It is time to get back to serious Revisionist work and what people are saying loudly in the newsgroups:
John O, for instance, wrote:
I do not think that I agree with Laws that criminalise the discussion of the factual basis of an event. I knew such laws existed in one or two places. Presumably they are more widespread than I thought.
May I ask: - how many states now have such Laws in place?
Revisionist ASMarques replies:
At least France and Germany have scores of people in prison or ruin them through periodic preposterous fines. Switzerland too has begun to imprison innocent people for crimespeak. The book censorship index is larger in Germany today than it was in the last days of the DDR. France holds a peculiar record: it has the first and only law making a particular historiographic view criminal. You cannot find the equivalent of the amazing Fabius-Gayssot law even in Stalin's USSR.
No one who doesn't partake of blind anti-Judaism can avoid the sad feeling that holohoaxers and the many Jewish organisations promoting the active repression of revisionism and "Holocaust" denial are doing Jews the worst service they possibly could by trying to stop the exposure of this mother of all hoaxes.
John O:
What (do) these Laws specifically outlaw?
ASMarques:
Generally speaking they outlaw doubting the canonical version of the "Holocaust" of the Jews by the Germans that says there was a planned extermination of 6 million Jews using gas chambers - among other means. Most of the legal talk invokes the proscribing of "hate" speech and the defence of our innocent children from the perfidious Nazis & other idiotic "social menaces" like paedophile voyeurism (apparently enclosing Hitler and Lewis Carroll in the same bag for some reason that escapes me).
In practice the laws are simply the needed carte blanche to suppress dissident opinion and free speech with the help of obnoxious servile judges - and making this more palatable through completely shameless journalistic coverage. The Fabius-Gayssot law (in France) is peculiarly clear because it actually prohibits expressing any doubts about Nuremberg "proven" crimes, thus creating a sort of voluntary dependence and subordination of French legislation on civil rights and free speech to the verdicts of an international kangaroo court imposed by winners over losers and using double standards and totalitarian show trial methods (and indeed the most notorious totalitarian show trial experts among its judges and prosecutors).
John O:
And who/how many have fallen foul of these Laws?
ASMarques:
I cannot give you precise statistics, but I can give you the URLs where you may calculate them -- if you patiently follow the events on a daily base...
********************
My main source for the French developments is the following site done in la douce France but operated from the States (thanks god for the 1st amendment): http://www.abbc.com/aaargh/fran/fran.html
Here is one recent development in French (see the Actualité page). The dateline is Nov 10, 1998:
10 novembre: Vincent Reynouard a été condamné à trois mois de prison FERME et 10.000 F d'amende pour avoir diffusé le Rapport Rudolf, interdit en France par un oukase ministériel dépourvu du moindre fondement intellectuel. Il est passé devant le tribunal de Saint Nazaire, sans avocat, faute de moyens financiers. On sait qu'il a été jeté de l'Education nationale cette années.
Il vit du RMI, avec une femme et trois jeunes enfants, de 7 mois, 2 ans et 5 ans. La police est venue saisir un ordinateur et du matériel il y a quelques semaines, ordinateur qui n'était pas encore payé, évidemment. Le procès lui-même a duré moins d'une heure. Le procureur s'appelle Bloch. Il a remercié la président d'avoir retiré la parole à Reynouard, en ajoutant: "Les Six Millions ne se discutent pas. L'Holocauste ne se discute pas". Evidemment, ces gens-là sont absolument incapables de discuter. Ils ne connaissent que le silence imposé par la peur, comme en Palestine: la force, la prison, les coups. Pauvres types! Il a ajouté: "Vincent Reynouard, c'est la peste brune. Il nie tout, même Oradour". Ce qui est faux, Reynouard est chrétien et n'est pas nazebroque, il ne nie pas Oradour, il cherche à comprendre, au contraire, comment et pourquoi on y a massacré des civils. "Il mérite un an de prison... Je demande seulement 4 mois fermes et 40.000 F d'amende". La présidente a dit à Reynouard: "Si le sujet nétait pas si grave, on rirait, vous êtes ridicule..." Et elle l'a empêché de parler. La salle était bourrée d'une quarantaine d'analphabètes du MRAP.
Salles bourrées, procès faits d'avance, pas d'avocat, connivence du proque et du juge, on connaît tout ces ingrédients: il ont beaucoup servi à Moscou, dans les années 30 et 50. Nous avons déjà eu maintes fois l'occasion de dire que cette "justice" nous écoeure. Répétons-le une fois de plus. Comme nous ne l'avons pas encore fait, nous allons prendre toutes dispositions pour publier ici même le rapport Rudolf. Il ne serait pas juste que les Bloch de tous les pays soient privés des lumières scientifiques qui en émanent.
******************
The German developments can be found mainly at:
http://www.codoh.com/
http://www.vho.org/Home.html
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/index.html
In Germany they have reached the point where the imprisoned victims see their sentences increased for committing crimespeak from behind bars -- exactly the Soviet practice used to punish some of their dissidents.
One such case is Gunther Deckert - you may do a search on that one! His first trial ended with a not guilty verdict. All three judges were immediately sacked and compulsively retired, and a new trial found Deckert guilty, passing a sentence of several years on him.
(Zundelsite comment: I checked with Ernst Zundel who told me that he remembered only two judges who were suspended but later reinstated. Anybody who has information to the contrary?)
I don't remember the precise duration, but that doesn't seem very important because he recently saw his sentence increased for what you can only describe as behind bars crimethought.
Here is another notorious German case among many: http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vpgerwitch.html
******************
Swiss developments in:
http://www.ety.com/tell/
******************
Here is one recent case:
http://www.ety.com/tell/graf.htm
******************
The Canadian Zundel case can best be followed in the following site, the property of a German-American woman who pays homage to Zundel's stand for free speech and "Holocaust" revisionism:
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/index.html
******************
Best British site I know is David Irving's personal one: http://www.fpp.co.uk/
Other British sites have begun to notice something fishy is going on behind the smiling facades of the politicos:
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/littleton/w2holrev.htm
******************
John O:
BTW, does anyone note any parallels with Blasphemous Libel in such cases? Or is it just me?
ASMarques:
Certainly. Your point is well taken. Robert Faurisson voiced exactly the same opinion. I quite agree the "Holocaust" debate is no longer a historical or even political one. It has become a fully-fledged struggle against creeping religious fundamentalism. The "Holocaust" has become very simply the most recent installment of what Voltaire very aptly called "l'Infâme", that dark heart of superstitious, self-serving and intolerant religious arrogance which is the opposite of true religious feeling and the respect for others that it involves - complete with a pseudo-academic priesthood, temples all over the world exhibiting irrelevant trash as relics, hypocritical tears which you can only dry up by massive gifts of gold and the continued sacrificial offerings of 90 year old innocent men who can no longer defend themselves "to keep the flame burning and never forget"
Thought for the Day:
"France fell because there was corruption without indignation."
(Romain Rolland)