---

January 18, 1998

Good Morning from the Zundelsite:

"I've just read today's ZGram and am concerned that some people may get the impression that I have in some way been negligent or at fault for allowing the 'rat cartoon' to be hosted on a FTCnet client's web site.

"I was first made aware of its alleged existence only yesterday. After considerable searching of the /~ourhero web pages, I found a link to a remote web site in Manhattan that appears to be the site that once hosted the 'rat cartoon'. That web site no longer seems to be operating.

"Contrary to Mr. Littman's assertions, I can find no evidence that this allegedly offensive cartoon was at any time ever hosted on a FTCnet server."

"I didn't attend Garaudy Day 4 hearings yesterday. The news I got, however, are not very good for us, the revisionists.

They might not be too bad for Garaudy, although there is not much to expect from that court whom we know too well. Yet, if the pressure coming from the Arab world continues, it will be hard for Judge Monfort to decide of the sentence, being caught between his desire to please the Jews and his fear of the Arabs . . . No one would like to be in his shoes. Well, serves him right! He should and he COULD have acquitted Dr Faurisson and other Revisionists before.

Now the defence speeches

1) For Pierre Guillaume: 2 of them:

- Maitre Balland, a Rumanian Jew, argued that, despite the fact that he didn't agree with Pierre Guillaume's ideas, he could testify that Guillaume was no anti-Semite.

He said that in the whole story there is only one victim, the Jews, because, no matter how the verdict will be, Jews are going be the losers: if Garaudy is acquitted, people will think that his book is telling the truth; if he is convicted, people will say the Jews are behind his conviction.

Jews have been persecuted for too long, he is fed up, he said, and next time he's going to take his rifle!

He also added that he was altogether a French AND a Zionist.

- (...) Our faithful barrister spoke of many technical points of law, any and each of those being a good reason for the judge to acquit the accused. But those arguments have been systematically dismissed for many years, without the slightest good reason.

So, this was no use, really.

As to the Revisionist arguments, which Dr Faurisson had helped him prepare the days before the trial, well, apparently they didn't strike the journalists very much. Despite all the efforts we've been making during the past eighteen years in order to open their eyes to that question, it seems that journalists are still so very far from the point that they didn't seem to understand really what Delcroix was talking about: Leuchter, Rudolf, Lüftl, Arno Mayer, Eric Conan, etc.

But, who knows? Maybe they did . . .

Thanks to some papers Dr Faurisson had prepared for him overnight, (Delcroix) nevertheless was able to refute every single argument put forward the day before by the Jewish and/or anti-racist associations as well as those of the prosecutor.

2) For Roger Garaudy: 4 of them:

- A barrister from Morocco, who spoke half-French and half-English, told the judge: Garaudy and us, we are the same; we cannot be anti-Semites since we all are the sons of Abraham.

- An Egyptian barrister said he feared that the attacks against his friend Garaudy might foster fundamentalism throughout the world.

- Maitre Petillault, a young barrister, said he was in agreement with a professor Robert (not Robert F!) who had said: Revisionists are the Nazis of today and they should be treated either by ignoring them or by making fools out of them.

- Maitre Jacques Verges was very much expected. He was good, with a good and warm voice, but, alas, no Revisionist.

First, technically, he said one very good thing: he said that the very words of the Fabius-Gayssot Act were not precise enough for a judge to have the right to convict anyone.

Law has to be precise, he said, whereas one of the words in the FG Act is not precise enough since it has 10 different meanings in the dictionary! That is the word "contester" (challenge) in the first lines of the Act: "Seront punis des peines prévues par le sixième alinéa de l'article 24 ceux qui auront contesté (...) l'existence..." (Will be punished... those who will challenge the existence...).

He then went through all the various horrors or genocides which have been perpetrated in the world: in Ethiopia, Africa, Algeria, South America, North America, Japan, India, China, Madagascar, Tasmania, Vietnam, Algeria again, etc., and said it was disgraceful that the Fabius-Gayssot Act should make a special allowance for the sufferings of the Jews, and no one else's.

He also said that that Act was a fascist one and that it was "a canker on France's face". Then he took it out on Israel, a country where torture is authorized and where there is a lot of censure.

And, as Maitre Verges was speaking, people could see the faces of the Jews in the court-room getting more and more embarrassed.

Roger Garaudy then said a few words and told the court about the US$ 50,000 he had been given by an Arab Princess (see Ingrid's ZGram).

As you understand, there was not much about Revisionism. The verdict will be on February 27.

Inside the court-room:

One incident, again, took place, but this time it was inside the court-room. A friend of ours distributed a cartoon by the famous Chard, the cartoonist most of you know: it shows the back of two judges, one being Judge Monfort and the other Mrs. Ract-Madoux (same kind of judge), both bowing their heads in front of a court made up of three judges: sitting in the center is Clio, with a big file under her arm called "Faurisson affairs"; on her right, a man called "Good sense"; on her left, Truth, half naked. The three of them are looking at the two judges with a furious frown.

As an Arab man in the audience was looking at the drawing and smiling, a Jew went to him, grabbed the paper and tore it up. They began to fight in the middle of the court-room but the gendarmes stopped them...

Outside the court-room:

Fortunately Dr Faurisson was able to give a few interviews, only to Arabic papers. I'm pleased to tell that, not even knowing yet about Ingrid's ZGram, he thought of mentioning Ernst's "The West, War and Islam": why spend so much money on buying arms of all kinds when you have one here, ready for you to use?"

Thought for the Day:

"When I read (a previous Garaudy trial) description of what happened in court I thought it was the sort of thing that could only happen in an insane asylum.

A man stands condemned after being forced to concede that the admittedly ridiculous (i.e. admitted by the judge) is indeed ridiculous. That may be a milestone in intellectual history."

(A ZGram reader)