Department of Justice demanding the inclusion of speech-restricting legislation that removed the need for ‘willfulness’ or fair comment based on public interest. ( See the following site for the full history of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html )
According to Marc Lemire’s history of Section 13, ‘In 1976, the Federal Government was looking at a larger Act for employment issues and the provision of federally regulated services.’ This Act eventually would end up with the innocuous sounding name: the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although no other section of the Human Rights Act covered speech, it was not a problem for the Federal government to capitulate [to the Jewish lobby. Ed.] and slip in an extra section to satisfy Ontario’s Attorney General’s lust to silence John Ross Taylor and his home-based answering machine.’
In 1977 Bill C-25 or the ‘Canadian Human Rights Act’ was passed by the House of Commons on July 14th. Contained within it under the sub-title of ‘Hate messages’ was Section 13 which read:
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
As Lemire goes on to state:
‘Only a few years after the law was enacted, Mr. Callaghan finally got his wish and John Ross Taylor became its first victim, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself and several professional Jewish groups [Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association and the Toronto Zionist Council. Ed.] as the complainants.
Since the law was first enacted, two major changes were made to Section 13. These changes fundamentally shifted the original intent of the legislation, and turned Section 13 into an instrument to financially and morally punish those with politically incorrect views.
The first change to the legislation occurred on May 15, 1998, when Royal Accent was given to Bill S-5 (1998), which added a new penalty provision to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill S-5 added Section 54 to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and allows the Human Rights Tribunal to impose a financial penalty of up to $10,000. On top of the fines, Section 54 also gave the fanatical Tribunal the ability to impose penalties of up to $20,000 as so-called ‘special compensation.’
According to the background section of Bill S-5, these penalties were added ‘as a response to the rising incidence of hate crimes around the world. The government believes that stronger measures are needed to deter individuals and organizations from establishing hate lines. It hopes to accomplish this by allowing victims of such lines to apply for compensation and subjecting offenders to financial penalty.’
The second change occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Sadly, this legislation equated non-violent politically incorrect words which are covered by Section 13 with terrorism and concerns of national security. Under the guise of Bill C-36 Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, Section 13 was expanded to cover ‘a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet.’ This change, gave the power to Canadian Human Rights Commission to censor the internet and harass Canadians with views that the Rights Fanatics disagree with. [Emphasis added. Ed.]
This change was made according to Preamble of Bill C-36 to allegedly ‘combat terrorism.’’
It is assumed that the reader will already be fully cognizant of the Zionist agenda for global governance that is a given in today’s political reality, especially within the alternative media and on the Internet where Zionist ‘hate’ laws are still not fully in place to restrict the natural flow of ideas and opinions that proceed from historical research and experience.
In 1941 Kaufman’s book was a brilliant piece of Zionist Jew propaganda designed to stir up anti-German hatred in America. Some say that it formed the basis of the infamous ‘Morgenthau Plan’ that was later signed in Quebec, Canada by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill; one designed to dismember Germany after its defeat and reduce it to the status of ‘a goat pasture.’ It probably remains to this day the foremost example of hate literature ever to have been published and dispensed to the general public.
As the reader will surmise from viewing the image of the back page of Kaufman’s book (see above) some of America’s most prestigious newspapers and magazines were in full support of the objectives set down in this classic book of Jewish hate literature.
I firmly believe that all of what the Zionist Jews write about others is actually but a reflection of their own inner, perverse, dislocated self. By projecting outward on to others their innate paranoid and deep-seated hatred for the rest of the world they’re able to meet the requirements of the Israeli state’s motto which reads, ‘By Way of Deception Though Shalt Cause War’ and feel a sense of superiority and self-righteousness in doing so.

{ Add a Comment }

Hydraulic Fracturing [‘Fracking’] Worldwide by Robin Mathews

Hydraulic Fracturing [‘Fracking’] Worldwide.
Jessica Ernst of Rosebud, Alberta. Encana Corporation. Market Manipulation. Derivative Bubbles and The Fracking Wars.
By Robin Mathews
[email protected]
April 26, 2013
They merge. They interpenetrate. The thread of one weaves into the fabric of the others. ‘Fracking’ operations rush past law, past regulation, past health and environmental concerns. Supporters of ‘quick cash’, gas ‘futures’ pass corporate-written law to silence land-owners, elected councils, voters … you and me.
Narrowly ‘fracking’ legislation and regulatory behaviour push aside, silence anyone questioning a dangerous procedure. Broadly they strip away the Rule of Law, disenfranchise populations, ‘despotize’ governments.
In Alberta, Stephen Harper, Alison Redford, Encana Corporation, the newly appointed Alberta Regulator Gerard Protti (enforcing newly written law), and so far The Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Neil Wittmann all merge … interpenetrate to hold off remedial action to create toxic law, toxic wealth, toxic environment.
People waken worldwide and begin to battle corporations, ‘regulators’, police forces, legislatures, courts the dominators determined to engage in ‘unconventional drilling’ (hydraulic fracturing, ‘fracking’). Conflict on the subject continues. France (2011) Bulgaria (2012), and Tunisia have banned hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’). It continues in Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, the U.S.A., and more.
Hydraulic Fracturing is the intensive assault on shale, and coal beds, through multiple well bores (often invading water tables) to release marketable gas. ‘Fracking’ uses giant amounts of sand, water, toxic chemical-mixes near the surface or miles down to fracture strata ‘fracking’ for marketable gas.
FrackinWomen
Said to be ‘old hat’ (sixty years old), present hydraulic fracturing to release marketable natural gas has new aspects and possesses multiple knowns and unknowns. Hyper-industrialization of agrarian sites: outcomes unknown. Increased earthquake activity: recorded. Unforeseen ‘leak gas’ explosions: recorded. Increased cancer incidence close to oil and gas wells: measured. Ground water sources polluted: common, but extent and health effects unknown. Water Tables lowered: unpredictable but occurring. ‘Migration’/leaks of gases over time: unpredictable but certain and increasingly frequent. Toxic effects on water, soil, animal life, human health: certain, unregulated, largely unresearched, information repressed.
FarmerLady
The commonly named ‘radioactive threat’ is only now starting to be researched. A. Rich, E.C. Crosby, University of Texas [New Solutions, Vol. 23 (1), 117-135, 2013] reveal (in layman’s language) that a cocktail of radioactive agents are set free especially by ‘unconventional’ (‘fracking’) gas operations. Radioactive agents are found in depositories [sludge storage, waste pits, storage pools] AND in the land no longer used for those purposes.
‘Out of Control: Nova Scotia’s Experience with Fracking for Shale Gas’, Report Summary, April 2013’ reports that from the few test wells undertaken radioactive materials were found to be present ‘only several years after drilling and disposal of some of the waste….’ (p. 4)
Jessica Ernst (Rosebud, Alberta) reports that sludge from fracking operations is spread on agricultural lands in Alberta.
JessicaErnstRosebud
In Alberta, (using Joyce Nelson’s words) ‘the government has introduced draconian legislation (Bill 2) that would strip landowners and others of their right to object to any energy project that would adversely and directly affect them.’ (Watershed Sentinel, Jan-Feb, 2013) The determined action envisioned in Bill 2 is doubtless a response to Jessica Ernst’s $33 million lawsuit against Encana Corporation and Alberta’s regulator. And so one may conclude is the switching of judges on her case. And so is, one may conclude, (what I would call) the concerted delay engaged in by Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, Neil Wittmann. He is the highly dubious present judge on the Jessica Ernst case.
Something is seriously wrong in Canada. And globally. Evidence is mounting of real, multiple dangers in hydraulic fracturing. Legislatures should be restraining, researching, proving, regulating … preventing … at high speed. But legislatures, joining with corporations, courts, security forces are often deregulating, erasing evidence, punishing protesters, repressing criticism.
The whole operation world-wide is so dangerous, so untested, so irresponsible, so despotic, that reasons have to be available for largely unresearched, unregulated hydraulic fracturing in the face of its perils.
And reasons are available.
First. Think of Wiebo Ludwig (1941-2012) of Trickle Creek farm, Peace River, Alberta, fighting ‘Sour Gas’ fracking. Sour gas ‘a potent neurotoxin, has left a legacy of death and destruction….’ (Andrew Nikiforuk). Think of the attacks on Sour Gas operations around Trickle Creek. Think of the millions of dollars spent to investigate the attacks on Sour Gas fracking around Trickle Creek.

SourGaspic600 3
Think of the threats and attacks in B.C. near Chetwyn against Encana Corporation operations and the millions of dollars spent to investigate.
Think of the RCMP/Encana Corporation, alleged to have created a ‘false flag’ and blowing up an Encana well site to spur on distress no charges laid. Then think of the millions of dollars spent to investigate, charge, jail, and reinvestigate Wiebo Ludwig. One example of many: ‘RCMP conducted a four-day [fruitless] search of Trickle Creek (2010) involving over a hundred RCMP officers.’ (Wikipedia)
Think of Wiebo Ludwig (but do not speak of him). Think of him driven to desperation by Sour Gas fracking. (But do not speak of him.) Think of his repeated (unanswered) pleas to Alberta government for regulation, for research, inquiry, and investigation of hydraulic fracturing. (But do not speak of him or risk being accused of sympathizing with lawlessness, terrorist activity.)
Who will speak of the terrorism of Alison Redford, Stephen Harper, Encana Corporation, Gerard Protti and the Alberta Regulators, legislators of Alberta, and so far of Neil Wittmann, Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench in openly, or tacitly, or passively accepting and/or furthering what many believe is a ruthless attack on the health, the well-being, the security, the privacy, the property, and the reasonable tranquility of honest, law-abiding, innocent Albertans?
JessicaFirewaterUntitled
Alberta may be seen as a poster-location for the kinds of violation named above. But in various ways such invasions are happening widely on the planet. And there is a reason.
LSE professor Lord (Nicholas) Stern and thinktank Carbon Tracker state in a recent Report noted by Damian Carrington in The Guardian (Apr. 19, 2013) that instead of ‘reducing efforts to develop fossil fuels, the top 200 companies spent $674bn…in 2012 to find and exploit more….’ That is about the sum named in a 2006 report that would ‘pay for a transition to a clean and sustainable economy’.
Stock markets ‘are betting on countries’ inaction on climate change’, the Report says. Stock markets are creating a Carbon Bubble not unlike the massive mortgage/derivatives/fake credit scandal of 2008. ‘If all goes well’ I say countries will insist on internationally agreed Climate Change targets, and the ‘Carbon Bubble’ will burst because of over-valuation of oil, coal, and gas reserves held by fossil fuel companies. If all does not go well Climate Change will ramp up beyond control.
It may be fair to say the same kinds of ‘investors’ are engaged in the present Carbon Bubble as were engaged in the 2008 blow-up … criminally irresponsible people willing to cause any kinds of destruction in their drive for wealth. The whole fossil fuels Bubble is being driven by greed … by big, irresponsible money.
To meet only present agreed Climate Change targets, it is estimated that at least two-thirds of present so-called fossil fuel ‘reserves’ will have to remain unexploited. But … instead of diminishing the push presently going on for hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’), it will probably intensify the push. As long as the pollutions created by hydraulic fracturing, by the huge environmental disruptions involved in its activities, and by the waste dumps it creates as long as they aren’t registered by the present ‘Climate Change/global warming’ regulation machineries, the obviously destructive and dirty activity will be called ‘clean’.
Pumps&Swings
(But science knows the methane gas leaking and leaking into the environment (almost unmeasured and unrecorded) from oil and gas operations is a potent climate changer! Methane is said to be 25 times more potent in relation to Climate Change than carbon dioxide. Who will bell the leaking methane cat?)
Redneck and Redford governments in Ottawa and Alberta (and elsewhere in the world) will attempt to criminalize any who resist ‘unconventional gas drilling’ (‘fracking’). They will provide aid and comfort to corporations like Encana Corporation, and they will work to undermine courts seeking just adjudication of disputes about injury done from hydraulic fracturing. They will do what they can to push for Liquid Natural Gas pipelines hoping that a Climate Change clampdown on conventional extractions will raise prices on Hydraulically Fractured Gas.
Here is huge field for environmentalists, many of whom are already engaged in the gigantic task of revealing that however it may (or may not) register on Climate Change measuring devices the pollution from unconventional gas drilling (hydraulic fracturing, ‘fracking’) is a very, very Dirty Wildcat. Out of (seemingly) nowhere, in the last twenty years at most, one of the dirtiest ‘mining’ operations in history has come into play and into visibility.
The more governments like the Redneck government in Ottawa and the Redford government in Alberta are absorbed into private corporate operations and dictated to by those corporations, the more they will resist just demands by citizens and populations for regulation.
The fight is worth it. The outcome certain. People all over the globe will not, ultimately, permit huge corporations and huge governments to desecrate the planet. ‘The bigger they are’, remember, ‘the harder they fall.’

{ Add a Comment }

Chavez predicts the ‘end of the US empire’

Chavez predicts the ‘end of the US empire’
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said that he will increase support for Cuba and suggested United States prepare ‘its own transition plan because this century the American empire will come to an end’.
Chavez made his remarks in response to Washington’s announcement of a plan for a post-Fidel Castro transition to democracy in Cuba which will ‘discourage’ third countries allegedly Venezuela from obstructing ‘the will of the Cuban people for freedom and democracy’.
‘The empire not only threatens Cuba … with its political transition plan’ but also threatens Venezuela when ‘it says that it will undertake to ‘discourage’ any third country that wants to support Cuba’s Castro regime’, said Chavez.
The George W. Bush administration ‘believes that Fidel Castro is going to die, that’s why it insists with the transition plan. I recently went to Cuba … and saw Castro looking stronger than ever: clear minded, in good spirit, working like a boy … Look out, if Fidel Castro lives past 100, God wants it to be that way’ Chavez highlighted.
Washington announced Monday that it would allocate 80 million US dollars in the next two years to hasten the end of the Castro regime in Cuba, support the opposition and anticipated economic incentives to a future transition government in Havana.
Chavez condemned the ‘obscene, immoral and genocide-prone U.S. empire’ suggesting that instead of a transition plan for Cuba ‘it should begin thinking about its own transition plan because this century the U.S. empire will come to an end’.
‘I recommend ‘Mister Danger’ (President Bush) reads Paul Kennedy’s ‘Rise and fall of the Great Powers’ to see in the mirror of history what became of great empires’.

{ Add a Comment }

The Trial of Guenter Deckert by Sylvia Stolz (English translation by Christine B. Miller)

The Trial of Guenter Deckert
By Sylvia Stolz
Translated from the German language
by Christine Miller
‘A prison sentence will not force me into believing.’
~ Guenter Deckert
‘When I have doubts I demand the right to express them …They talk about tolerance, but mean the inquisition. … The hunt to find incorrect literature pretending to fight crime. For a short time people can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but the brain continues to reason.’
Guenter Deckert1 copy
Thus spoke Guenter Deckert in his final comment at his sentencing February, 2012 in front of the state court Mannheim. The report of his trial follows.
Since January 2, 2013 Guenter has been in prison on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. We accompanied him on his journey to prison and took leave of him at the Mannheim prison gate.
We expressed our thanks for his courage and his commitment to freedom, justice and truth. We will always remember that. The day will come when the Germans and other people will appreciate his zeal.
He is supposed to be released May 2013. We will be there waiting for him starting at nine o’clock.
Address: Herzogenriedstrasse 111, 68169 Mannheim. Whoever wants to be there and greet him is cordially invited.
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.18.38 PM
The Opinion Terror
By Sylvia Stolz
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.03 PM
A prison sentence for doubting the ‘Holocaust.’
No probation for expressing one’s opinion in these times of alleged ‘right wing terror.’
In these times of the ‘resurfacing’ of right wing extremism which, without question, is due to the criminal deeds of the alleged ‘NSU’, Holocaust denial constitutes a considerable danger for public peace.
Guenter Deckert, former high school teacher, on February 2, 2012 was sentenced by the state court of Mannheim to a prison sentence of six months without probation on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. As well, because of the ‘radical’ law and in spite of high evaluations he was dismissed from his high school teaching job in November, 1988 in the State of Baden-Wuertenberg and was denied his pension.
He is charged with having cooperated in the translation into German of the book by Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz the First Gassings, Rumors and Reality (December, Castle Hill Publishers.)

Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.27 PM
CarloM300
On July 28, 2010 Guenter Deckert had been sentenced by the lower court of Weinheim to a prison term of 4 months with probation. The charges were: promotion of incitement of the public by means of Holocaust denial and defamation of the memory of the dead. (&&130 III, IV, 189 STGB-BRD. Aktenzeichen: 2Ds 503 Js 14219/08 AK 579/09).
The prosecutor appealed and on February 2, 2012 the sentence by the state court of Mannheim was increased to six months without probation. Guenter Deckert’s appeal was thrown out (Aktenzeichen: 12Ns 503 Js 14219/08)
Many people in the BRD (Germany), the BRO (Austria), Switzerland, France, Spain, Greece and other countries have been sentenced because they denied or doubted the Holocaust when defined as systematic genocide. At times very high prison sentences have been handed down. For example the sentence against lawyer Horst Mahler.
Screen Shot 2013-04-26 at 7.19.45 PM
The Holocaust is not defined
During his appeal Guenter Deckert wanted to know the concrete facts which he, according to the accusations, deliberately ignored and the truth he contested. He received no answer.
It is especially telling that the so-called ‘Holocaust’ is not legally defined (This is against the principal of the penal law). In the first trial no concrete facts as to the place of the crime, the methods of killing or other proofs, directly or indirectly presented in the findings of other trials, were presented.
Concerning his denial the court pointed to &130 section 3StGB , &6 section of the international penal law which defines genocide as being when a member of an ethnic or religious group is killed with the intent to destroy or partially destroy the whole group. According to &130 section 3StGB i.V.m &6 section VStGB people can be punished who deny that under the rule of National Socialism, without knowledge or intent of the German Reichsregierung, a Jew, by someone or another (even by a none German), had been killed with the intent to partially destroy Jewry as an ethnic and religious group.
‘Known to the court’ to be challenged’
Guenter Deckert at the beginning of his appeal made the following motion:
‘I move for the court to discuss point by point the principles on which the court rests its ‘known to the court’ facts which, since the beginning of the Seventies of the Twentieth Century, generally go under the notation ‘Holocaust.’
The court should establish if and how far the persons who are called to judge have knowledge of these ‘facts’ or only base their judgment on hearsay or secondary literature.’
Before coming to a decision about this motion the court should take into consideration the resolution by the petition caucus of the German Bundestag (upper house) Pet 12-4-07-45-5699 Deutscher Bundestag 12. election period print 12/2849.
An excerpt: During a main trial the court is duty bound to discuss those facts of which the court has taken judicial notice in order to give the accused the opportunity to contest them. In addition it has to be acknowledged that ‘known to the court’ does need to exist in perpetuity or has to remain unchanged. New information might have been gotten and new events might have happened which will bring about a different conclusion. If the accused presents such circumstances which in the past have not been mentioned or discussed the ‘known to the court’ can be challenged and new proofs concerning these facts have to be considered. In this way the accused and his defender have the possibility to counter ‘it is known to the court.’
The decision concerning ‘it is ‘known to the court’ & 244 lies therefore exclusively in the hands of the court in question and is subject to the principle of independence in respect to judges. It is also possible that in individual cases a different judgment may be the result.’
Judgment based on the media
Concerning ‘it is known to the court’ the following decisions have been made: (…)
The county court Bernau presided over by the female judge Kroh rejected the motion to discuss the principles of ‘known to the court,’ stating that the facts and the legal situation were the same. She simply gave judicial notice that during the National Socialist (NS) period, the genocide of the Jews in gas chambers located in the concentration camps happened.
The 3. Senate of the Bavarian state court rejected the motion concerning ‘the Holocaust is a fact, known to the court’ with the pronouncement that it does not have any doubts as to the reality of the Holocaust, referring to the accessible and common information in words, pictures, and sound. (decision 1/14/2011, Bay AGH II 27/09). The motion of the defense to challenge which material the senate based its certainty of ‘known to the court’ was denied citing material in newspapers, on TV, in reference and history books (decision 2/8/2011).
The judiciary degrades itself to a grotesque caricature if it bases its judgments on the media and TV. Judiciary contains the word justice. It does not deserve its name.
No actual facts
It is worthy of notice that the so-called Holocaust is not legally defined and facts are avoided. In & 130 StGB-BRD which is used to convict ‘Holocaust deniers’ the so-called Holocaust is not defined. It is not even mentioned.
The sentencing of Guenter Deckert in the first instance at the local court in Weinheim contains no determination of the crime of ‘Holocaust denial’. In other words there is no determination of the Holocaust in regard to the place of the crime, the methods of killing, the number of the dead, the time frame, the perpetrators, the bodies, no deposition taken of the witnesses, no proof of the intent by National Socialism to completely or partially exterminate the Jews. There is no determination about decisions, planes, orders or documents not even in the form of references to other judicial sentences.
In addition there is no determination of the knowledge the accused had, or is supposed to have had, or must have had, or could have had.
As long as the courts do not name the location on which the mass murder was suppose to have happened; as long as the courts do not describe how the killing was done; as long as the courts do not mention any proofs; a judgment that mass murder has occurred is not possible. The same is the case for ‘it is known to the court.’
Without submitting proof as to actual facts a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not valid.
Without the determination of what knowledge of the so-called Holocaust the accused had or could have had, the charge that he acted against his better knowledge is void.
If the above mentioned points are not addressed a sentencing for the denial of the Holocaust is arbitrary and a corruption of the law.
A defense is not possible
The refusal by the judiciary to bring up for discussion the principle of ‘it is known to the court that the holocaust happened’ makes any defense impossible. Not knowing the concrete facts on which the accusation is based emasculates the defense. The law used to sentence an accused without the defense being able to challenge ‘it is known to the court’ defeats the ends of the law.
‘The Holocaust as fact is known to the court.’ Which facts however the court knows are not stated.
For example: Dr. Martin Broszart, director for the federal Institute fuer Zeitgeschichte published the following: ‘Neither in Dachau, nor in Bergen-Belsen, nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other inmates gassed.’ (Die Zeit, 8/19/1960, p 16). On the other hand there are publications which talk about the gassings in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald. Which of the two is, according to the judiciary, ‘…known to the court?’ Is it ‘known to the court’ that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, or is it ‘… known to the court’ that nobody was gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald? Both cannot be ‘… known to the court.’
An entire event such as the so-called ‘Holocaust’ can only be undisputed (facts known to the court) when the individual events are undisputed (facts known to the court).
The history Professor Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the Institute for Contemporary History at the University of Vienna wrote the following expert opinion: ‘Substantial doubts about the trials in question have been raised by the presentation of expert opinions to national and international courts. The relentless repetition of judgments using ‘ facts known to the court,’ namely that the Jews were killed by gas in the concentration camp of Auschwitz, will not be enough on which to base sentencing in a democratic nation which is supposed to be founded on justice and right.’ (letter to the state court Vienna, 1/10/l991, AZ:26b Vr 14 184/86)
The Ruhr Nachrichten (Bochum) No. 277 (11/29/2005) printed a citation by the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon: ‘The historiography known to us about WWII and the Holocaust is a complete falsification initiated by the Americans and Zionists.’
Is the Holocaust indisputably ‘a fact known to the court’ or is it indisputably ‘a fact known to the court’ that the Holocaust is frequently challenged and therefore can not be ‘a fact known to the court?’
It is therefore illogical to call a certain alleged historical event which is frequently contested as ‘a fact known to the court’, a concept which the authorities then use to persecute and penalize the ‘deniers.’
Abuse of procedural rights
After reading the motion Guenter Deckert wanted to know what he has to accept as ‘facts known to the court.’ The prosecutor, Andreas Grossmann replied (11/14). ‘That you will find out during sentencing.’ During the sentencing however nothing was said.
The chairman, Ross, decreed to postpone the decision concerning the motion. He said: first principles have to be established. Prosecutor Grossmann remarked (January 13, 2012) that the motion only will be dealt with after the pleading. The purpose became obvious when (January 13, 2012) the motion was denied. In the meantime Guenter Deckert took up his case again. In order to show that the ‘facts are known to the court’ must be fully discussed he described in detail circumstances and facts which made him doubt the ‘Holocaust.’ For example he mentioned Dr. Benedikt Kautzky who, for seven years, was in German concentration camps among others, in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and who wrote that in no camp did he ever see a gas chamber.
The chamber denied the motion to discuss ‘facts are known to the court‘ (chairman Roos, jurors-Wolfgang W. and Helmut M.) using, among other arguments, the reason, ‘the Holocaust defined as mass killings of Jews especially in the gas chambers of the concentration camps during WWII is ‘a fact known to the court’ (January 13, 2012). The Holocaust as historical event is considering evidence beyond discussion.’
‘The facts are known to the court’ is not to be discussed because ‘the facts are known to the court’ is a circular argument incompatible with logic and beyond reason and the principles of justice.
The resolution goes on to accuse Guenter Deckert of abusing procedural rights. The need for proofs is not applicable since Guenter Deckert’s demands in that regard, during the main trial, are only designed to involve the court in order to spread his revisionist ideas. This is obvious from his presentation in which he declared that ‘facts known to the court’ needs to be discussed.
According to the court it is an abuse of the justice system when an accused, before being sentenced, tries to move the court to examine the facts of which he is accused.
The resolution furthermore implies that the chamber considers the discussion which forms the basis of the accusation as ‘court research’ to which the accused is not entitled.
The court in this resolution has obviously ignored the laws of reason.
On one hand the court looks at the motion to discuss ‘the Holocaust, a fact known to the court’ (contrary to what Guenter Deckert has said) as a move for proof, on the other hand, in contradiction to this, as a motion to obtain ‘court research’. The motion however implies neither one nor the other.
Historical facts are deliberately ignored
The resolution further states that Guenter Deckert deliberately ignores historical facts and obstinately refuses to accept the truth.
Reacting to the resolution (January 13, 2012) Guenter Deckert moved (February 2, 2012) that the chamber communicate the following:
According to the court’s knowledge ‘the ‘Holocaust’ is a fact’ in which concentration camps and gas chambers existed.
According to the court’s knowledge in what ways did additional killings take place?
According to its knowledge what were the number of victims?
According to the court’s opinion which facts of the so-called Holocaust have I ignored and accepted?
Since the prosecutor and the court have not produced any facts in regard to the accusation I cannot know which facts I supposedly ignore.
I made the motion to discuss the principles of the ‘Holocaust is a fact known to the court’ in order to be able to defend myself against the accusation of Holocaust denial. I stated in detail that the court is duty bound to discuss their determination that the ‘Holocaust is a fact known to the court.’
In addition I have pointed out that there is no concrete definition of the so-called Holocaust.
Furthermore no determination has been made about which knowledge of the so-called Holocaust I had or was supposed to have had or could have had.
In the resolution of January 13, 2012 the so-called decision does not contain any determination to the circumstances and ‘it is known to the court,’ nor are there any references.
Without defining the deed in question a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not possible.
Without determining which concrete knowledge the accused had about the so called ‘Holocaust’, or could have had, an accusation to have acted against his better knowledge is void, and therefore a sentencing for denying the truth is not possible.
What is ‘fact known to the court’
During my argument I presented facts which show that there is a need for a discussion about ‘fact known to the court.’
‘Known to the court’ are historical facts which by means of historical research are considered proven and everybody therefore without specific knowledge can inform himself from history books, encyclopedia and similar reference books (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, proof in a trial, 5. edition, Carl Heymanns publishing house, Berlin 1983, p.539.
The acceptance of ‘the fact is known to the court’ rests on the preliminary condition that the fact is not challenged (vglAlsber/Nuesse/meyer, a.a.O., p. 568.
If however in historiography the truth of an event is contested it does not become accepted knowledge just because much has been written about it and disseminated (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, a.a.O.,P. 540).
In my motion to discuss ‘the Holocaust happened is known to the court’ I cited examples of publications, especially non revisionist publications which prove that the Holocaust historiography is not in agreement, does not speak with one voice, is not unchallenged, and contradicts itself. The Holocaust therefore cannot be claimed as ‘a fact known to the court.’
A sentencing for denying the Holocaust on the basis of ‘the Holocaust is known to the court’ is therefore not possible. I made the motion not in order to spread revisionism, as maintained by the chamber, but for the simple reason that I have been accused of Holocaust denial and that I want to use my right to defend myself.
To dismiss my motion because I intended for the court to deal with ‘the Holocaust is known to the court’ is arbitrary. Before sentencing it is an essential duty and the task of the court to deal with the underlying facts.
It is factually and judicially not understandable why in a trial for Holocaust denial a motion is supposed to be abusive which is meant to bring clarity in regard to ‘a fact known to the court.’
‘Fact known to the court’ is in need of discussion
When a French historian, Jacques Baynac, a proponent of the Holocaust writes that for the existence of the Nazi gas chambers only the lack of documents, traces and other material proofs can be confirmed (Le Noveau Quotidien de Lausanne, Switzerland , September 2, l996, p.16 and September 3/l996, p.14) then this means that there is a need to discuss ‘the Holocaust is known to the court.’
Michel de Bouaerd, professor for history and dean of the faculty for the Arts and Sciences at the University of Caen (Normandy) states that the documentation concerning the Holocaust is rotten, that the documentation about the system of the German concentration camps is permeated by a mass of invented stories, relentless repetitions of falsifications, especially in regard to numbers, and confusion and generalizations (Ouest-France v. 2-3 August l986, p. 6). This again proves that there is a need to discuss ‘the Holocaust is known to the court.’
Historian Professor Ernst Nolte seconds the need for a discussion of ‘fact known to the court. ‘The testimony of witnesses rests to a large part on hearsay and mere surmises; the testimony of the few eyewitness are in part contradictory and create doubts in regard to their veracity.’
The director of the Yad Vashem memorial, Shmuel Krakowski, in the same vain states (Jerusalem Post, August 17, l986): ‘Most of the 20,000 witnesses’ testimony concerning the Holocaust are unbelievable, falsified, cannot be verified, or in other ways are not true.’
On January 13, 2012 during a pause in the proceedings (around 16:30) the chairman Ross directed the following words to me: ‘You would be surprised at the knowledge of history by the jurors.’ But judges have to make an unencumbered decision, based on their conviction which they formed during the proceedings in question (& 261 StPO). In addition ‘facts known to the court’ in order to be useable have to be introduced during the main trial in order to give the participants the opportunity to take a position.
It would therefore be useful if the members of the chamber would reveal their knowledge of history to the accused before they convict him on the basis of this knowledge.
If not it will remain obscure on which facts the members of chamber base their views. It (the Holocaust) is supposed to be a wrong removed from common categories and therefore &130 StGB is an exception to the prohibition of having a special law. (motion of cessation of the trial on account of the special law & 130 which is contrary to the German basic law. The motion was denied January 13, 2012)
Permanent misjudgment
The chamber misrepresents my motion. It considers it a motion for proof which is obvious from their choice of words. ‘The chamber is supposed to furnish proof,’ ‘makes proof unnecessary.’ ‘proof is also inadmissible,’ ‘a motion for proof is inadmissible (p.2 of the resolution).’
But it is unequivocally clear that the motion was not a motion for proof.
The motion to discuss the principle of ‘the Holocaust, a fact known to the court’ does not mean, that the Holocaust did not happen (p. 2 of the resolution), but was a motion to examine the facts on which ‘fact known to the court’ are based.
The chamber maintains that I contested ‘facts known to the court.’ The chamber is mistaken. I did not contest facts, but demanded the discussion of facts.
What is a circular argument?
A circular argument is to deny the motion for discussion of the principle of ‘fact known to the court’ with the argument that a discussion is not necessary since the Holocaust is ‘a fact known to the court.’ (p.2 of the resolution.)
The chamber misunderstands not only the meaning of a ‘circular argument,’ but also the concept of ‘an established fact known to the court.’ What is frequently contested can’t be ‘an established fact known to the court’ since ‘an established fact known to the court’ is defined as undisputed, unchallenged (see above).
It is a circular argument if I would say ‘the holocaust is not ‘a fact known to the court’ because ‘it is not known to the court.’ It is, however, not a circular argument if I say: ‘the Holocaust is not fact known to the court’ because ‘known to the court’ is equivalent to conformity and indisputability. The historiography of the Holocaust is not in conformity and is not unchallenged. The resolution stated by the chamber shows a lack of capacity to reason.
It is inconsequential if it happened or not
My motion of January 13, 2012 in which I stated that the incriminating book is scientifically correct was denied. The following reason was given: It does not matter if the book is scientifically correct. I am guilty since I assisted in the formation of the book.
It looks as if the chamber agrees with the view of the Mannheim court who convicted Ernst Zuendel. ‘It does not matter if the Holocaust did or did not take place.’ The ‘tageszeitung (February 9, 2007, p.6)’ writes about the Zuendel trial: ‘At the end the court denied all the motions with the lapidary reason (a shock to some of the antifascists among the audience): ‘It does not matter one wit if the Holocaust did or did not take place. Its denial is punishable under German law. Only this is what counts.’

It is a strange concept of justice and the law, namely, to convict somebody on account of Holocaust denial because it does not matter if or if not the Holocaust took place. It disregards all the principles underlying right and justice. The federal court promoting this view does not make it right and changes nothing.
The chamber appears to arbitrarily use a formulary in order to avoid having to bother with analyzing the arguments of the defense.
Up to now it is obvious that the chamber abuses ‘procedural rights’ with goals which have nothing to do with the trial. It feigns an interest in the truth, but uses the law for a nefarious purpose.
Even if a falsehood is repeated a thousand times, it does not turn it into the truth.
This motion was denied using as justification the argument that the court has no duty to communicate, and no duty to clarify. The motion to communicate was denied even in regard to the fairness of the trial.
Contrary to the basic law
Guenter Deckert, at the beginning of his appeal (November 14, 2012), moved to postpone the trial until the federal court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) had made a decision in so far as &130 Abs. 3 StGB conforms to the Basic Law, especially Art. 5 GG (freedom of opinion) and Art. 103 Abs. 2GG.
Doubting or contesting the Holocaust is, according to the new principles laid down by the BVerfG, not punishable (1BvR 2150/08 V. November 4, 2009).
In as far as the chamber is convinced that &130 Abs. 3StGb does not agree with the interpretation of the Basic Law concerning the ‘denial’ and the down playing of the Holocaust, the chamber should postpone the trial and await the decision of the Federal Court.
In the meantime, according to posted principles of the BVerfG, punishment for denial or down playing of the Holocaust is not congruent with Art. 5 GGand Art. 103 Abs. 2GG. This can be deduced from the decision 1BvR 2150/09 (November 4, 2009)
This decision in regard to &130 Abs. 4StGB came about on account of a Basic Law complaint by the deceased lawyer Juergen Rieger against the prohibition of a memorial march for Rudolf Hess in Wunsiedel. It contains basic principles which effect &130 Abs. 3StGB.
In the above mentioned decision the promulgated principles are not only important for &130 Abs.4StGB but also for &130 Abs. 3StGB. This can be surmised by the explanation of the 1. Senate of the BVerfG which is meant to clarify the law concerning the expression of opinions and therefore is all around binding. Due to the death of the plaintiff (Juergen Rieger) the 1. Senate did not see it to the end and did not make use of its possibility to discontinue the trial.
Opinions which doubt or contest the truth of the so-called Holocaust are, according to recently determined principles of the BVerfG, not punishable.
Special Law
The 1.Senate emphasized in the above mentioned decision that the prohibition concerning a special law has to be universally valid and has to extend to all opinion limiting laws (Abs.- Nr.63).
It states that a special law is indicated if it leads to a connection with an opinion limiting law concerning ‘certain historical interpretation of events.’ That definitely applies to &130 Abs. 3 StGB.
The Senate of the BVerfG determined that special laws are laws which do not limit the freedom of opinion concerning historical reigns of terror, but only limit themselves to a reign of terror of a special kind; explicitly named is the National Socialist regime.
Since Art, 5Abs. 2GG does not allow for special laws concerning the limitation of freedom of opinion, but only general laws, special laws are not in agreement with the Basic Law.
For this reason the 1.Senate of the BVerfG determined &130Abs. 4StGB to be a special law as an exception which is nevertheless in agreement with Art. 5 Abs. 1 and 2 GG, since & 4StGB puts limits on the approval of the historical National Socialist reign of terror and despotism (lead sentence Nr. 1), but does not penalize anybody who minimizes the ideology of National Socialism or has an objectionable historical interpretation of that time.
Denial is not punishable
The 1. Senate considers &130 Abs.4 StGB, in spite of it being a special law, in agreement with the basic law since its judicial value is similar to &140 StGB which heavily punishes anybody who rewards or approves certain factual events (Abs.-Nr. 82). In this way it demarcates &130 Abs. 4 from &130 Abs 3 StGB in as far as &130 Abs. 3StGB, contrary to &130 Abs. 4 StGB, penalizes not only approbation, but also denial or disparagement.
The 1 Senate of the BVerfG emphasized that &139 Abs. 4StGB as special law can not be based on the right to personal honor according to Art. 5 Abs. 2 alternative 3GG referring here to the dignity of the victims. In regard to the general public the requirement of opinion limiting laws according to Art. 5 Abs. 2 alternative 1 GG extends to the protection of honor. Therefore the same is valid for & 130 Abs. 3StGB. Since this is a special law it can not be based on the right to personal honor or the personal dignity of the victims in as far as it extends to the punishment on account of denial or diminishment.
The 1 Senate in its decision states that it is ‘critical’ of the literature dealing with penalties concerning the disturbance of the public peace and refers among others to the BGH judge and StGB commentator Thomas Fischer (Abs.-Nr 93). The Senate unequivocally states that the expression ‘Public Peace’ meaning interests worth protecting has to apply universally to rules in regard to offensive opinions. It makes a point to emphasize that the paragraph: ‘incitement of the public’ (&130 Abs. 1 to 3 StGB’ (Abs.-Nr. 78) also covers the other infractions.
In reference to the protection of the public peace &130 Abs. 4 StGB also contained in &130 Abs. 3StGB the 1. Senate of the BVerfG declared following:
‘The concept of public peace which intends to protect the citizens from being confronted with provocative opinions and ideologies does not justify the interference with the freedom of opinion even if the consequences might be dangerous and even if they propose a radical change of the present valid order. A free nation has to be able to cope with freedom of opinion. To protect the citizens from having their feeling for peace and harmony disturbed, or the poisoning of the mental climate, or a wrong interpretation of history does not justify an intervention.’ (Abs.-Nr.77)
In as far as &130 Abs. StGB penalizes the down playing or denial of the so-called ‘Holocaust’ it does not support a basis to threaten punishment. It is therefore dissimilar to &130 Abs.4 StGB which penalizes the APPROVAL of criminal offenses.
According to & 130 Abs. 3 StGb, not only the approval and approbation, but also the denial and downplaying should be punishable, is not congruent with the Basic Law.
In this connection it is meaningful that the Spanish constitutional court on November 2007, in regard to a suit brought by the Spanish publisher Pedro Varela, invalidated the order which penalized the denial of the so-called Holocaust, but exempted approval.
On September 2, 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal judge, Athanasios D. Hadjis, declared in the case of Warman v Lemire: The prohibition against Holocaust denial is against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The attempt by the Italian parliament to push through a law similar to &130 Abs. 3 StGB was not successful.
In 2008 the pensioned judges Hoffmann-Riem and Hassemer of the German Federal Court took a critical stand in regard to penalizing Holocaust denial. The daily paper ‘Der Tagesspiegel (July 10, 2008) commented on Hoffmann-Riem’s opinion: ‘The Federal Court, according to Hoffmann-Riem, has up to now not engaged itself with the punitive illegality of Holocaust denial. But it is possible that in the future there could be a new basic decision.’
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (March 4, 2010) p. 4 writes: ‘Shortly after his retirement from the Federal Court Hoffmann-Riem said: ‘As a lawgiver I would not penalize Holocaust denial.’’
In the charge against the accused (Guenter Deckert) there is not a hint that he would have approved of a Jewish genocide or that he would have approved of a ‘Holocaust’ or any other crime.
According to the above mentioned decision by the federal court the trial should be suspended. A false interpretation of history, or an offensive interpretation of those times (the Nazi period) in contrast to approval has no basis in the law to curtail freedom of opinion.
No attempt to prove exceptional crimes
In spite of this decision there were more convictions on account of so called ‘Holocaust denial.’ It is obvious that some judges interpret that decision at will.
In as far as the Federal Court speaks of the ‘unique crimes’ of the historical National Socialist regime (BVerfG a.a. O.,s.B. Abs.-Nr. 68) denial of the ‘Holocaust’ does not mean its approval nor does it lead to endangerment of law and order. Even a ‘unique crime’ does not make the provision of proof superfluous.
Denial does not mean approval
It is telling that the BVerfG does not make a difference between approval of the so called ‘Holocaust and the approval of the National Socialist regime but without any ado throws ‘Holocaust and the reign of the historical nationalist reign of terror into one pot without mentioning the one and defining the other.’
The approval of the National Socialist regime in the conviction that it had not committed mass murder of the Jews is equated with the approval of the so called ‘historical reign of terror’ which is quietly equated with the approval of the ’Holocaust.’
Cleverly they leave out this muddling. They try to make it disappear in a fog of generalizations.
They manipulate in the attempt to justify the persecution of ‘Holocaust denial.’ Without producing concrete facts or proofs they accept, as an unquestionable fact, that the historical National Socialist regime committed crimes. They try (in vain) to justify as lawful that raising counter proofs merits punishment.
Special Status for the BRD (Bundesrepublik Deutschland)
The Federal Court tries to make us believe that the BRD can legislate special laws as &130 StGB (punishment of a certain opinion which includes the prohibition of presenting proofs for the defense because the historical identity of the BRD is a ‘reverse mirror image of National Socialism’ (BVerfG a.a. O., Abs.-Nr. 66). In other words, because the BRD is the BRD.
The arbitrariness (despotism) can not be expressed more succinctly.
Despotism
The decision of the 1. Senate of the BVerfG does not mention any concrete facts or any court verdict on which it bases its conviction that the historical National Socialist regime was a regime of terror and despotism. The so-called court judgment of the BGH (Abs.-Nr.100) does not name concrete facts or events.
The Spiegel author, Goetz Aly, reports that 95% of Germans did not look at the National Socialist system as a system which suppressed freedom and ruled by terror, but as a system promoting social warmth a feel-good dictatorship. (Spiegel Nr.10/2005, p. 56). Again the Spiegel: Even in the year l948 app. 57% of Germans thought that National Socialism had been a good idea (Nr. 20/2003, p.47).
Revealing is the reference regarding the reasons of the allied victorious powers which the 1. Senate states in connection with the identity of the BRD (Abs. Nr. 65, 66). The final conquering of National Socialist structures and the prevention of their resurrection was the main reason of the Allies to reestablish German statehood. (Abs.-Nr. 65).
In this connection it is interesting what Wendell Willkie, special envoy of US President Roosevelt writes about his negotiations with Stalin, namely that the first aim of the war should be the ‘Abolition of racial exclusiveness.’ (W.L. Willkie: ‘One World’, Simon&Schuster, New York, l943 published in the FAZ, February 4, 1992).
The historian Prof. Christian Meier (University Munich), questioned by the publication ‘Der Spiegel’: ‘How do you explain that the national pride of the Germans was so effectively broken?’ had this to say: ‘The totality of the defeat and the collective shame about Auschwitz.’ (‘Der Spiegel’ Nr 30/2010, July 26, 2010, p. 126).
‘Die Welt’ (November 20, 1982) cites Walter Lippmann, chief of the unofficial propaganda ministry under President Woodrow Wilson, in the twentieth to fiftieth year of the past century and one of the most influential journalists in the USA: ‘To secure the victory, beside the necessary occupation of the enemy nation and the sentencing of the elite in war crime trials, it is most important to impose on the conquered a re-education program. The means are: to implant into the brains of the conquered the presentation of history from the viewpoint of the victors. It is important to transfer the moral categories of the war propaganda into the consciousness of the vanquished. When the war propaganda of the victors is written up in the history books of the vanquished and is believed by the successive generation only then can re-education be looked upon as having been a success.’
The Historian, Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte, said this: If the radical revisionism is right insisting that there was no holocaust in the sense of an all encompassing, systematic genocide wanted by the top echelon then I would have to admit that National Socialism was not a fun house mirror copy of Bolshevism, but only a fight for survival by a Germany pushed into a worldwide political defensive. (Ernst Nolte, Francois Furet, Feindliche Naehe, Herbig, Munich l998, p. 222-224).
In l994 Patrick Bahners, who later became Feuilleton chief of the FAZ, made this comment regarding the trial of so-called ‘Holocaust denier’ Guenter Deckert: If Guenter Deckert’s belief about the ‘Holocaust’ is correct then the Federal Republic would be founded on a lie; every presidential speech would be a lie, every minute of silence and every history book would be all lies. In as far as he denies the genocide of the Jews he contests the legitimacy of the Federal Republic. (‘Objective suicide’, FAZ , August 15, 1994)
It is obvious that there is no legitimate basis to punish ‘denial of the Holocaust’
This motion was rebuffed. In its reasoning the chamber confirmed that 2 and 3 of &130 StGB-BRD is not a general law, but a special law. But an exception had to be made in regard to the prohibition of a special law. The reasoning: a special law is legitimate on account of the injustices and horrors of the National Socialist regime which were beyond all categories and which involved Europe and many parts of the world (decision January 13, 2012; replica of the 1.lead sentence of the BVerfGE 11/4/2009, 1BvR 2150/2008).
With this decision the BVerfG claims that the Holocaust is not to be judged according to general categories. That means the interpretation concerning the Holocaust is outside of the law.
It is a clear case of despotism when proof is superfluous and even declared punishable because it deals with a singular crime.
It is noteworthy what prosecutor Grossman, off the cuff, said about the motion: ‘We interpret the decision of the BVerfGE not the way you interpret it.’ … &130 needs to be interpreted?! The wording of &130 is not understandable?!
Science does not matter
Guenter Deckert moved to get the expert opinion of an historian to prove that Carlo Mattogno’s book ‘Auschwitz-the First Gassing, Rumors and Reality’ is scientifically correct.
The motion was denied: ‘Not only the professional judge, but also the two lay judges have enough expertise in order to judge the problem in question.’
Revealing is the further explanation of the chamber: The scientific proof of the incriminating book is in regard to the court decision ‘meaningless.’ In judging the defendant it is irrelevant, even if one holds the opinion that the publication is scientifically correct. To have assisted in the translation of the book and its final revision by the defendant, the defendant committed an offense of incitement or assisting in the incitement of the public. The demand for proof is not applicable in regard to &&130 Abs. i.V.m. 86 Abs. 3 StGB (social adequacy clause) since the format of the case does not apply here.
In other words: It does not matter if the incriminating book is scientifically correct. Assisting in the formation of the book has to be punished.
Bias
Finally, Guenter Deckert rejected the judges due to bias giving following reason (January 3, 2012):
The denial of my motion of November 14, 2011, pronounced today to discuss the principles of ‘facts know to the court’ of the so-called Holocaust is worrisome because the lay judges let themselves be guided by foreign interests instead of facts and take a position which can not be squared with their duty to impartiality.
The denial of my motion gives the impression that the lay judges conducted the trial with a goal in mind and do not look at facts with the necessary distance of the impartial.
Rejecting my motion the lay judges rejected the necessary elucidation of the facts before pronouncing a conviction.
In my motion to discuss ‘manifest obviousness’ of the so called ‘Holocaust’ I pointed out that the judgment of the first instance does not contain any facts in regard to the so-called Holocaust’ not even in regard to other court decisions.
The decision in the first instance points to numerous passages of the incriminating book by Carlos Mattogno which deny, in defiance of the law, the historically established fact of the Holocaust of the Jews, respectively the gassing crimes in Auschwitz. The first instance however does not discuss or confirm any proofs that Auschwitz was the actual place where the genocide occurred. No historical source is mentioned which would allow for informing a person about the legally binding ‘historically established Holocaust.’
Without actual determination of the deed a conviction for truth rejecting denial of the deed is not possible and legally not tenable.
Without determination, which concrete knowledge about the so-called ‘Holocaust’ the accused had or at least could have had, a verdict having acted against his better knowledge is not legal.
An unbiased judge would take that in to consideration and not deny the discussion of ‘Holocaust, a manifest obviousness.’
In order to counter the accusation of so-called ‘Holocaust denial’ I moved to have a discussion of the principles underlying ‘Holocaust, a manifest obviousness.’
As long as the lay judges give judicial notice that the ‘Holocaust’ is ‘a manifest obviousness’ I am not able to give concrete proofs on my behalf. In this way the lay judges deny me the right to a legal hearing (Art 103 ll GG) and give cause to a worrisome prejudice.
In addition it is contradictory to sentence or to confirm that a truth rejecting denial took place, and at the same time deny proof of the deed.
Judgment according to political correctness
The necessity to discuss the principles of ‘manifest obviousness’ is a given on account of numerous statements which put ‘manifest obviousness’ in doubt. ‘Manifest obviousness’ means unchallenged and unanimity (vgl. Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, ‘Motion for Proof in a Criminal Trial,’ 5. Aufl. Munich 1983, p.568)
(…) Following statements by history professor Dr. Ernst Nolte are important.
‘Only when the rules of the interrogation of witnesses are generally applied and the testimony of witnesses is no longer evaluated according to political correctness will a secure basis be created for scientific objectivity in regard to the ‘final solution.’
‘The common belief that every doubt about the ‘Holocaust and the six million victims a priori is a mark of a malignant mindset and has to be forbidden, can not be upheld according to the fundamental meaning of the maxim ‘de omnibus dubitandum est everything has to be doubted.’ Science can never accept that and is to be rejected as an attack against the principal of scientific freedom.
The questions regarding the reliability of the testimony of witnesses, the evidence contained in documents, the technical possibilities of certain events, the believability of the given number, the weighing of circumstances, are not only permissible, but necessary for science. Every attempt, by means of silencing or banning of certain arguments and proofs, must be looked upon as illegal.’
‘(…) Questioning the reliability of the witnesses, the veracity of the documents, the technical possibilities of certain events, the believability of the numbers, the weighing of circumstances, is not only permissible, but scientifically necessary. Every attempt to silence or forbid certain arguments and proofs is illegal.’
‘If radical revisionism is right on insisting that there was no holocaust in the sense of an all encompassing genocide authorized by the top echelon then I would have to admit that National Socialism was not a fun house mirror image of Bolshevism, but only a fight for survival by Germany pushed into a worldwide, political defensive.’
‘…It (revisionism) challenges me, but I am nevertheless unable to join those who demand that the prosecutor and the police take action against it. On account of that I feel myself forced to pose the question: does revisionism have valid arguments or does it rest on lying agitation?
And here the quality of the historian comes into play. The historian knows that ‘revisionism’ is the daily bread of science.(…) The historian also knows that, as a rule at the end, some of the revisionist theses will be accepted by the establishment or at least considered in discussions.
By means of silence it is relegated to the ‘memory hole’
During the historian congress not specifically mentioned were the following: during the war and the first years after the war it was maintained that the mass killings were done by means of blowing in hot steam into closed chambers or the killings occurred by means of huge electrified plates, or by means of quick lime. These lies were simply dropped, just like the rumor of the soap from Jewish corpses, which in Germany however was picked up again just recently by an ad in the newspapers paid for by a well known producer. The best known witness report of the member of the confessional church and SS leader Kurt Gerstein has been dropped from the collection of documents by orthodox scholars.
It is also known that Jean-Claude Pressac, in spite of his strange presence and recognition as a serious scholar, has recently reduced the number of victims gassed in the gas chambers of Auschwitz to approximately half a million.
Confessions gotten by torture
These specific corrections are not basically different from the claims which according to my knowledge the revisionists believe in: namely that the first confessions of Hoess, commander of Auschwitz were forced out of him by torture; that the witnessing of flames, sky high, coming from the chimneys of the crematoria must have been due to deluded imagination; that it was technically not possible to cremate daily 24,000 bodies; that the mortuaries which daily registered 300 bodies during typhus epidemics were indispensable and during these periods therefore could not have been used for mass killings.
6 Ernst Nolte, Streitpunkte, Ullstein, Frankfurt am Main/Berlin 1993 S.308 (Vorlesungen S. 137).
7 Ernst Nolte a.a. O.S.309.
8 Ernst Nolte, Francois Furet, Feindliche Naehe, Herbig, Muenchen 1998 S. 222-224.
9 ‘Atze Brauner, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, May 6, 1995.
Such numbers do not surprise the historian, since he knows from his studies that since the time of Herod gigantic numbers (if they are not recorded as official statistics) are questionable. He also knows that rumors will fly where large crowds of people are finding themselves in extreme situations and experience events difficult to understand.
The statements of Rudolf Hoess, commander of Auschwitz, which without a doubt contributed in a large part to the mental collapse of the accused during the Nuremberg war crime trials, were preceded by torture and therefore, according to the rules of Western civilization, are not legally valid. The Gerstein documents contain so many contradictions and so many impossibilities that they are also without value. The testimony of witnesses rests to the largest part on hearsay and conjecture. The reports partially contradict each other and create doubt as to their believability.
A careful examination after the war by an international expert commission as was performed after the discovery (l943) of the mass graves at Katyn by the German Army did not take place. The blame for this rests on the Soviet and Polish Communists.
The publication of photos of the crematoria and a few cans labeled ‘Zyklon B. poison gas’ are no proof whatsoever since in the larger camps infected by typhus crematoria were a necessity. Since Zyklon B. is a well known vermin killer it can’t be dismissed where there are masses of people living under poor hygienic conditions.
Questions have to be permissible
To question the traditional belief that the mass murder in gas chambers is a ‘manifest obviousness’ proven by countless witnesses and facts has to be permissible, or science is not applicable.
We are dealing with claims which, on the basis of natural science, respectively contain technical impossibilities such as mass murder by means of gas which was not possible and could not have been possible especially to the alleged extent. I am talking here about the chemical analysis of the Cyanide residue in the delousing chambers on one hand and the rooms first planned as mortuaries on the other hand. These expert opinions were written up by Leuchter, Rudolf and Lueftl and last but not least by the extremely thorough studies by Carlo Mattognos who concerned himself with details like time span of incineration, usage of coke, etc. Against the fact that scientifically and technically the mass murder as described was not possible (even if hundreds of confessions and witness reports maintain the opposite), arguments such as these cannot be given credence. In this matter scholars of philosophy and ideology critics are not qualified to have any say.
It is absolutely necessary to discuss the ‘manifest obviousness’ of the ’Holocaust.’ The proof is in the factual and legal article by Fritjof Meyer, a representative of the ‘exterminationists’ who wrote in the year 2002 in the magazine ‘Osteuropa’ in regard to Auschwitz-Birkenau: ‘The genocide did not take place in the concentration camp (Auschwitz-Birkenau), but most likely in two farm houses. (Osteuropa, v. May 2002, pp. 631-641). With this he contradicts witnesses and innumerable statements about Auschwitz-Birkenau. This again points to the fact that there is a need for a discussion about Auschwitz-Birkenau as to the ‘manifest obviousness’ of the place of the crime.
Judges deny elucidation of facts
The court is supposed to freely decide according to its conviction which it should gain from the content of the trial. Without judicial discussion of ‘manifest obviousness’ of the so-called ‘holocaust’ which is not going to be the object of the trial, it remains unclear how lay judges gain their conviction. It is worrisome that their conviction is not based on the content of the trial, but that they let themselves be influenced by outside considerations. This is not only a violation of & 261, but also worrisome bias.
Since factual, meaningful reasoning is neither named nor can be surmised why the ‘manifest obviousness’ of the ‘holocaust’ is not to be discussed the conclusion can only be that an elucidation of facts has to be avoided on account of outside influences. That is not only a serious violation of & 244 II, III StPO, but also an offence against the basic principles of right and justice.
It is worrisome that the lay judges are striving for an outcome of the trial which has nothing to do with trying to elucidate facts.
The refusal to discuss the ‘manifest obviousness’ of the so called ‘Holocaust’ gives rise to the fear that they desire a conviction on the basis that it does not matter to them if the so-called ‘Holocaust’ did or did not take place.
It is worrisome that the lay judges insist on a conviction on the one and only basis namely that the ‘Holocaust’ has been doubted.
This opinion was already articulated by the state court of Mannheim which in the year 2007 convicted Ernst Zuendel. The ‘tageszeitung’ (2/9/2007, p.6) writes about the Zuendel trial: ‘At the end the court denied all motion with the lapidary reasoning (shocking for some antifascists in the audience) that it does not matter if the Holocaust did or did not take place. In Germany its denial is punishable. And it is only that which counts in front of the court.’
It is not enough to simply base a sentencing on the accusation that the so-called ‘Holocaust’ was contested. It is also not enough to sentence the accused for defamation without ascertaining if and how his claim was untrue.
It is a violation of all the principles of justice and a clear case of arbitrariness.
Perpetual pressure for a ‘correct mind set’
It should not be assumed that the lay judges simply set aside the principles for correct procedures due to their own volition, but are subject to and succumbed to the pressure to follow the ‘correct mind set.’ It is for this reason they prevent a discussion about ‘manifest obviousness’ in order to make an effective defense impossible.
The so-called ‘Holocaust’ is not defined in &130, and not even mentioned. It is to be feared that the lay judges convict by disregarding the iron clad principle that in order to punish a deed culpability has to be described and circumscribed by the law beforehand. (Art 103 GG/nulla poena sine lege no punishment without law).
The argument of the lay judges that the ‘manifest obviousness’ of the ‘Holocaust’ needs no discussion because the ‘Holocaust’ is manifestly obvious is a circular argument, and neither logically nor legally tenable. Circular arguments of this kind show clearly the bias of the judges.
The well founded fear that the judges will pronounce a sentence based on bias (as described here) justifies the rejection (of the judges) by the accused on account of bias.
Judges and jurors declared that they harbor no sentiments of bias. (By the way it does not matter if a judge considers himself biased. It does not even matter if he follows a party line or is biased. The application for rejection has to be judged from the point of view of the accused). The very same day, after one sitting, the application for rejection was turned down.
During an intermission the jurors and Guenter Deckert started to talk. The jurors gave him to understand that the application for rejection offended them because they were considered stupid.
We know what kind you are
After that, still on the same day (January 13, 2012), the prosecutor Andreas Grossman had several questions for Guenter Deckert. His aim was to elicit Deckert’s opinion about the ‘Holocaust.’ After his introduction ‘you are the great doubter’ he wanted to know if what’s in the preface of the incriminated book is correct, namely that he (Guneter Deckert ) is neutral to the content of the book. The prosecutor continued with his questioning: was there according to his opinion a state organized genocide of the Jews? Guenter Deckert answered: I am not an arbitrator here. I am not a researcher. I have doubts and my doubts are justified. I fight against the limitation of expressing an opinion.’ ‘What is claimed is technically not possible. THAT is what I say. One must be allowed to express doubts.’ ‘If you give me forensic proofs, I will be the first one who will admit I was mistaken.’
After that the questioning was finished.
The next day of the trial came the final speeches.
Andreas Grossmann exclaimed: Deckert defamed the memory of the dead (&130). It is very clear that the ’Holocaust’ was denied. In his book, Carlo Mattogno writes about the ‘supposed genocide’ and the ‘supposed mass gassings of humans.’ He continues on that the lies have been enshrined in memorials and that there is no historical proof of the first mass gassings in Auschwitz. Without a doubt Carlo Mattogno wanted to deny the ‘Holocaust.’ Guenter Deckert contributed to the book in order that it could appear in Germany. This has been proven by two secured copies.
Guenter Deckert, in the preface of the book, wrote that he is neutral to its content. Judging by his curriculum vitae that is pure hypocrisy. He turned to Deckert: ‘We know what kind you are. Don’t expect us to accept your pretense of distancing yourself from the book.’ He spoke of the vain attempts (by Deckert) to exonerate Germany. You will not be successful. With what you are doing you will only prolong Germany’s disgrace. He (Deckert) is not contrite and not redeemable. One thing you can’t tolerate namely that the Holocaust is an historical fact. Grossmann increased his attack calling Deckert a vainglorious, stubborn, unredeemable holocaust denier.’ Deckert evaded his question as to whether there was a state organized genocide.
Hunt for unwanted literature
In his final defence Guenter Deckert pointed out that the memory of HIS ancestors is continuously defamed. There is no proof (as to the Holocaust). The historical truth is neutral. ‘One must ask: What are the concrete facts. I will not be cowed by cheap arguments. I will not have my rights as a citizen restricted. I do not like to be forced to believe without concrete proofs. Even a prison sentence will not be able to force me.
They talk about tolerance and mean the inquisition. People can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but only for a certain period of time. The brain continues churning. I am not crawling on account of you … The hunt for unwanted literature is disguised as a fight against crime. … Having doubts I insist on the right to express them. You, Mr. Grossmann believe, because you want to believe. The German people first had to be ‘reeducated’ in order to believe the ‘Holocaust.’ I will gladly admit being in error if you show me proof. Why is there no call for an independent research committee? I am for plurality of opinion … It has always been my motto: Don’t believe if there is no proof. I want to be part of an enlightened state.’
After an interruption of less than an hour the Sentence was pronounced: 6 months without probation. One month was deducted on account of the undue length of the trial.
The main judge, Roos, said in the oral pronouncement ‘that one can be of a different opinion. This has always been the case. Whatever happened here in the state court of Mannheim, the trials against Zuendel, Rudolf or whomsoever, have no bearing on this case. This case deals only with your work on the book by Carlo Mattogno … WE have tried to interpret you correctly. First we hold that &130 is in agreement with the constitution. The problem is that &130 contains innumerable undetermined concepts and interpretations….The Castle Hill publishing house resides in England. There the denial of the Holocaust is not punishable. The special rule of & 9 StGB: participation in crimes committed in foreign countries applies here to you. Maybe this rule would allow for different interpretations. But that is the least of the problem. About disturbing the public peace we can work ourselves into a bind. Let us wait what the higher court decides. This trial was dropped into my lap. I did not want it.
…On one hand you have a right to stick to your convictions. On the other hand you have to count on bearing the consequences of your insistence on staying with your opinion. Mentally you did not distance yourself from your convictions which was obvious during the trial. If you had distanced yourself we could have considered probation. The negative consequence of this trial is that the publicity of the book will be promoted. We have to accept that …and is just as unintelligible as & 130.’
Expressing an opinion is equated with committing a violent action
In its written judgment the chamber justifies not granting probation as follows:
The deed of the accused seriously endangers the public peace, especially in these times of the resurgence of right wing extremism which have been documented by the crimes of the NSU. Since it is obvious from the growing dangers of a resurrected right wing extremism, the chamber holds that these accused have to be fully punished in order to prevent the danger of imitation. Probation for the accused would not go over with the general public and would be considered as an unjustified leniency toward right wing radicalism [The public knows nothing, because there is not a peep in the media about the Deckert trial. C. Miller]’ (p.56 of the appellate court).
That the chamber seriously supports a judgment with such untenable factual and legal arguments points to an arbitrary persecution dictated by foreign interests outside the confines of the trial. It is obvious that the argumentation of the chamber is politically motivated and has nothing to do with justice.
The federal constitutional court made the following decision: The prohibition to spread so-called right wing thoughts lacks defined contours. A position such as right wing extremism depends on the reciprocal effect of changing political and societal contexts and a subjective valuation which does not allow for defining the borders where punishment is justified.
The spreading of right wing and National Socialist thought is not enough for a critique of what is right or wrong or which disallows certain thoughts. (1BVerfG, 1 BvR 1106/08, 12/8/2010, number II 2 b cc(1).
In spite of the fact that this is not a critique of legality, the statement of a politically uncomfortable, so called right wing extremist opinion is categorized as a ‘first step’ to violence. But that is not all. Even an opinion is equated with violence. Guenter Deckert is equated with a murderer in order to justify the denial of probation. With this judgment the chamber ignored the most basic principle of justice.
For a long time they tried to portray so-called right wing extremists (a slogan of the office for the protection of the state) as prone to violence in order to isolate them and to make it easier to persecute them on account of their ‘incorrect’ opinions.
They don’t even hesitate to portray assassins as right wing extremists even if they are declared opponents of National Socialism and supporters of Israel, for example the ‘assassin of Oslo,’ (July, 2011) Anders Behring Breivik, who in the meanwhile has been sentenced.
Gilad Atzmon, Israeli musician, writes on the net under the heading: ‘Was the massacre in Norway a reaction to BDS?’ (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions):’
‘The AUF (Norwegian Worker Party Youth Organization) promoted an Israel-Boycott Campaign (…) Yesterday we learned that the mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik is an openly enthusiastic supporter of Israel (…)Yesterday Gordon Duff wrote in the paper ‘Veterans Today,’ that the car bomb attack’ is marked by an official secret handwriting. (…) In his admiration for Israel Behring Breivik seems to have treated his own countrymen with the same disdain as the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) treat the Palestinians. In a Hebrew article which states that the AUF Camp is pro-Palestinian and supports the Israel boycott, I found among others, the following comments:
24. ‘The Oslo criminals paid.’
26. ‘It is stupid and wicked not to wish death on those who call for a boycott of Israel.’
HYPERLINK ‘http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-was-the-massacre-in-norway-a-reaction-to-bds.html’ www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-was-the-massacre-in-norway-a-reaction-to-bds.html; July 24, 2011.
A manifest by Anders Behring Breivik titled ‘2083’ A European declaration of Independence is supposed to call for: ‘Support Israel’s fight against the Dschihad.’
The mass media however call Andres Behring Breivik a right wing radical. It is another trick commonly used to deceive and to even malign many an Israeli and their supporters as right wing radicals. In this way the establishment hopes to blame violent crimes on national movements in order to discredit them. You could call such an act of perfidy artful, if it weren’t too unbelievable.
They also emphasize that Breivik’s neighbors found him friendly and nondescript.
Such articles are supposed to give people the impression that ‘Nationals’ are violent, brutal, unpredictable, and their friendly behavior is only camouflage.
It is not a new method to malign the opponent as a criminal and to saddle him with having committed murder, in order to effectively eliminate him.
The existence of the so called ‘NSU’ was then and is now unproven. Let me point out that up to now there is neither a proof nor a sentencing in regard of acts of violence of a so-called ‘NSU’ (‘National Socialist Underground.’). The so called ‘Doener murders have not yet been cleared up, and an involvement by the NSU is extremely doubtful. On the other hand the involvement of the ‘Verfasssungschutz’ (protection of the constitution) which shuns the light of day is quite obvious.
From where then does the Mannheimer court get its conviction that the NSU committed crimes?
The two following articles contain only a fraction of facts which refute the unsubstantiated supposition of the Mannheim chamber.
‘Doener’ murder on account of gambling debts?
Turkish press ( HYPERLINK ‘http://www.turkishpress.de/2009/12/12/doener-morde-wegen-wettschulden/id287’ www.turkishpress.de/2009/12/12/doener-morde-wegen-wettschulden/id287) by Fikret Deniz 12/12/2009-18:28.
In the continuing investigation that began in 2000 into the mysterious murder series there might be a possible new trail. In 2007 the Turkish office for criminal investigation reported that a drug war was the cause.
According to ‘Spiegel’ Turkish ‘Ceska’ investigators follow a hunch that the murder of nine men in Germany are connected to betting frauds and postponed football games. But the German BKA did not want to comment on the report on account of the ongoing investigation.
According to ‘Spiegel’ the police, by means of telephone surveillance, found out about a murder in Turkey for which a 42 year old Turkish godfather was named as having given the order. Additional telephone conversations of the circle of the betting mafia about this murder were overheard.
The Turkish office for crimes in 2007 already gave a report which had come to another conclusion.
According to the newspaper ‘Zaman’ of October, 2007 the Turkish state office for criminality gave to the German investigating bureaus their results in regard to the Doener murders. The summary of this report to the German office showed a connection between the Doener murders and the drug scene in Europe which involved a family clan from Diyarbakir. According to the report the eight victims of the ‘Doener murders’ were considered distributors within the drug scene. In addition the victims were supposed to have paid ‘protection money’ to the PKK in Europe and the family clan in Diyarbakir.
The Turkish office for criminality at that time found out that the family clan in Diyarbakir wanted to establish a new distribution ring in Europe. When the hoped for money from the drug scene did not materialize the PKK blackmailed the new distribution ring. The family is supposed to have ordered the murder. The brazenness with which the victims were murdered in broad daylight made one suspect, already then, that it was the handy work of professional killers. The BKA (Bundeskriminalamt) and the Nuremberg police were in the dark, since there were no witnesses or clues. According to the report all murders were committed with three different pistols of the Czech brand Ceska (7.65mm). This report was handed over via the BKA to police chief Wolfgang Geier.
The KOM checked out the 8 victims which were supposed to have been distributors of drugs. The terrorist organization PKK was supposed to have extorted protection money from the victims and in that way tried to take over the drug scene. A successful investigation of the drug scene in Turkey and arrests would have, according to the report, for quite some time seriously hindered the distribution of drugs and curtailed the flow of money. In this phase the family extorted protection money because it wanted to gain a foothold in Europe and build up a new drug ring. The Turkish office of investigation therefore surmised that a drug war had broken out between the PKK and the family clan and that the drug distributors were killed in this war. The Turkish investigators announced that the family clan had commissioned a five member murder commando. The murder itself was always committed by one member of the team with three different pistols of the trade mark Ceska. In this report the name of the murderer and the family clan were revealed and the Nuremberg police informed.
The dubious role of a ‘protector of the constitution’
zeit online, Datum 14.11.2011-20:33 Uhr, @ Uwe Zucchi/dpa.
The investigator of the Neo-Nazi group NSU has a hard time to come up with an explanation. According to a media report a ‘protector of the constitution’ was supposed to have been on location during a murder.
It is possible that an official of the Hessian ‘protection of the constitution’ is more involved in the offence which is supposed to have been committed by the Neo-Nazi-group, National Socialist Underground (NSU). During the murder of a Turkish shop owner in Kassel (April, 2006) the official was supposed to have been seen at the scene of the crime (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung referring to security circles).
Up to now the official story was that the man had left the Internet Cafe that the victim was in one minute before the murder was committed. In the meantime the official has been suspended from his position. According to the report the Kassler prosecutor investigated the ‘protector of the constitution.’ The investigation was discontinued because no connection with the murder could be found. At that time several weapons were supposed to have been found in the apartment of the official. The Turkish shop owner was the last in a murder series of migrants which are blamed on the Neo-Nazi group whose members are supposed to have lived in a mobile home in Eisenach. The Hessian protection for the constitution did not give out any information.
The office for the protection of the constitution considers consequences
In the meantime the office for the protection of the constitution is examining which consequences the case will have on its future work. The office is checking which changes it has to make in regard to the Neo-Nazi-Scene.
The court in Mannheim painted a picture of a criminal NSU using innuendos and thereby subjecting itself to foreign considerations.
The utterance of an opinion, for example the denial of the so called ‘Holocaust,’ meaning the refutation of a mass genocide is equated with assassination and murder.
This is arbitrary. (Does the ‘NSU’ serve the same function for a pretext as ‘9/11’?)
To know and having to believe
The judgment of the appellate court, just like the first judgment, contains no facts about the ‘Holocaust’, not even references to other trials.
The chamber considers Guenter Deckert to be unrepentant (Page 55 of the appellate court) and therefore probation can not be considered. To call Guenter Deckert an unrepentant ‘actor’ along with the accusation of denial of the Holocaust against his better knowledge is a contradiction. The sentencing is therefore contradictory and flawed.
The lack of action against better knowledge is fortified by the determination of the appellate court about the mind set of Guenter Deckert: ‘At the beginning of every scientific debate, and he also considers his own action and also Mattogno’s publication as such, there has to be doubt. Science lives from the exchange of arguments. And that has to be permitted. He wants to know and does not want to be forced to believe. His doubt can be explained by the ad in the Impressum. In all modesty he (Guenter Deckert) cannot judge if Mattagno is right with his objection to Danuta Czech ’scientific opus’’ (p. 48 of the judgment).
The judgment states: ‘The intent of distributing the book is to incite the reader not only against Jews living in Germany and in that way to produce discontent among the people, but more important (what the accused was aware of) he denied that the dead were persecuted, especially the Jews, who had been killed en mass by means of poison gas. This is an offense against the dignity of the Jews.’ That Guenter Deckert wanted to sow dissent in the population and wanted to offend the dignities of the Jews is pure surmise and insinuation on the part of the judges. As was mentioned above no elucidation of the ‘Holocaust’ neither an elucidation of the knowledge of Guenter Deckert was attempted. Mere suspicions cannot be used to the detriment of the accused. (Dreher/Troendle, commentary to the Strafgestzbuch, 46 edition, Muenchen l993. to&46 Rn 17a).
‘The action of Guenter Deckert, denial of the Holocaust, contrary to historical truth, is defamation, especially of the Jews’ (p. 53 of the sentencing).
Since in the course of the whole trial no concrete facts regarding the historical truth of the Holocaust were brought forth nor communicated not even in reference to other judgments a sentencing for defaming the memory of the dead is not legal.
Manifest obviousness is unsupported
The OLG Karlsruhe denied revision of Guenter Deckert’s case as having no merit (August, 2012) (349 Abs. 2 StPO) (3 (4) Ss304/12-AK126/12).
The constitutional court of the BRD did not accept and made no decision concerning the complaint citing the constitution (basic law December 12, 2012 1 BvR 1891/12). No reason was given. According to & 93 d Abs. 1 Satz 3 BVerfGG non-acceptence does not have to be justified.
Guenter Deckert’s motion to repeat the trial has not yet been looked at.
Guenter Deckert was ordered to start his sentence January 2, 2013 at the prison in Mannheim.
For every logical, thinking and honest person it is obvious that Guenter Deckert’s sentence rests on many arbitrary decisions. His sentence is based on illegality and has no merits.
A female judge of the former DDR was convicted on account of bending the law: ‘This is not justice, but arbitrary suppression, aimed to eliminate a political opponent. The type of punishment does not agree with factual considerations. Its recognizable aim is to intimidate politically incorrect thinkers and thereby secure the rule of the present power elite.’ Object of the sentence which the judge pronounced, was an undesired opinion and was therefore penalized (news of the BVerfG Nr 41/98 , April 22, l998, BVerfG 2 BvR 2560/95).
February, 2013
Sylvia Stolz, excluded from the law profession on account of ‘Holocaust denial’.
Pfarrer Grabmeier-Allee 10, 85560
Ebersberg
Tel:08092-24418
Email: [email protected]

{ Add a Comment }

Six Jewish Companies Control 96% of the World’s Media

The power of lies, deceptions and disinformation as Americans pay the price of collective stupidity.
‘You know very well, and the stupid Americans know equally well, that we control their government, irrespective of who sits in the White House. You see, I know it and you know it that no American president can be in a position to challenge us even if we do the unthinkable. What can they (Americans) do to us? We control congress, we control the media, we control show biz, and we control everything in America. In America you can criticize God, but you can’t criticize Israel…’ Israeli spokeswoman, Tzipora Menache
6JewMedia photo sixjews_zpsa28028c4.png
Facts of Jewish Media Control
The largest media conglomerate today is Walt Disney Company, whose chairman and CEO, Michael Eisner, is a Jew. The Disney Empire, headed by a man described by one media analyst as a ‘control freak’, includes several television production companies (Walt Disney Television, Touchstone Television, Buena Vista Television), its own cable network with 14 million subscribers, and two video production companies. As for feature films, the Walt Disney Picture Group, headed by Joe Roth (also a Jew), includes Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, and Caravan Pictures. Disney also owns Miramax Films, run by the Weinstein brothers. When the Disney Company was run by the Gentile Disney family prior to its takeover by Eisner in 1984, it epitomized wholesome, family entertainment. While it still holds the rights to Snow White, under Eisner, the company has expanded into the production of graphic sex and violence. In addition, it has 225 affiliated stations in the United States and is part owner of several European TV companies. ABC’s cable subsidiary, ESPN, is headed by president and CEO Steven Bornstein, a Jew.
This corporation also has a controlling share of Lifetime Television and the Arts & Entertainment Network cable companies. ABC Radio Network owns eleven AM and ten FM stations, again in major cities such as New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and has over 3,400 affiliates. Although primarily a telecommunications company, Capital Cities/ABC earned over $1 billion in publishing in 1994. It owns seven daily newspapers, Fairchild Publications, Chilton Publications, and the Diversified Publishing Group. Time Warner, Inc, is the second of the international media leviathans.
The chairman of the board and CEO, Gerald Levin, is a Jew. Time Warner’s subsidiary HBO is the country’s largest pay-TV cable network. Warner Music is by far the world’s largest record company, with 50 labels, the biggest of which is Warner Brothers Records, headed by Danny Goldberg. Stuart Hersch is president of Warnervision, Warner Music’s video production unit. Goldberg and Hersch are Jews. Warner Music was an early promoter of ‘gangsta rap.’ Through its involvement with Interscope Records, it helped popularize a genre whose graphic lyrics explicitly urge Blacks to commit acts of violence against Whites. In addition to cable and music, Time Warner is heavily involved in the production of feature films (Warner Brothers Studio) and publishing. Time Warner’s publishing division (editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine, a Jew) is the largest magazine publisher in the country (Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune).
When Ted Turner, a Gentile, made a bid to buy CBS in 1985, there was panic in media boardrooms across the nation. Turner made a fortune in advertising and then had built a successful cable-TV news network, CNN. Although Turner employed a number of Jews in key executive positions in CNN and had never taken public positions contrary to Jewish interests, he is a man with a large ego and a strong personality and was regarded by Chairman William Paley (real name Palinsky, a Jew) and the other Jews at CBS as uncontrollable: a loose cannon who might at some time in the future turn against them. Furthermore, Jewish newsman Daniel Schorr, who had worked for Turner, publicly charged that his former boss held a personal dislike for Jews.
To block Turner’s bid, CBS executives invited billionaire Jewish theater, hotel, insurance, and cigarette magnate Laurence Tisch to launch a ‘friendly’ takeover of the company, and from 1986 till 1995 Tisch was the chairman and CEO of CBS, removing any threat of non-Jewish influence there. Subsequent efforts by Turner to acquire a major network have been obstructed by Levin’s Time Warner, which owns nearly 20 percent of CBS stock and has veto power over major deals. Viacom, Inc, headed by Sumner Redstone (born Murray Rothstein), a Jew, is the third largest megamedia corporation in the country, with revenues of over $10 billion a year. Viacom, which produces and distributes TV programs for the three largest networks, owns 12 television stations and 12 radio stations. It produces feature films through Paramount Pictures, headed by Jewess Sherry Lansing. Its publishing division includes Prentice Hall, Simon & Schuster, and Pocket Books.
It distributes videos through over 4,000 Blockbuster stores. Viacom’s chief claim to fame, however, is as the world’s largest provider of cable programming, through its Showtime, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks. Since 1989, MTV and Nickelodeon have acquired larger and larger shares of the younger television audience. With the top three, and by far the largest, media companies in the hand of Jews, it is difficult to believe that such an overwhelming degree of control came about without a deliberate, concerted effort on their part. What about the other big media companies? Number four on the list is Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox Television and 20th Century Fox Films. Murdoch is a Gentile, but Peter Chermin, who heads Murdoch’s film studio and also oversees his TV production, is a Jew. Number five is the Japanese Sony Corporation, whose U.S. subsidiary, Sony Corporation of America, is run by Michael Schulhof, a Jew. Alan Levine, another Jew, heads the Sony Pictures division. Most of the television and movie production companies that are not owned by the largest corporations are also controlled by Jews. For example, New World Entertainment, proclaimed by one media analyst as ‘the premiere independent TV program producer in the United States,’ is owned by Ronald Perelman, a Jew. The best known of the smaller media companies, Dreamworks SKG, is a strictly kosher affair.
Dream Works was formed in 1994 amid great media hype by recording industry mogul David Geffen, former Disney Pictures chairman Jeffrey Katzenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, all three of whom are Jews. The company produces movies, animated films, television programs, and recorded music. Two other large production companies, MCA and Universal Pictures, are both owned by Seagram Company, Ltd. The president and CEO of Seagram, the liquor giant, is Edgar Bronfman Jr., who is also president of the World Jewish Congress. It is well known that Jews have controlled the production and distribution of films since the inception of the movie industry in the early decades of the 20th century.
This is still the case today. Films produced by just the five largest motion picture companies mentioned above-Disney, Warner Brothers, Sony, Paramount (Viacom), and Universal (Seagram)-accounted for 74 per cent of the total box-office receipts for the first eight months of 1995. The big three in television network broadcasting used to be ABC, CBS, and NBC. With the consolidation of the media empires, these three are no longer independent entities. While they were independent, however, each was controlled by a Jew since its inception: ABC by Leonard Goldenson, CBS first by William Paley and then by Lawrence Tisch, and NBC first by David Sarnoff and then by his son Robert. Over periods of several decades, these networks were staffed from top to bottom with Jews, and the essential Jewishness of network television did not change when the networks were absorbed by other corporations. The Jewish presence in television news remains particularly strong. As noted, ABC is part of Eisner’s Disney Company, and the executive producers of ABC’s news programs are all Jews: Victor Neufeld (20-20), Bob Reichbloom (Good Morning America), and Rick Kaplan (World News Tonight). CBS was recently purchased by Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Nevertheless, the man appointed by Lawrence Tisch, Eric Ober, remains president of CBS News, and Ober is a Jew. At NBC, now owned by General Electric, NBC News president Andrew Lack is a Jew, as are executive producers Jeff Zucker (Today), Jeff Gralnick (NBC Nightly News), and Neal Shapiro (Dateline).
The Print Media After television news, daily newspapers are the most influential information medium in America. Sixty million of them are sold (and presumably read) each day. These millions are divided among some 1,500 different publications. One might conclude that the sheer number of different newspapers across America would provide a safeguard against Jewish control and distortion. However, this is not the case. There is less independence, less competition, and much less representation of our interests than a casual observer would think.
The days when most cities and even towns had several independently owned newspapers published by local people with close ties to the community are gone. Today, most ‘local’ newspapers are owned by a rather small number of large companies controlled by executives who live and work hundreds or ever thousands of miles away. The fact is that only about 25 per cent of the country’s 1,500 papers are independently owned; the rest belong to multi-newspaper chains. Only a handful are large enough to maintain independent reporting staffs outside their own communities; the rest depend on these few for all of their national and international news. The Newhouse empire of Jewish brothers Samuel and Donald Newhouse provides an example of more than the lack of real competition among America’s daily newspapers: it also illustrates the insatiable appetite Jews have shown for all the organs of opinion control on which they could fasten their grip.
The Newhouses own 26 daily newspapers, including several large and important ones, such as the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Newark Star-Ledger, and the New Orleans Times-Picayune; the nation’s largest trade book publishing conglomerate, Random House, with all its subsidiaries; Newhouse Broadcasting, consisting of 12 television broadcasting stations and 87 cable-TV systems, including some of the country’s largest cable networks; the Sunday supplement Parade, with a circulation of more than 22 million copies per week; some two dozen major magazines, including the New Yorker, Vogue, Madmoiselle, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Bride’s, Gentlemen’s Quarterly, Self, House & Garden, and all the other magazines of the wholly owned Conde Nast group.
This Jewish media empire was founded by the late Samuel Newhouse, an immigrant from Russia. The gobbling up of so many newspapers by the Newhouse family was in large degree made possible by the fact that newspapers are not supported by their subscribers, but by their advertisers. It is advertising revenuenot the small change collected from a newspaper’s readersthat largely pays the editor’s salary and yields the owner’s profit. Whenever the large advertisers in a city choose to favor one newspaper over another with their business, the favored newspaper will flourish while its competitor dies. Since the beginning of the 20th century, when Jewish mercantile power in America became a dominant economic force, there has been a steady rise in the number of American newspapers in Jewish hands, accompanied by a steady decline in the number of competing Gentile newspapersprimarily as a result of selective advertising policies by Jewish merchants. Furthermore, even those newspapers still under Gentile ownership and management are so thoroughly dependent upon Jewish advertising revenue that their editorial and news reporting policies are largely constrained by Jewish likes and dislikes. It holds true in the newspaper business as elsewhere that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Three Jewish Newspapers
The suppression of competition and the establishment of local monopolies on the dissemination of news and opinion have characterized the rise of Jewish control over America’s newspapers. The resulting ability of the Jews to use the press as an unopposed instrument of Jewish policy could hardly be better illustrated than by the examples of the nation’s three most prestigious and influential newspapers: the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. These three, dominating America’s financial and political capitals, are the newspapers which set the trends and the guidelines for nearly all the others. They are the ones which decide what is news and what isn’t, at the national and international levels. They originate the news; the others merely copy it, and all three newspapers are in Jewish hands. The New York Times was founded in 1851 by two Gentiles, Henry Raymond and George Jones. After their deaths, it was purchased in 1896 from Jones’s estate by a wealthy Jewish publisher, Adolph Ochs. His great-grandson, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., is the paper’s current publisher and CEO. The executive editor is Max Frankel, and the managing editor is Joseph Lelyveld.
Both of the latter are also Jews. The Sulzberger family also owns, through the New York Times Co., 33 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe; twelve magazines, including McCall’s and Family Circle with circulations of more than 5 million each; seven radio and TV broadcasting stations; a cable-TV system; and three book publishing companies. The New York Times News Service transmits news stories, features, and photographs from the New York Times by wire to 506 other newspapers, news agencies, and magazines. Of similar national importance is the Washington Post, which, by establishing its ‘leaks’ throughout government agencies in Washington, has an inside track on news involving the Federal government.
The Washington Post, like the New York Times, had a non-Jewish origin. It was established in 1877 by Stilson Hutchins, purchased from him in 1905 by John McLean, and later inherited by Edward McLean. In June 1933, however, at the height of the Great Depression, the newspaper was forced into bankruptcy. It was purchased at a bankruptcy auction by Eugene Meyer, a Jewish financier. The Washington Post is now run by Katherine Meyer Graham, Eugene Meyer’s daughter. She is the principal stockholder and the board chairman of the Washington Post Co.
In 1979, she appointed her son Donald publisher of the paper. He now also holds the posts of president and CEO of the Washington Post Co. The Washington Post Co. has a number of other media holdings in newspapers, television, and magazines, most notably the nation’s number-two weekly newsmagazine, Newsweek. The Wall Street Journal, which sells 1.8 million copies each weekday, is the nation’s largest-circulation daily newspaper. It is owned by Dow Jones & Company, Inc., a New York corporation which also publishes 24 other daily newspapers and the weekly financial tabloid Barron’s, among other things. The chairman and CEO of Dow Jones is Peter Kann, who is a Jew. Kann also holds the posts of chairman and publisher of the Wall Street Journal. Most of New York’s other major newspapers are in no better hands than the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The New York Daily News is owned by Jewish real-estate developer Mortimer B. Zuckerman. The Village Voice is the personal property of Leonard Stern, the billionaire Jewish owner of the Hartz Mountain pet supply firm.
Other Mass Media
The story is pretty much the same for other media as it is for television, radio, and newspapers. Consider, for example, newsmagazines. There are only three of any note published in the United States: Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report. Time, with a weekly circulation of 4.1 million, is published by a subidiary of Time Warner Communications. The CEO of Time Warner Communications, as mentioned above, is Gerald Levin, a Jew. Newsweek, as mentioned above, is published by the Washington Post Company, under the Jewess Katherine Meyer Graham.
Its weekly circulation is 3.2 million. U.S. News & World Report, with a weekly circulation of 2.3 million, is owned and published by Mortimer Zuckerman, a Jew. Zuckerman also owns the Atlantic Monthly and New York’s tabloid newspaper, the Daily News, which is the sixth-largest paper in the country. Among the giant book-publishing conglomerates, the situation is also Jewish. Three of the six largest book publishers in the U.S., according to Publisher’s Weekly, are owned or controlled by Jews. The three are first-place Random House (with its many subsidiaries, including Crown Publishing Group), third-place Simon & Schuster, and sixth-place Time Warner Trade Group (including Warner Books and Little, Brown). Another publisher of special significance is Western Publishing. Although it ranks only 13th in size among all U.S. publishers, it ranks first among publishers of children’s books, with more than 50 percent of the market. Its chairman and CEO is Richard Snyder, a Jew, who just replaced Richard Bernstein, also a Jew.
The Effect of Jewish Control of the Media
These are the facts of Jewish media control in America. Anyone willing to spend several hours in a large library can verify their accuracy. I hope that these facts are disturbing to you, to say the least. Should any minority be allowed to wield such awesome power? Certainly, not and allowing a people with beliefs such as expressed in the Talmud, to determine what we get to read or watch in effect gives this small minority the power to mold our minds to suit their own Talmudic interests, interests which as we have demonstrated are diametrically opposed to the interests of our people. By permitting the Jews to control our news and entertainment media, we are doing more than merely giving them a decisive influence on our political system and virtual control of our government; we also are giving them control of the minds and souls of our children, whose attitudes and ideas are shaped more by Jewish television and Jewish films than by their parents, their schools, or any other influence.

{ Add a Comment }

In Praise of Doug Christie by Ian V. Macdonald

Dear Arthur your tribute is very moving. There is no doubt that Doug Christie was Divinely inspired and chosen for his gifted role in defending the ideals and high principles that our people have stood for over the centuries. Kipling’s poem ‘If’ also applies. He stood proudly head and shoulders above his contemptible, anti-Christian, anti-Canadian detractors and enemies, and will remain forever a beacon of truth and freedom of expression. I called him BraveHeart since he demonstrated all the traits of character that made the like-minded William Wallace a super-hero. He deserves wide recognition for his patriotism and sacrifice. I asked Peter Milliken, former Speaker of the House of Commons, to nominate him for the Order of Canada (see below) but the award cannot be made posthumously, so we shall have to find some other medium. Little praise can be expected from the Mainline Media, and even less from self-serving politicians, unfortunately.
Having known and admired Doug for many years, I am totally devastated by his sudden departure. We must now redouble our efforts, in his honour.
Ian

March 1, 2013
Hon. Peter Milliken,
Queen’s University,
Kingston, ON

Dear Peter Milliken,
Nomination of Doug Christie for Order of Canada award
We met at the Macdonald Laurier soiree where I boasted that I had graduated from Queen’s (Arts ’49 Econ) before you were born! You said by ’49 you had been around already for 3 years. You were much in demand at the soiree so we had little time to talk. Otherwise, I would have told you that I am the patriarch of a Queen’s family, with 2 daughters (one of whom graduated in Mining Engineering), a son-in-law, one granddaughter (in Aeronautical Engineering with scholarships from Air Canada and National Defence), a second granddaughter pending, and a sister and brother-in-law, Arts and Engineering.
During my years at Queen’s I was Manager of the Brass and Pipe bands and had them fitted out for the first time with authentic Highland uniforms, raising the funds from soft-drink and cloakroom concessions. I also led a Swing Band and played many dates in Grant Hall and the gymnasium, helping to pay my way.
After Queen’s I took an MA from Toronto and joined the Foreign Service, becoming, in rather short order, by far the most successful Trade Commissioner in the history of the Service. Eventually, after six foreign postings I became head of export development policy planning for the Department. I was told if I ‘played the game’, I could go ‘right to the top’.
One of my prime policy proposals (1969) was the cultivation of markets in the oil-producing countries of the Middle East, with all of which I was intimately familiar, having spent 2 years there as Commercial Counselor, based in Beirut. The policy paper was not well received. The Deputy Minister told me privately that Arab markets were ’not a popular cause’, that the issue was ‘politically sensitive’, and that I must never mention the word ‘Arab’ again. When I protested that the immense prospective benefits to Canada could not be ignored, he said if I wrote on the subject again I would ‘suffer the consequences’. I said I had taken the Oath of Allegiance and would do as my conscience and mandate dictated.
I then produced a second policy paper, more forthright than the first, and included the recommendation that we end the counter-productive preoccupation with Israel in favour of alignment with the Arab countries. Soon thereafter I was summarily dismissed, the specious grounds and legal protection of the Public Service Employment Act notwithstanding. When I threatened to appeal. I was offered ‘reinstatement within a year when the heat from the Jewish Lobby dies down’ providing that I didn’t appeal nor contact any politician or the media on the subject. I agreed, but a year later found I had been conned, and had nothing in writing. Meanwhile, two Directors of PAFSO, the Foreign Service Officers’ Union, approached the DM on my behalf, only to be told that if they tried to assist Macdonald they would soon ’follow in his footsteps’. I promptly released them from their obligation.
I then took a position in Overseas Project Marketing, another branch of the Department, and was soon back in form, negotiating major contracts with the new Government in Libya with multi-billion dollar potential. One was the reassignment of the former BP concession to a Canadian company. The concession was producing 300,000 bpd, making the acquisition the largest in money terms of any ever achieved by a single Canadian. I visited BP headquarters in London and obtained their blessing, news of which I telexed to the Department. However, when I returned to my Ottawa office I met a furious reception, including curses, accusations of disobeying instructions, etc, the mildest of which was ‘poor judgment’. i was immediately physically expelled from my office, with instructions not to return, rendered incommunicado and (as I later learned) was once again recommended for dismissal. After several months’ purgatory, I was permitted to return to my office.
The dismissal was shelved at that time, but did take place in 1984 after I had negotiated an agreement in principle in 1983 for construction of a large lamb production project in Saudi Arabia where the client insisted that it be carried out by Canadians. The client (Prince Badr) and his Manager insisted that I be present as mediator at the final contract negotiations in Riyadh between the Saudi client and the Canadian consortium which I had formed for the purpose. A few days before the departure date I was ordered not to attend the meeting on pain of dismissal for ‘insubordination’ if I disobeyed. My sudden, unexplained withdrawal cast a shadow on the negotiations causing them to fail. The project was the largest of its kind with a value of at least $500 million. I asked the Embassy in Jeddah to send someone but they refused!
To contest the 1984 dismissal, I approached all the law firms in Ottawa who advertised competence in ‘unlawful dismissal’ litigation but, after initial enthusiasm, all declined when they ascertained that the Jewish Lobby (which included the Israeli Embassy) was the culprit. In desperation, as the appeal deadline approached, I drew up the appeal myself. I sent a copy to Doug Christie, whom I had heard speak in Ottawa, to vet my handiwork. He replied that he would be glad to represent me, despite the distance from Victoria, if I could find no other.
Since there were no legitimate grounds for dismissal, Mr Christie saw an easy win. As he began his examination, however, he was interrupted by the Judge who told him he should think twice if he intended to mention ‘Jews’ or raise the subject of a ‘Jewish conspiracy’ since to do so would seriously jeopardize his chance of success (it had not been his intention). His presentation seemed more than adequate, especially since the Department of Justice lawyers presented no evidence. Nevertheless, the Appeal failed.
I asked an old friend, who had specialized in Public Service law, how it was possible that I l could lose. He asked the name of the Judge. When I told him, he said the Judge was an ‘old political party hack who knows how the game is played’. By chance I ran into a former neighbour, the renowned Judge John Matheson, at an Alumni Reunion at Queen’s and put to him the same question. He asked the name of my lawyer. When I replied ‘Doug Christie’ he said ‘Well, that’s your answer there’s no way they were going to let him win the case’.
More recently, I retained Doug Christie in a defamation claim I lodged against the CBC for permitting the egregious Warren Kinsella to state on national TV that I was one of the main sources of finance for right-wing terrorism in Canada. The Judge found that the comments were not defamatory even to the slightest degree and, falsely, that in any event I was out of time, giving credibility to Kinsella’s ludicrous story and forcing me to pay the Defendant’s substantial legal fees. The decision was upheld on appeal. A Supreme Court application was denied.
I have followed Doug Christie’s fortunes and misfortunes for many years and recognize him as being without par the epitome of all that is honourable and equitable in the practice of his profession, combined with an empathy for ostracized victims of our Politically Correct society who are shunned, condemned and punished, however worthy and valid their opinions. He is virtually unique in Canada in his self-sacrifice on behalf of his victimized clients and in his willingness share their distress, although it has cost him any esteem he might have earned in law and politics, and an otherwise profitable legal career.
It has also cost him his health, as he has been struck down in his prime by a cancer that doubtless was induced by the stress and frustration of appearing before a hostile judiciary and facing the wrath of venal law society zealots, covering their shamelessness with invective, ad hominems and baseless condemnation of an ultra-respectable man whose Christian rectitude and respect for tradition are beyond their comprehension.
He has many admirers who now seek to memorialize him for all his good works as an outstanding Canadian, selfless Good Samaritan and proud Scot who dedicated his life to the struggle for truth, freedom and justice to a degree equaled by few if any others. He deserves recognition by the people of Canada. At a minimum, this should include the award of the Order of Canada and I ask, if you would be so kind, as a presumed sympathizer, that you nominate him. Your sponsorship would more likely succeed than would mine, since you are widely respected and would have no perceived vested interest.
The nomination forms are available online as is all necessary information on the nominee. I would be glad to prepare the forms for you, if you prefer.
Yours sincerely,

{ Add a Comment }