Copyright (c) 1997 - Ingrid A. Rimland
"A man accused of inciting racial hatred through an Internet site about the Holocaust walked out of a human rights hearing yesterday, claiming he had been denied "natural justice".
"Dr Fredrick Toben, whose Adelaide Institute web site is the focus of the complaint, left the closed hearing after an hour. He later said he would refuse to attend the first open hearing in the case, expected to be in December."
As I reported yesterday, the Sydney-based Executive Council of Australian
Jewry had lodged a complaint against the Adelaide Institute's website with
the commission last year, alleging material on the institute's Internet
site breached the federal Racial Discrimination Act.
The website presents the conventional Revisionist "Holocaust"
challenge, including questioning the alleged homicidal gas chamber story
of Auschwitz.
"We at Adelaide Institute believe that those who level the homicidal gassing allegations at the Germans owe it to the world to come up with irrefutable evidence that this happened," says the Adelaide Institute web page.
Dr Toben, the director of the institute, explained that he walked out because
"we'd reached a point where we felt we would not be given natural justice
if we continued".
He explained further that he had been told in a letter from the federal
Race Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Zita Antonios, that the case was "not
amenable to conciliation".
Ernst's comment, when informed of this development, was that what happened
in Australia was exactly what was happening in his case in Toronto.
These people think that a decision can be reached beforehand - REGARDLESS
OF THE EVIDENCE A PERSON ACCUSED OF 'RACIAL HATRED' MAY PRESENT IN HIS OR
HER DEFENSE?
The newspaper write-up goes on to say:
"Dr Toben said he wanted to enter conciliation proceedings with the council and its executive vice-president, Mr Jeremy Jones, who also appeared yesterday. He said if such proceedings were not initiated, he would not appear at the December hearing and would "take our chances" in the Federal Court.
"The legal framework there (in the commission) will not give us justice," he said.
Mr Jones who filed the complaint on behalf of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said outside the hearing that he believed the case was the first of its kind to go to a public hearing. He said Jews believed the material incited racial hatred against them because of its statements about the Holocaust. However, the council believed it was not too late to attempt to conciliate the matter.
A spokesman for the commission said a hearing date could not be confirmed until an agreement was reached with both parties."
In an e-mail to me, Dr. Toben stated:
"What the reporter did not mention is the fact that the commission
is obliged by statute to attempt conciliation - something I pointed out
to Commissioner McEvoy and something I have been asking for a long time."
And he added:
"I am indebted to the Zgrams for the information concerning Jeremy
Jones' participation at a B'nai B'rith organised seminar in Canada - where
he openly spoke about his desire for net censorship."
Whenever I read information like this, I ask myself: "Whatever happened
to the 'pornography' smoke screen?"
The Revisionist claim is at THE VERY CORE OF GLOBAL INTERNET CENSORSHIP
- and it is practically impossible at this point for our opposition to deny
it.
Ingrid
"President Clinton's 'Advisory Board on Race Relations' has no one allowed to be seated at the table to present the issues, perspectives and points of view of the organized European-American community in the United States."
(Sent to the Zundelsite by a ZGram reader)