I have to make a retraction that pains me. Yesterday, I sent out a special bulletin announcing that the Supreme Court of Spain had cleared Pedro Varela, the foremost Spanish Revisionist, by overturning an unconstitutional law. I did so after I had received this news from the National Journal, < http://www.nationaljournal.org/> and, to make sure, I called and double-checked. It seemed a stunning and totally unexpected development. I was told that the information was reliable!
This morning I received the following:
"The information received from the National Journal was not correct. Alas !
In fact, a regional court of appeal declared that the article of the Penal Code that allowed the condemnation of Pedro Varela to 5 years in prison was perhaps in contradiction with the Spanish Constitution.
So, the regional court will ask the Spanish Supreme Court to tell if that article is or is not constitutional.
The court will give the sentence in 2002. At that moment, the case will again be open by a regional court of appeal in Barcelona.
It's only the first steps in a difficult legal battle." <end>
My correspondent then added as a P.S.:
"Do you read Spanish ? It's easier for me to write in Spanish."
Not well enough for a legal paper. I need someone capable of translating legal text from Spanish into understandable English. Anyone? Please contact me, and I will ship.
The Varela news gave all of us brief hope that the enemies of Freedom of Speech could be beaten swiftly and decisively through the legal channels of an as-yet-not-corrupted court system of a courageous country. We were premature. Nevertheless, the Holocaust Lobby suffered a serious defeat and setback. All kinds of good things will flow from this. The will to fight determinedly in courts in Spain will be strengthened. Freedom fighters will regroup and counter-attack. Even though it turns out we were too exuberant at first blush, this ***is*** a substantial Revisionist victory in Europe!
Naturally, my fellow Revisionists all over the world reacted to my bulletin with happiness and joy as well. One of them wrote:
"I was very surprised by this.
It's *exceptionally good* news. In fact, if true and no news tricks are discreetly kept up the sleeve of the court, the news that Art. 607 is unconstitutional should be an important precedent, the first instance anywhere of anti-revisionist laws being rolled back by a judicial instance. I can't wait for more developments.
If Varela has equally won over the other political accusation grounds that were brought in (the "racism" excuse, etc) he'll be in an excellent position to use all of this and recover the high ground for the re-launching of his ransacked book shop. (...)
Zundel's fight has been, of course, a landmark in revisionist history, and he has repeatedly triumphed against the odds, but I was thinking here about an actual cancellation of a specifically anti-revisionist law.
I wonder what the further developments in Spain will be. What do you do to dead laws after you kill them? Do they get a public burial etc, or do you simply stop speaking about them and avoid similar ones for the future? That would be the day! <end>
To which another one replied:
"With Canada as a precedent, you form Human Rights Commissions and give these non-judicial semi-official tribunals penal powers. In mob parlance, you put a hit out on future offenders of the defunct law." <end>
I also received some incisive comments on the Dr. Fredrick Toben matter and the charge that the Adelaide Institute's website is linked (horrors!) to the Zundelsite, as explained by the following statement in the charges:
"Through Internet links the accused presents "supporting literature" to interested persons. These include, among other things, references to extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic sources, including, for example, the Institute for Historical Review, the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, Germar Rudolf, Jürgen Graf, David Irving and, above all, the "Zündelsite," where the following summary [listing item titles] of "unambiguous thinking," which the accused identifies with, can be found and downloaded.
[ Listing of titles of 22 "Zundelsite" items, including "Did Six Million Really Die?," "The Holocaust: Let's Hear Both Sides," "The Leuchter Report: The End of a Myth," "The Liberation of the Camps: Facts vs. Lies," "Auschwitz: Myths and Facts," "Inside the Auschwitz Gas Chambers," "What is Holocaust Denial?," "Pressac's New Auschwitz Book." ] <end>
To which a third correspondent sent in this comment:
"The charges against Toben cite Zundelsite and documents on it. Yet, oddly, the more extensive collection is on CODOH, which is also linked.
As has been stated many times, the vast majority of the (Zundelsite) material is created by the owner. In addition to that, the vast quantity of material, without a byte count, (would make us conclude that) CODOH appears clearly in the multiples greater.
It would appear obvious there is a prosecutorial connection between the Canadian instigators and those against Toben. Should they get a conviction in Germany, then they can distort the material in the citations of those links in the German conviction - and if thrown out, cite only the indictment by way of deception, for another attack upon Zundel.
It is not that they are getting into deception - rather that they are being so obvious about it." <end>
And, finally, this one from Lizard of the fight-censorship group - a group which, incidentally, seems to censor and prevent Revisionists from joining. Three or four of my Revisionist cyber activists have tried to join that forum for some time but haven't been able to succeed. Real food for thought, that one!
Nonetheless, here is what Lizard wrote - who is, in my opinion, one of the more consistent and honest fight-censorship fellows in that group on most if not all occasions:
"I wonder what it would be like to live, just for a month or two, in a society where even one of the trinity of business, media, and government could be safely trusted, with the knowledge that any deceit, treachery, or just malicious ignorance which did occur were exceptions and aberrations rather than the rule?
"To be able to live without having to be in a constant state of war with the social structures allegedly in place to provide (respectively) goods, information, and stability?
And as long as I'm wishing, I'd like a pony." <end>
Me, too. A polka-dotted one!
Ingrid
Thought for the Day:
"When the False News law was overturned in Canada by the Supreme Court in 1992 in my case, all criminal code books used in courts - by judges and lawyers, in government and universities - had to be altered and reprinted in English and French!
There are now two pages in these code books explaining why the law was dropped from the code. It is like a little EZ commercial...That is my revenge! "
(Ernst Zundel)