Brave as we think we are, it is no secret to many of us who are immersed in this global intellectual struggle that people in the "occupied" democracies operate under all kinds of self-imposed censorship - out of sheer need for protection, even though what we are doing is not against the law, and even though our opposition breaks or at least bends the law at every opportunity.
I'll give you an "for instance":
I live in the supposedly "last bastion of free speech" country, the United States of America, but on the Zundelsite I don't link to anybody except the most responsible Revisionist websites - for fear that mere linking could get me in hot water.
Others are thinking along the same lines. I once asked a very popular German website why they linked to all sorts of marginal and inconsequential websites but didn't link to us - I was testing the degree of the PC waters, so to speak - and the answer was revealing: It was too dangerous to link to us directly - but "harmless" websites linked to us, and it was safe to link to ***them***, and just one step removed . . etc.
It's sad. It's also telling.
Consider this statistic: Last year, a total of 7.949 charges about "Volksverhetzung" - meaning "agitating the people" (in other words, politically incorrect speech) - were processed in the German courts.
This resulted in thousands of years worth of prison terms. Thousands of middle class people saw their livelihood destroyed. For what? For questioning a country's history?
At the present, more people are imprisoned in Germany because of "propaganda crimes" ("Propagandadelikte") then in the last years of the regime that ran the DDR, the Communist controlled East Germany.
(Source: "Junge Freiheit")
What to do? Here is one reader's suggestion:
"I would like to see a "Law Library" created as part of the Zundelsite. It would display things such as:
(1) Text and citation for the Israeli law permitting Christians, but not Jews, to be tortured -
(2) Text and citation for the laws relevant to the Zundel cases -
(3) Text and citation for the laws being used all over Europe to jail revisionists -
(4) Text and citation for the Israeli law, if any, denying Israeli citizenship to all except Jews -
(5) Text and citation for the Israeli law, if any, prohibiting Christian preaching or other missionary work on the streets of Israel -
(6) Any other laws whose display would embarrass the Adversary.
(7) Statement, if true, that there are no hate laws in Israel. If true, then the Jewish citizens of Israel would be free to spread hateful news about Christians living in Israel, and there would be no Human Rights Tribunal to rush to the aid of the abused Christians. Why do the Jews lobby for hate laws in the Christian nations, but not in the Jewish state of Israel?
(8) Statement, if true, with supporting citations to law, making Judaism the state religion of Israel. No "separation of Church and State" for Israel --- only for America and other Christian nations.
Such a Law Library would stimulate research and analysis among Internet users, and elicit e-mail responses from professionals and others, suggesting legal defense strategies.
It might be possible for a revisionist in Germany to avoid prosecution by carefully choosing his revisionist words, so as to get the message across without violating the law. But we have to know the text of the law, so that we can fit the strategy to the law.
For example, it might be lawful, within a certain jurisdiction, and adequate for our purposes, to say, "Jewish authorities and other evidence disprove the thesis that 4 million Jews died in Auschwitz," but unlawful to say, "There is no evidence that 6 million Jews were exterminated during World War II."
Revisionists could make statements, in their writings, embarrassing to the tyrannical authorities, such as :
"Caution: If the reader should be inclined to infer from the mountain of evidence presented in the foregoing pages, that the allegation of 6 million Jews exterminated during WW II is preposterous, without substance, and a vicious defamation against the German people, he is advised to keep such inference to himself, since to exercise his right to express it, under ........(here list supporting constitutions, charters, statutes, etc.)......... has been made a criminal act under the hate law ....(here cite the hate law)."
(end of submission)
This is a very worthwhile suggestion, but not within my means. I think this would be a very valuable project for a legally trained, idealistic young person, perhaps a law school student. Anyone?
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"Quite apart from alleged torture under interrogation, the conditions of Arab political prisoners are horrifying, not a great surprise, perhaps, when we consider the scale of arrests in the occupied territories: some 200,000 security prisoners and detainees have passed through Israeli jails, almost 20% of the population, which has led to 'horrendous overcrowding' and 'appalling human suffering and corruption.'"
(The Fateful Triangle by Noam Chomsky, p. 128)