Dr. Fredrick Toben seems to be a very hardy fellow when it comes to challenging anti-Revisionist harassment by the powers-that-be.
Dr. Toben is the Australian Revisionist who heads the Adelaide Institute website, constantly under Zionist-inspired attack. He is also the one who recently put on a successful first Revisionist conference in Australia a few weeks ago. He is the one who walked out on the Australian version of a Human Rights Commission complaint when he found that that truth was not a defense.
Here, in an Open Letter to a female judge in Bruchsal, Germany, he is digging in his heels against the German vassal system that has in its "custody" two men accused and sentenced of thought crimes - Guenter Deckert in an extended sentence for upsetting a "Holocaust survivor" by asking uncomfortable questions, and Udo Walendy for - get this! - not what he said but ***what he didn't say***!
Writes Dr. Toben on 6 October 1998
Dear Judge Clapiér-Krespach
Further to my telephone call to you today concerning your judgement in the Günter Anton Deckert case: la Ds 57 Js 24484/97-67/98, I would like to state the following:
You claim that you cannot say anything about your judgement - "Ich darf nichts sagen" - because the case is now going to appeal before the Landgericht Karlsruhe.
This is interesting for me because in another case in Germany, Mr Udo Walendy's case before the Landgericht Bielefeld, Justice Lützenkirchen advised me that he did not have to justify his judgement to anyone. He did, however, say to me that he had been to Auschwitz and had seen the "proof"!
I am now confused about German law and how German judges handle historical matters covered by the term "Holocaust", and I would like to know whether truth is a defence in any legal action before you. I would also like to have this legal issue clarified because next year I intend to visit Germany with the specific purpose of exploring further what Messrs Deckert and Walendy have raised in their writings.
You say you are not allowed to say anything about your judgement - and owing to the nature of your judgement, I asked you whether we could generalise about the matter without mentioning the case. You refused to continue the conversation and referred me to a Mr Kleinheinz of the Landgericht Karlsruhe; Tel.: 721- 9266070. Unfortunately this person is on holiday and so I could not pursue my enquiry any further.
Let me therefore put my concerns to you in writing. It seems to me that your reasoning is faulty because the freedom to think, speak and research the specifics of the so-called Holocaust needs to be exercised in open forum. This is especially so if persons make statements in public about what happened at Auschwitz during 1943-45.
Hence it is only a natural reaction for someone interested in this topic - Deckert is - to put questions to those who claim to have been there during the war. In March 1997 a Mr Max Mannheimer, who alleges he survived Auschwitz, gave a talk to a group of students at Realschule der Ursulinen, Landshut. This was reported in the local paper.
Mr Deckert obtained a copy of this report and from his prison cell in Bruchsal wrote Mr Mannheimer a letter wherein he asked him quite specific questions about the claims Mannheimer made to the school students at Landshut.
This action of asking Mannheimer questions is supposed to have upset him so that he initiated legal action against Deckert. This in itself is an absurdity. Does Mr Mannheimer not realize that anyone who makes public statements - which he alleges are founded on historical facts, on truth - is liable to be met with challenges, especially on a contentious historical matter such as the allegation that Germans systematically exterminated European Jewry in homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz?
You have now given Mr Mannheimer comfort - to continue unchallenged to tell his lies - and Mr Deckert another three months in prison for having insulted Mr Mannheimer for asking questions.
This is an outrage because what you are doing is permitting Mr Mannheimer to tell the most outrageous lies about Auschwitz to young impressionable minds, without penalty. And you are penalising Mr Deckert because in your view he should not be asking questions. Do you not realize that this is what makes us human: the power to ask questions, to think and speak freely? Your judgement is destroying Mr Deckert's human qualities. This is a grave inhuman act - all because a Mr Mannheimer keeps on telling lies about Auschwitz!
Where is the great German intellectual spirit that celebrates: Die Gedanken sind frei?
You are therefore encouraging the telling of lies to a younger generation of Germans. As truth-telling is a moral virtue, I conclude that your judgement is immoral and that you and your colleagues who continue to support those who tell lies about the Auschwitz concentration camp are immoral in your behaviour. In view of what is currently happening in the United States of America where the President is a certain liar, do you not think it is time for the German judiciary to become moral again in matters that challenge the current Auschwitz orthodoxy?
I visited Auschwitz in April 1997 and I have from my own research now concluded that the camp never had any homicidal gas chambers operating there during the war years. I also conclude that anyone who claims that homicidal gas chambers operated there is either ignorant of the facts or is lying.
I would appreciate a response from you on this matter, in particular as regards my proposed trip to Germany next year - and my discussing these matters with you and your colleagues. I would also appreciate you advising me, in writing, whether truth is a defence in this matter.
For your information I refer you to an article in Der Spiegel, 40/1998, at p.230-33, Die Erfundene Hölle, which details the most recent fraudulent Auschwitz claim made by an alleged Auschwitz survivor in Switzerland. Please consider any further Auschwitz matters before you in this light.
Sincerely
Dr Fredrick Toben
Director
Thought for the Day:
Germany today:
1994: 2083 prosecuted for ThoughtCrimes
1995: 1601 prosecuted for ThoughtCrimes
1996: 5635 prosecuted for ThoughtCrimes
1997: 7888 prosecuted for ThoughtCrimes
( Source: Verfassungsschutzberichte )