Here is an update on Dr. Fredrick Toben, an Australian of German extraction imprisoned in Germany for "defaming the memory of the dead" on his Revisionist website called Adelaide Institute, <http://www.adam.com.au/fredadin>
A letter was received from Amnesty International, which you will find below, along with comments from Geoff Muirden, Acting Director of the Adelaide Institute.
This letter is a classic of how the so-called "Human Rights" industry perceives Human Rights - as a means to assure that Jewish "rights" shall not be questioned.
Geoff Muirden:
A letter addressed to John Bennett, President, Australian Civil Liberties Union, PO Box 1137, Carlton, Vic, 3053,Australia has been received from Amnesty International, International Secretariat, 1 Easton St.,London, WC1X 8DJ, England, UK (email: amnestyis@amnesty.org; web URL: http://www.amnesty.org) , in a letter dated 20 July, 1999, their ref:EUR/MP.
It makes it clear that it will totally refuse to take up the case of defending revisionist writer, and Director of Adelaide Institute Website at http://www.adam.com.au/fredadin, Dr Fredrick Toben, currently in Mannheim Prison on charges of "defaming the memory of the dead", incitement and other issues related to challenging the nature and extent of the Holocaust.
I feel the contents of this letter should be circulated as a warning to all revisionists and their supporters that Amnesty has officially jumped into bed with Exterminationists and the U.N. and will not defend revisionists as prisoners of conscience.
The letter to Mr Bennett says:
"I thank you for your enquiry of 10 July 1999 regading Dr Gerald Fredrick Toben. As you are no doubt aware, Dr Gerald Fredrick Toben is the director of an association in Australia called the Adelaide Institute which propagates its views via the Internet. The main focus of the Adelaide Insitute is the Holocaust.
Through its website the Adelaide Institute purports to refute the historical accuracy of estimates that put the number of Jews who died in Nazi concentration camps at six million. The following excerpt from the homepage of the Adelaide Institute exemplifies its position of this issue:
"We are a group of individuals who are looking at the Jewish-Nazi Holocaust; in particular, we are investigating the allegation that Germans systematically killed six million Jews, four million alone at the Auschwitz concentration camp...In the meantime we have noted the original four million Auschwitz death figure has been reduced by Jean Claude Pressac to a maximum of 800,000. This in itself is good news because it means that around 3.2 million people never died at Auschwitz- a cause for celebration."
I regret to inform you that Amnesty International will not be adopting him (Toben) as a prisoner of conscience. Amnesty International defines prisoners of conscience as people detained for their political, religious or other conscientiously held beliefs or because of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth or other status- who have not used or advocated violence.
With respect to this definition, in 1995 the organization decided at a meeting of its International Council- the highest decision-making body of Amnesty International, that it would exclude from prisoner of conscience status not only people who have used or advocated violence, but also people who are imprisoned "for having advocated national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."
The decision codified Amnesty International's intention to exclude from prisoner of conscience status those who advocate the denial of the Holocaust and it confirmed what had in fact been the de facto interpretation of the prisoner of conscience definition contained in Article 1 of Amnesty International's Statute.
There is compelling evidence that Dr Gerald Fredrick Toben through the Adelaide Institute's web site has been advocating, at times euphemistically, at times crudely, that the Holocaust is a myth. As a result, Amnesty International regards his activities as characterised by a clear intent to publicly advocate the denial of the Holocaust.
For example, on the first day of the tour, commenting on the ban of the British revisionist David Irving from entering Australia, Dr Gerald Fredrick Toben wrote in his travel log "What was Irving's crime? He merely told a German audience that the alleged gas chamber shown to tourists at Auschwitz is a fraud - which is true. So, truth-telling is a criminal offence in Germany!"
In another instance, a media release from 12 April 1999 commenting on Toben's European tour and subsequent arrest stated that "Dr Toben has shown great moral courage in challenging the official Holocaust dogma..."
On the Adelaide Institute's homepage a number of similar statements can be found. The posting of material on a Web site which can be viewed by millions of individuals is as much an act of advocacy as is handing out leaflets, circulating a petition or publishing a book.
In making its decision to exclude certain individuals from the prisoner of conscience status in 1995 the International Council further decided that Amnesty International should abide by international standards and in particular article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states:
"any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."
Amnesty International seeks to promote the world-wide observance of all human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as such the organization does not support any group or person engaging in activities aimed at diminishing the rights and freedoms of others. The decision of Amnesty International not to adopt Dr Gerald Fredrick Toben as a prisoner of conscience is consistent with, and interently derives, from this position.
I hope I have clarified the position of Amnesty International to Dr Gerald Fredrick Toben and our reasons for not adopting him as a prisoner of conscience.
Yours sincerely (signed) Matthew Pringle,Researcher, Central Europe/Western CIS.
Geoff Muirden:
This missive from Amnesty International shows it to be in bed with Exterminationist and Zionist interests, even adopting the propaganda term of "holocaust denial" and implying that Dr Toben supported the idea of "incitement to violence", which he never has.
It cites his comments on the search for historical truth as if they indicated something morally reprehensible about this aim.
The tone of the Amnesty statement echoes that of the second arrest warrant against Dr Toben, issued on May 3, 1999, which attributes mailicious motives to Dr Toben as follows (in translation):
"(I)n his circulars, the defendant claims and maintains frequently, using questionable quotations and references as well as additional Internet links, fully aware that such stands in contradiction of the historical truth and- at least in part- ientifying with Nazis measures of prosecution, in a pseudo-scientific fashion motivated by the tendency of relieving Nazism from the disgrace of the mass murder inflicted upon the Jews, seeking to heighten and intensify the perceptions and passions of the readers, denying the Nazi leadership's responsibility, declaring extermination is a legend invented by the Jew which now serves the purpose of subjugating the German people, such as presented,for example, on the Internet at his address..."
This comment, taken directly from the arrest warrant, defames Dr Toben by suggesting that he knowingly, and with malice aforethought, falsified evidence on the Holocaust, knowing it to be false - the sort of claim that was used against Ernst Zundel in the "false news" claim in Canada.
It is this sort of rhetoric, which defames others while complaining about being defamed, that characterises the Amnesty International announcement and makes a sham of its stand on "prisoners of conscience".
It is so hypocritical that it implies that Dr Toben was engaged in "engaging in activities aimed at diminishing the rights and freedoms of others" while refusing to recognize that the persecution of revisionists and the singling out of the white race for accusations of "racism" constitutes exactly that.
It is thus very selective in its "advocacy" of "prisoner's rights".
Geoff. Muirden, Acting Director,Adelaide Institute
Thought for the Day:
"Ever since ...the libel charge of 'anti-Semitism' (was invented) in the 1880s (The word 'anti- Semitism' was first printed in 1880.' The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. I (1901), p. 641), it has been built up with Jewish money, organizations, propaganda, and lies, so that now the word is like snake venom which paralyzes one's nervous system. Even the mention of the word 'Jew' is shunned unless used in a most favorable and positive context."
(Charles A. Weisman, Who is Esau-Edom?, p. 63).