CBC is hiring! But Not Caucasians
Written by Paul Fromm
Friday, 03 May 2013 15:45
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:


Casting call! ( http://www.larissamaircasting.com/host )

If you’re here to find instructions regarding a self tape audition
submission for the male Kids’ CBC Host, you’re in the right place!
Below, you will find a PDF with the audition material and all of the

Please only submit if you match the following criteria:
· Male between the ages of 23-35yrs
· Any race except Caucasian
· Non-union
· Must be able to carry a tune (ability to dance or move well is a
bonus but not necessary)
· Comfortable being in front of a camera and not afraid to show a
silly side
· Great with kids; the type of guy that pre-schoolers would love to
be around
· Loves physical comedy, would enjoy hanging out with puppets all day
and can be funny on the fly
So does this also mean “no Irish” need apply?
Here is the Government of Canada’s position on discriminatory hiring
in the public service. According to one of Stephen Harper’s former
Presidents of the Treasury Board, Stockwell Day,
“While we support diversity in the public service, we want to ensure
that no Canadian is barred from opportunities in the public service
based on race or ethnicity,” Day said in a statement.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, who was also involved in the
decision to review the government’s hiring practices, which give
priority to qualified applicants from minority groups, said everyone
should be considered for federal jobs.

“We are in favour of appropriate diversity in the public service and
reasonable efforts to achieve it, but we don’t think any Canadians
should be excluded from applying within their government,” he told
CBC News. “It’s OK to encourage people from different backgrounds
to apply but in our judgment it goes too far to tell people that if
they are not of a particular race or ethnicity they cannot apply [for
a job] that is actually funded by their tax dollars.”

Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp276.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgwwbgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
CAFE Granted Intervener Status in Lemire Sec. 13 Appeal in Federal Court
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 02 May 2013 04:52
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:

CAFE Granted Intervener Status in Lemire Sec. 13 Appeal in Federal

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

The Canadian Association for Free Expression has been granted
intervener status before the Federal Court of Appeals in the Warman v
Lemire case. this was the Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) complaint
filed by Warman in 2003. CAFE has stood with Marc as an intervener
from the beginning, through the six years before the Canadian human
rights tribunal leading up to his victory, September 2, 2009, where
Sec. 13 was essentially declared unconstitutional.

The chagrined Canadian Human Rights Commission sought judicial review
(appealed in Federal Court). Again, CAFE sought and was granted
intervener status, but not before a long costly battle against the
objections of complainant Richard Warman and the CHRC to our
participating.The case was heard, December 11, 2011. The Federal Court
judge who heard the case, did not recuse himself despite having been a
senior Department of Justice lawyer in 2001 who had assured MPs and
the media that Bill C-36 (the anti-terrorist act, which among other
things, gave control of the Internet to the CHRC) was constitutional.
While he ruled that the fines added to the Human Rights Act in 1998
were unconstitutional, he upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13.

So, Marc appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal. CAFE sought
intervener status again. Again, the CHRC objected. Our new lawyer
Barclay Johnson had to fight off the objections. His skillful
lawyering prevailed, but the CHRC had accomplished its goal of running
up the costs of anyone who defends free speech.

Anyway, we're in as the enclosed order shows.

We could not have come this far without the loyal support of freedom
loving idealists like you. I again ask for your support to continue
the fight.

Paul Fromm

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

__ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ intervene in the
Federal Court of Appeals in the Marc Lemire case.

__ Here's my special donation of _____ to help CAFE pay off its
legal bills in the Warman libel suit.

__ Please renew my subscription for 2013 to the Free Speech Monitor

Please charge

Expiry date: __________




CAFE's Paul Fromm presenting Marc Lemire With CAFE "Freedom Award" and

a substantial donation, December 11, 2011 in Toronto.

Date: 20130426
Docket: A-456-12

Ottawa, Ontario, April 26, 2013

Present: NADON J.A.




UPON notice of motion by the Canadian Association for Free Expression
(CAFE) for an Order granting it leave to intervene in this appeal;

AND UPON the affidavit of Frederick Paul Fromm sworn February 4, 2013;

AND UPON CAFE’s written representations;

AND UPON the respondent, Canadian Human Rights Commission’s motion
record in response to CAFE’s motion including its written



1. CAFE is granted leave to intervene in this appeal pursuant to Rule
109 of the Federal Courts Rules.

2. CAFE is granted leave to file a memorandum of fact and law, at
their discretion, a book of authorities. The memorandum of fact and
law shall not exceed 15 pages in length and shall be filed no later
than 15 days from the date of this Order.

3. Unless otherwise ordered or directed by the panel at the hearing of
the appeal, CAFE is granted leave to make oral arguments of no more
than 20 minutes at the hearing.

4. No costs of the appeal shall be sought nor awarded by or against

5. The style of cause is amended accordingly.

“M. Nadon”


Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp309.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgwwjgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
In Germany You Can Lose Your Job & Go to Jail for Translating A Book Questioning the
Written by Paul Fromm
Monday, 29 April 2013 03:45
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:

In Germany You Can Lose Your Job & Go to Jail for Translating A Book
Questioning the Hollywood Version of World War II

“To secure the victory, beside the necessary occupation of the enemy
nation and the sentencing of the elite in war crime trials, it is most
important to impose on the conquered a re-education program. The means
are: to implant into the brains of the conquered the presentation of
history from the viewpoint of the victors. It is important to transfer
the moral categories of the war propaganda into the consciousness of
the vanquished. When the war propaganda of the victors is written up
in the history books of the vanquished and is believed by the
successive generation only then can re-education be looked upon as
having been a success.”
~Walter Lippman, President Woodrow Wilson's propaganda minister

[Editor's Note: To my knowledge this is the first English translation
of the trial of Guenter Deckert translated from the original report of

German lawyer Sylvia Stolz. I am deeply indebted to the dedicated
efforts of my colleague Christine B. Miller for translated the text of
the trial into English so that the West can now get a much fuller idea
of the scope and degeneracy of the current German justice system.

To say the very least what we are witnessing here in the manner in
which Guenter Deckert was treated by the German judiciary and the
Zionist media is beyond comprehension for anyone who still adheres to
the notion that law is somehow connected to both reason and logic.
After reading this long and interesting report one cannot fail to
realize that Germany is now firmly held in the claws of the Zionist
power machine. Walter Lippman's prognosis for brainwashing those
defeated in war appears to have come true.

All that said though, here in Canada with the current "Hate Crime"
laws like sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and sec. 319(2) of
the Canadian Criminal Code, we're not really that far away from being
a full-blown Zionist Occupied nation as well.

It must also be clearly understood that the German media and the
Canadian media are both controlled by the Zionist Jew criminal cartel
just as the British, the French and the American media also are and if
a person gives sufficient thought to the success of the victors in the
case of Germany they can also extrapolate for there to any other
nation where the media is in the hands of the oppressors and the
manufacturers of "Hate crimes".

This is an important document for anyone interested and concerned
about freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Please take the
time to read it and also consider passing it on to as many other
websites as you can. The world needs to be fully aware of the
collective danger posed by political Zionism in order that steps can
be taken to dismantle this global, power-crazed entity before our
collective health, welfare and security are all destroyed. Arthur
Topham/Editor/Radical Press]

The Trial of Guenter Deckert

By Sylvia Stolz

Translated from the German language
by Christine B. Miller

"A prison sentence will not force me into believing."
~ Guenter Deckert

"When I have doubts I demand the right to express them …They talk
about tolerance, but mean the inquisition. … The hunt to find
incorrect literature pretending to fight crime. For a short time
people can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but the brain
continues to reason."

Thus spoke Guenter Deckert in his final comment at his sentencing
February, 2012 in front of the state court Mannheim. The report of his
trial follows.

Since January 2, 2013 Guenter has been in prison on account of aiding
and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. We accompanied him on his
journey to prison and took leave of him at the Mannheim prison gate.

We expressed our thanks for his courage and his commitment to freedom,
justice and truth. We will always remember that. The day will come
when the Germans and other people will appreciate his zeal.

He is supposed to be released May 2013. We will be there waiting for
him starting at nine o’clock.

Address: Herzogenriedstrasse 111, 68169 Mannheim. Whoever wants to be
there and greet him is cordially invited.

Mannheim Prison, Germany

The Opinion Terror

By Sylvia Stolz

Lawyer Sylvia Stolz

A prison sentence for doubting the “Holocaust.”

No probation for expressing one’s opinion in these times of alleged
"right wing terror.”

In these times of the “resurfacing” of right wing extremism which,
without question, is due to the criminal deeds of the alleged
“NSU”, Holocaust denial constitutes a considerable danger for
public peace.

Guenter Deckert, former high school teacher, on February 2, 2012 was
sentenced by the state court of Mannheim to a prison sentence of six
months without probation on account of aiding and abetting so-called
Holocaust denial. As well, because of the “radical” law and in
spite of high evaluations he was dismissed from his high school
teaching job in November, 1988 in the State of Baden-Wuertenberg and
was denied his pension.

He is charged with having cooperated in the translation into German of
the book by Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz – the First Gassings, Rumors
and Reality (December, Castle Hill Publishers.)

Author & Historian Carlo Mattogno

On July 28, 2010 Guenter Deckert had been sentenced by the lower court
of Weinheim to a prison term of 4 months with probation. The charges
were: promotion of incitement of the public by means of Holocaust
denial and defamation of the memory of the dead. (&&130 III, IV, 189
STGB-BRD. Aktenzeichen: 2Ds 503 Js 14219/08 – AK 579/09).

The prosecutor appealed and on February 2, 2012 the sentence by the
state court of Mannheim was increased to six months without probation.
Guenter Deckert’s appeal was thrown out (Aktenzeichen: 12Ns 503 Js

Many people in the BRD (Germany), the BRO (Austria), Switzerland,
France, Spain, Greece and other countries have been sentenced because
they denied or doubted the Holocaust when defined as systematic
genocide. At times very high prison sentences have been handed down.
For example the sentence against lawyer Horst Mahler.

Lawyer Horst Mahler

The Holocaust is not defined

During his appeal Guenter Deckert wanted to know the concrete facts
which he, according to the accusations, deliberately ignored and the
truth he contested. He received no answer.

It is especially telling that the so-called “Holocaust” is not
legally defined (This is against the principal of the penal law). In
the first trial no concrete facts as to the place of the crime, the
methods of killing or other proofs, directly or indirectly presented
in the findings of other trials, were presented.

Concerning his denial the court pointed to &130 section 3StGB , &6
section of the international penal law which defines genocide as being
when a member of an ethnic or religious group is killed with the
intent to destroy or partially destroy the whole group. According to
&130 section 3StGB i.V.m &6 section VStGB people can be punished who
deny that under the rule of National Socialism, without knowledge or
intent of the German Reichsregierung, a Jew, by someone or another
(even by a non-German), had been killed with the intent to partially
destroy Jewry as an ethnic and religious group.

"Known to the court” to be challenged"

Guenter Deckert at the beginning of his appeal made the following

"I move for the court to discuss point by point the principles on
which the court rests its “known to the court” facts which, since
the beginning of the Seventies of the Twentieth Century, generally go
under the notation “Holocaust.”

The court should establish if and how far the persons who are called
to judge have knowledge of these “facts” or only base their
judgment on hearsay or secondary literature."

Before coming to a decision about this motion the court should take
into consideration the resolution by the petition caucus of the German
Bundestag (upper house) Pet 12-4-07-45-5699 ( tel:12-4-07-45-5699 )
Deutscher Bundestag 12. election period – print 12/2849.

An excerpt: During a main trial the court is duty bound to discuss
those facts of which the court has taken judicial notice in order to
give the accused the opportunity to contest them. In addition it has
to be acknowledged that “known to the court” does need to exist in
perpetuity or has to remain unchanged. New information might have been
gotten and new events might have happened which will bring about a
different conclusion. If the accused presents such circumstances which
in the past have not been mentioned or discussed the “known to the
court” can be challenged and new proofs concerning these facts have
to be considered. In this way the accused and his defender have the
possibility to counter “it is known to the court.”

The decision concerning “it is “known to the court” & 244 lies
therefore exclusively in the hands of the court in question and is
subject to the principle of independence in respect to judges. It is
also possible that in individual cases a different judgment may be the

Judgment based on the media

Concerning “it is known to the court” the following decisions
have been made: (…)

The county court Bernau presided over by the female judge Kroh
rejected the motion to discuss the principles of “known to the
court,” stating that the facts and the legal situation were the
same. She simply gave judicial notice that during the National
Socialist (NS) period, the genocide of the Jews in gas chambers
located in the concentration camps happened.

The 3. Senate of the Bavarian state court rejected the motion
concerning “the Holocaust is a fact, known to the court” with the
pronouncement that it does not have any doubts as to the reality of
the Holocaust, referring to the accessible and common information in
words, pictures, and sound. (decision 1/14/2011, Bay AGH II –
27/09). The motion of the defense to challenge which material the
senate based its certainty of “known to the court” was denied
citing material in newspapers, on TV, in reference and history books
(decision 2/8/2011).

The judiciary degrades itself to a grotesque caricature if it bases
its judgments on the media and TV. Judiciary contains the word
justice. It does not deserve its name.

No actual facts

It is worthy of notice that the so-called Holocaust is not legally
defined and facts are avoided. In & 130 StGB-BRD which is used to
convict “Holocaust deniers” the so-called Holocaust is not
defined. It is not even mentioned.

The sentencing of Guenter Deckert in the first instance at the local
court in Weinheim contains no determination of the crime of
“Holocaust denial”. In other words there is no determination of
the Holocaust in regard to the place of the crime, the methods of
killing, the number of the dead, the time frame, the perpetrators, the
bodies, no deposition taken of the witnesses, no proof of the intent
by National Socialism to completely or partially exterminate the Jews.
There is no determination about decisions, planes, orders or documents
not even in the form of references to other judicial sentences.

In addition there is no determination of the knowledge the accused
had, or is supposed to have had, or must have had, or could have had.

As long as the courts do not name the location on which the mass
murder was suppose to have happened; as long as the courts do not
describe how the killing was done; as long as the courts do not
mention any proofs; a judgment that mass murder has occurred is not
possible. The same is the case for “it is known to the court.”
Without submitting proof as to actual facts a sentencing for Holocaust
denial is not valid.

Without the determination of what knowledge of the so-called Holocaust
the accused had or could have had, the charge that he acted against
his better knowledge is void.

If the above mentioned points are not addressed a sentencing for the
denial of the Holocaust is arbitrary and a corruption of the law.

A defense is not possible

The refusal by the judiciary to bring up for discussion the principle
of “it is known to the court that the holocaust happened” makes
any defense impossible. Not knowing the concrete facts on which the
accusation is based emasculates the defense. The law used to sentence
an accused without the defense being able to challenge “it is known
to the court” defeats the ends of the law.

“The Holocaust as fact is known to the court.” Which facts however
the court knows are not stated.

For example: Dr. Martin Broszart, director for the federal Institute
fuer Zeitgeschichte published the following: “Neither in Dachau, nor
in Bergen-Belsen, nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other inmates
gassed.” (Die Zeit, 8/19/1960, p 16). On the other hand there are
publications which talk about the gassings in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen
and Buchenwald. Which of the two is, according to the judiciary,
“…known to the court?” Is it “known to the court” that
inmates were gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, or is it
“… known to the court” that nobody was gassed at Dachau,
Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald? Both cannot be “… known to the

An entire event such as the so-called “Holocaust” can only be
undisputed (facts known to the court) when the individual events are
undisputed (facts known to the court).

The history Professor Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the Institute for
Contemporary History at the University of Vienna wrote the following
expert opinion: “Substantial doubts about the trials in question
have been raised by the presentation of expert opinions to national
and international courts. The relentless repetition of judgments using
“ facts known to the court,” namely that the Jews were killed by
gas in the concentration camp of Auschwitz, will not be enough on
which to base sentencing in a democratic nation which is supposed to
be founded on justice and right.” (letter to the state court Vienna,
January 10, l991, AZ:26b Vr 14 184/86)

The Ruhr –Nachrichten (Bochum) No. 277 (November 29, 2005) printed a
citation by the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon: “The
historiography known to us about WWII and the Holocaust is a complete
falsification initiated by the Americans and Zionists.”
Is the Holocaust indisputably “a fact known to the court” or is it
indisputably “a fact known to the court” that the Holocaust is
frequently challenged and therefore can not be “a fact known to the
It is therefore illogical to call a certain alleged historical event
which is frequently contested as “a fact known to the court,” a
concept which the authorities then use to persecute and penalize the
Abuse of procedural rights
After reading the motion Guenter Deckert wanted to know what he has to
accept as “facts known to the court.” The prosecutor, Andreas
Grossmann replied (11/14). “That you will find out during
sentencing.” During the sentencing however nothing was said.
The chairman, Ross, decreed to postpone the decision concerning the
motion. He said: first principles have to be established. Prosecutor
Grossmann remarked (January 13, 2012) that the motion only will be
dealt with after the pleading. The purpose became obvious when
(January 13, 2012) the motion was denied. In the meantime Guenter
Deckert took up his case again. In order to show that the “facts are
known to the court” must be fully discussed he described in detail
circumstances and facts which made him doubt the “Holocaust.” For
example he mentioned Dr. Benedikt Kautzky who, for seven years, was
in German concentration camps among others, in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and
who wrote that in no camp did he ever see a gas chamber.
The chamber denied the motion to discuss “facts are known to the
court“ (chairman - Roos, jurors-Wolfgang W. and Helmut M.) using,
among other arguments, the reason, “the Holocaust defined as mass
killings of Jews especially in the gas chambers of the concentration
camps during WWII is “a fact known to the court” (January 13,
2012). The Holocaust as historical event is considering evidence
beyond discussion.”
“The facts are known to the court” is not to be discussed because
“the facts are known to the court” is a circular argument which is
incompatible with logic and beyond reason and the principles of
The resolution goes on to accuse Guenter Deckert of abusing procedural
rights. The need for proofs is not applicable since Guenter Deckert's
demands in that regard, during the main trial, are only designed to
involve the court in order to spread his revisionist ideas. This is
obvious from his presentation in which he declared that “facts known
to the court” needs to be discussed.
According to the court it is an abuse of the justice system when an
accused, before being sentenced, tries to move the court to examine
the facts of which he is accused.
The resolution furthermore implies that the chamber considers the
discussion which forms the basis of the accusation as “court
research” to which the accused is not entitled.
The court in this resolution has obviously ignored the laws of reason.
On one hand the court looks at the motion to discuss “the Holocaust,
a fact known to the court” (contrary to what Guenter Deckert has
said) as a move for proof, on the other hand, in contradiction to
this, as a motion to obtain “court research”. The motion however
implies neither one nor the other.
Historical facts are deliberately ignored
The resolution further states that Guenter Deckert deliberately
ignores historical facts and obstinately refuses to accept the truth.
Reacting to the resolution (January 13, 2012) Guenter Deckert moved
(February 2, 2012) that the chamber communicate the following:
According to the court’s knowledge "the 'Holocaust' is a fact” in
which concentration camps and gas chambers existed.
According to the court’s knowledge in what ways did additional
killings take place?
According to its knowledge what were the number of victims?
According to the court’s opinion which facts of the so-called
Holocaust have I ignored and accepted?

Since the prosecutor and the court have not produced any facts in
regard to the accusation I cannot know which facts I supposedly

I made the motion to discuss the principles of the “Holocaust is a
fact known to the court” in order to be able to defend myself
against the accusation of Holocaust denial. I stated in detail that
the court is duty bound to discuss their determination that the
“Holocaust is a fact known to the court.”

In addition I have pointed out that there is no concrete definition of
the so-called Holocaust.

Furthermore no determination has been made about which knowledge of
the so-called Holocaust I had or was supposed to have had or could
have had.

In the resolution of January 13, 2012 the so-called decision does not
contain any determination to the circumstances and “it is known to
the court,” nor are there any references.

Without defining the deed in question a sentencing for Holocaust
denial is not possible.

Without determining which concrete knowledge the accused had about the
so called “Holocaust", or could have had, an accusation to have
acted against his better knowledge is void, and therefore a sentencing
for denying the truth is not possible.

What is “fact known to the court”

During my argument I presented facts which show that there is a need
for a discussion about “fact known to the court.”

“Known to the court” are historical facts which by means of
historical research are considered proven and everybody therefore
without specific knowledge can inform himself from history books,
encyclopedia and similar reference books (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, proof
in a trial, 5. edition, Carl Heymanns publishing house, Berlin 1983,

The acceptance of “the fact is known to the court” rests on the
preliminary condition that the fact is not challenged
(vglAlsber/Nuesse/meyer, a.a.O., p. 568.

If however in historiography the truth of an event is contested it
does not become accepted knowledge just because much has been written
about it and disseminated (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, a.a.O.,P. 540).

In my motion to discuss “the Holocaust happened is known to the
court” I cited examples of publications, especially non revisionist
publications which prove that the Holocaust historiography is not in
agreement, does not speak with one voice, is not unchallenged, and
contradicts itself. The Holocaust therefore cannot be claimed as “a
fact known to the court.”

A sentencing for denying the Holocaust on the basis of “the
Holocaust is known to the court” is therefore not possible. I made
the motion not in order to spread revisionism, as maintained by the
chamber, but for the simple reason that I have been accused of
Holocaust denial and that I want to use my right to defend myself.

To dismiss my motion because I intended for the court to deal with
“the Holocaust is known to the court” is arbitrary. Before
sentencing it is an essential duty and the task of the court to deal
with the underlying facts.

It is factually and judicially not understandable why in a trial for
Holocaust denial a motion is supposed to be abusive which is meant to
bring clarity in regard to “a fact known to the court.”

“Fact known to the court” is in need of discussion

When a French historian, Jacques Baynac, a proponent of the Holocaust
writes that for the existence of the Nazi gas chambers only the lack
of documents, traces and other material proofs can be confirmed (Le
Noveau Quotidien de Lausanne, Switzerland , September 2, l996, p.16
and September 3/l996, p.14) then this means that there is a need to
discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Michel de Bouaerd, professor for history and dean of the faculty for
the Arts and Sciences at the University of Caen (Normandy) states that
the documentation concerning the Holocaust is rotten, that the
documentation about the system of the German concentration camps is
permeated by a mass of invented stories, relentless repetitions of
falsifications, especially in regard to numbers, and confusion and
generalizations (Ouest-France v. 2-3 August l986, p. 6). This again
proves that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to
the court.”

Historian, Professor Ernst Nolte seconds the need for a discussion of
“fact known to the court. “The testimony of witnesses rests to a
large part on hearsay and mere surmises; the testimony of the few
eyewitness are in part contradictory and create doubts in regard to
their veracity.”

The director of the Yad Vashem memorial, Shmuel Krakowski, in the same
vain states (Jerusalem Post, August 17, l986): “Most of the 20,000
witnesses' testimony concerning the Holocaust are unbelievable,
falsified, cannot be verified, or in other ways are not true.”

On January 13, 2012 during a pause in the proceedings (around 16:30)
the chairman Ross directed the following words to me: “You would be
surprised at the knowledge of history by the jurors.” But judges
have to make an unencumbered decision, based on their conviction which
they formed during the proceedings in question (& 261 StPO). In
addition “facts known to the court” in order to be useable have to
be introduced during the main trial in order to give the participants
the opportunity to take a position.

It would therefore be useful if the members of the chamber would
reveal their knowledge of history to the accused before they convict
him on the basis of this knowledge.

If not it will remain obscure on which facts the members of chamber
base their views. It (the Holocaust) is supposed to be a wrong removed
from common categories and therefore &130 StGB is an exception to the
prohibition of having a special law. (motion of cessation of the trial
on account of the special law & 130 which is contrary to the German
basic law. The motion was denied January 13, 2012)

Permanent misjudgment

The chamber misrepresents my motion. It considers it a motion for
proof which is obvious from their choice of words. “The chamber is
supposed to furnish proof,” “makes proof unnecessary.” “proof
is also inadmissible,” “a motion for proof is inadmissible (p.2 of
the resolution).”

But it is unequivocally clear that the motion was not a motion for

The motion to discuss the principle of “the Holocaust, a fact known
to the court” does not mean, that the Holocaust did not happen (p. 2
of the resolution), but was a motion to examine the facts on which
“fact known to the court” are based.

The chamber maintains that I contested “facts known to the court."
The chamber is mistaken. I did not contest facts, but demanded the
discussion of facts.

What is a circular argument?

A circular argument is to deny the motion for discussion of the
principle of “fact known to the court” with the argument that a
discussion is not necessary since the Holocaust is “a fact known to
the court.” (p.2 of the resolution.)

The chamber misunderstands not only the meaning of a “circular
argument,” but also the concept of “an established fact known to
the court.” What is frequently contested can’t be “an
established fact known to the court” since “an established fact
known to the court” is defined as undisputed, unchallenged (see

It is a circular argument if I would say “the holocaust is not “a
fact known to the court” because “it is not known to the court.”
It is, however, not a circular argument if I say: “the Holocaust is
not fact known to the court” because “known to the court” is
equivalent to conformity and indisputability. The historiography of
the Holocaust is not in conformity and is not unchallenged. The
resolution stated by the chamber shows a lack of capacity to reason.

It is inconsequential if it happened or not

My motion of January 13, 2012 in which I stated that the
incriminating book is scientifically correct was denied. The following
reason was given: It does not matter if the book is scientifically
correct. I am guilty since I assisted in the formation of the book.

It looks as if the chamber agrees with the view of the Mannheim court
who convicted Ernst Zuendel. “It does not matter if the Holocaust
did or did not take place.” The “tageszeitung (February 9, 2007,
p.6)” writes about the Zuendel trial: “At the end the court denied
all the motions with the lapidary reason (a shock to some of the
antifascists among the audience): “It does not matter one wit if the
Holocaust did or did not take place. Its denial is punishable under
German law. Only this is what counts.”

It is a strange concept of justice and the law, namely, to convict
somebody on account of Holocaust denial because it does not matter if
or if not the Holocaust took place. It disregards all the principles
underlying right and justice. The federal court promoting this view
does not make it right and changes nothing.

The chamber appears to arbitrarily use a formulary in order to avoid
having to bother with analyzing the arguments of the defense.

Up to now it is obvious that the chamber abuses “procedural
rights” with goals which have nothing to do with the trial. It
feigns an interest in the truth, but uses the law for a nefarious

Even if a falsehood is repeated a thousand times, it does not turn it
into the truth.

This motion was denied using as justification the argument that the
court has no duty to communicate, and no duty to clarify. The motion
to communicate was denied even in regard to the fairness of the trial.

Contrary to the basic law

Guenter Deckert, at the beginning of his appeal (November 14, 2012),
moved to postpone the trial until the federal court
(Bundesverfassungsgericht) had made a decision in so far as &130 Abs.
3 StGB conforms to the Basic Law, especially Art. 5 GG (freedom of
opinion) and Art. 103 Abs. 2GG.

Doubting or contesting the Holocaust is, according to the new
principles laid down by the BVerfG, not punishable (1BvR 2150/08 V.
November 4, 2009).

In as far as the chamber is convinced that &130 Abs. 3StGb does not
agree with the interpretation of the Basic Law concerning the
“denial” and the down playing of the Holocaust, the chamber should
postpone the trial and await the decision of the Federal Court.

In the meantime, according to posted principles of the BVerfG,
punishment for denial or down playing of the Holocaust is not
congruent with Art. 5 GGand Art. 103 Abs. 2GG. This can be deduced
from the decision 1BvR 2150/09 (November 4, 2009)

This decision in regard to &130 Abs. 4StGB came about on account of a
Basic Law complaint by the deceased lawyer Juergen Rieger against the
prohibition of a memorial march for Rudolf Hess in Wunsiedel. It
contains basic principles which effect &130 Abs. 3StGB.

In the above mentioned decision the promulgated principles are not
only important for &130 Abs.4StGB but also for &130 Abs. 3StGB. This
can be surmised by the explanation of the 1. Senate of the BVerfG
which is meant to clarify the law concerning the expression of
opinions and therefore is all around binding. Due to the death of the
plaintiff (Juergen Rieger) the 1. Senate did not see it to the end and
did not make use of its possibility to discontinue the trial.

Opinions which doubt or contest the truth of the so-called Holocaust
are, according to recently determined principles of the BVerfG, not

Special Law

The 1.Senate emphasized in the above mentioned decision that the
prohibition concerning a special law has to be universally valid and
has to extend to all opinion limiting laws (Abs.- Nr.63).

It states that a special law is indicated if it leads to a connection
with an opinion limiting law concerning “certain historical
interpretation of events.” That definitely applies to &130 Abs. 3

The Senate of the BVerfG determined that special laws are laws which
do not limit the freedom of opinion concerning historical reigns of
terror, but only limit themselves to a reign of terror of a special
kind; explicitly named is the National Socialist regime.

Since Art, 5Abs. 2GG does not allow for special laws concerning the
limitation of freedom of opinion, but only general laws, special laws
are not in agreement with the Basic Law.

For this reason the 1.Senate of the BVerfG determined &130Abs. 4StGB
to be a special law – as an exception - which is nevertheless in
agreement with Art. 5 Abs. 1 and 2 GG, since & 4StGB puts limits on
the approval of the historical National Socialist reign of terror and
despotism (lead sentence Nr. 1), but does not penalize anybody who
minimizes the ideology of National Socialism or has an objectionable
historical interpretation of that time.

Denial is not punishable

The 1. Senate considers &130 Abs.4 StGB, in spite of it being a
special law, in agreement with the basic law since its judicial value
is similar to &140 StGB which heavily punishes anybody who rewards or
approves certain factual events (Abs.-Nr. 82). In this way it
demarcates &130 Abs. 4 from &130 Abs 3 StGB in as far as &130 Abs.
3StGB, contrary to &130 Abs. 4 StGB, penalizes not only approbation,
but also denial or disparagement.

The 1 Senate of the BVerfG emphasized that &139 Abs. 4StGB as special
law can not be based on the right to personal honor according to Art.
5 Abs. 2 alternative 3GG referring here to the dignity of the victims.
In regard to the general public the requirement of opinion limiting
laws according to Art. 5 Abs. 2 alternative 1 GG extends to the
protection of honor. Therefore the same is valid for & 130 Abs. 3StGB.
Since this is a special law it can not be based on the right to
personal honor or the personal dignity of the victims – in as far as
it extends to the punishment on account of denial or diminishment.

The 1 Senate in its decision states that it is “critical” of the
literature dealing with penalties concerning the disturbance of the
public peace and refers among others to the BGH judge and StGB
commentator Thomas Fischer (Abs.-Nr 93). The Senate unequivocally
states that the expression “Public Peace” meaning interests worth
protecting has to apply universally to rules in regard to offensive
opinions. It makes a point to emphasize that the paragraph:
“incitement of the public” (&130 Abs. 1 to 3 StGB” (Abs.-Nr. 78)
also covers the other infractions.

In reference to the protection of the public peace &130 Abs. 4 StGB
also contained in &130 Abs. 3StGB the 1. Senate of the BVerfG declared

“The concept of public peace which intends to protect the citizens
from being confronted with provocative opinions and ideologies does
not justify the interference with the freedom of opinion even if the
consequences might be dangerous and even if they propose a radical
change of the present valid order. A free nation has to be able to
cope with freedom of opinion. To protect the citizens from having
their feeling for peace and harmony disturbed, or the poisoning of the
mental climate, or a wrong interpretation of history does not justify
an intervention.” (Abs.-Nr.77)

In as far as &130 Abs. StGB penalizes the down playing or denial of
the so-called “Holocaust” it does not support a basis to threaten
punishment. It is therefore dissimilar to &130 Abs.4 StGB which
penalizes the APPROVAL of criminal offenses.

According to & 130 Abs. 3 StGb, not only the approval and approbation,
but also the denial and downplaying should be punishable, is not
congruent with the Basic Law.

In this connection it is meaningful that the Spanish constitutional
court on November 2007, in regard to a suit brought by the Spanish
publisher Pedro Varela, invalidated the order which penalized the
denial of the so-called Holocaust, but exempted approval.

On September 2, 2009 the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal judge,
Athanasios D. Hadjis, declared in the case of Warman v Lemire: The
prohibition against Holocaust denial is against the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. The attempt by the Italian parliament to push
through a law similar to &130 Abs. 3 StGB was not successful.

In 2008 the pensioned judges Hoffmann-Riem and Hassemer of the German
Federal Court took a critical stand in regard to penalizing Holocaust
denial. The daily paper “Der Tagesspiegel (July 10, 2008) commented
on Hoffmann-Riem’s opinion: "The Federal Court, according to
Hoffmann-Riem, has up to now not engaged itself with the punitive
illegality of Holocaust denial. But it is possible that in the future
there could be a new basic decision."

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (March 4, 2010) p. 4 writes:
“Shortly after his retirement from the Federal Court Hoffmann-Riem
said: ‘As a lawgiver I would not penalize Holocaust denial.’”
In the charge against the accused (Guenter Deckert) there is not a
hint that he would have approved of a Jewish genocide or that he would
have approved of a “Holocaust” or any other crime.
According to the above mentioned decision by the federal court the
trial should be suspended. A false interpretation of history, or an
offensive interpretation of those times (the Nazi period) in contrast
to approval has no basis in the law to curtail freedom of opinion.

No attempt to prove exceptional crimes
In spite of this decision there were more convictions on account of so
called “Holocaust denial.” It is obvious that some judges
interpret that decision at will.
In as far as the Federal Court speaks of the “unique crimes” of
the historical National Socialist regime (BVerfG a.a. O.,s.B. Abs.-Nr.
68) denial of the “Holocaust” does not mean its approval nor does
it lead to endangerment of law and order. Even a “unique crime”
does not make the provision of proof superfluous.
Denial does not mean approval
It is telling that the BVerfG does not make a difference between
approval of the so called “Holocaust and the approval of the
National Socialist regime but without any ado throws “Holocaust and
the reign of the historical nationalist reign of terror into one pot
without mentioning the one and defining the other."
The approval of the National Socialist regime in the conviction that
it had not committed mass murder of the Jews is equated with the
approval of the so called “historical reign of terror” which is
quietly equated with the approval of the ”Holocaust.”
Cleverly they leave out this muddling. They try to make it disappear
in a fog of generalizations.
They manipulate in the attempt to justify the persecution of
“Holocaust denial.” Without producing concrete facts or proofs
they accept, as an unquestionable fact, that the historical National
Socialist regime committed crimes. They try (in vain) to justify as
lawful that raising counter proofs merits punishment.
Special Status for the BRD (Bundesrepublik Deutschland)
The Federal Court tries to make us believe that the BRD can legislate
special laws as &130 StGB (punishment of a certain opinion which
includes the prohibition of presenting proofs for the defense because
the historical identity of the BRD is a “reverse mirror image of
National Socialism” (BVerfG a.a. O., Abs.-Nr. 66). In other words,
because the BRD is the BRD.
The arbitrariness (despotism) can not be expressed more succinctly.


The decision of the 1. Senate of the BVerfG does not mention any
concrete facts or any court verdict on which it bases its conviction
that the historical National Socialist regime was a regime of terror
and despotism. The so-called court judgment of the BGH (Abs.-Nr.100)
does not name concrete facts or events.

The Spiegel author, Goetz Aly, reports that 95% of Germans did not
look at the National Socialist system as a system which suppressed
freedom and ruled by terror, but as a system promoting social warmth -
a feel-good dictatorship. (Spiegel Nr.10/2005, p. 56). Again the
Spiegel: Even in the year l948 app. 57% of Germans thought that
National Socialism had been a good idea (Nr. 20/2003, p.47).

Revealing is the reference regarding the reasons of the allied
victorious powers which the 1. Senate states in connection with the
identity of the BRD (Abs. Nr. 65, 66). The final conquering of
National Socialist structures and the prevention of their resurrection
was the main reason of the Allies to reestablish German statehood.
(Abs.-Nr. 65).

In this connection it is interesting what Wendell Willkie, special
envoy of US President Roosevelt writes about his negotiations with
Stalin, namely that the first aim of the war should be the
“Abolition of racial exclusiveness.” (W.L. Willkie: “One
World”, Simon&Schuster, New York, l943 – published in the FAZ,
February 4, 1992).

The historian Prof. Christian Meier (University Munich), questioned by
the publication “Der Spiegel”: “How do you explain that the
national pride of the Germans was so effectively broken?” had this
to say: “The totality of the defeat and the collective shame about
Auschwitz.” (“Der Spiegel” Nr 30/2010, July 26, 2010, p. 126).

“Die Welt” (November 20, 1982) cites Walter Lippmann, chief of the
unofficial propaganda ministry under President Woodrow Wilson, in the
twentieth to fiftieth year of the past century and one of the most
influential journalists in the USA: “To secure the victory, beside
the necessary occupation of the enemy nation and the sentencing of the
elite in war crime trials, it is most important to impose on the
conquered a re-education program. The means are: to implant into the
brains of the conquered the presentation of history from the viewpoint
of the victors. It is important to transfer the moral categories of
the war propaganda into the consciousness of the vanquished. When the
war propaganda of the victors is written up in the history books of
the vanquished and is believed by the successive generation only then
can re-education be looked upon as having been a success.”

The Historian, Prof. Dr. Ernst Nolte, said this: If the radical
revisionism is right insisting that there was no holocaust in the
sense of an all encompassing, systematic genocide wanted by the top
echelon then I would have to admit that National Socialism was not a
fun house mirror copy of Bolshevism, but only a fight for survival by
a Germany pushed into a worldwide political defensive. (Ernst Nolte,
Francois Furet, Feindliche Naehe, Herbig, Munich l998, p. 222-224).

In l994 Patrick Bahners, who later became Feuilleton chief of the FAZ,
made this comment regarding the trial of so-called “Holocaust
denier” Guenter Deckert: If Guenter Deckert’s belief about the
“Holocaust” is correct then the Federal Republic would be founded
on a lie; every presidential speech would be a lie, every minute of
silence and every history book would be all lies. In as far as he
denies the genocide of the Jews he contests the legitimacy of the
Federal Republic. (“Objective suicide”, FAZ , August 15, 1994)

It is obvious that there is no legitimate basis to punish “denial of
the Holocaust”

This motion was rebuffed. In its reasoning the chamber confirmed that
2 and 3 of &130 StGB-BRD is not a general law, but a special law. But
an exception had to be made in regard to the prohibition of a special
law. The reasoning: a special law is legitimate on account of the
injustices and horrors of the National Socialist regime which were
beyond all categories and which involved Europe and many parts of the
world (decision January 13, 2012; replica of the 1.lead sentence of
the BVerfGE 11/4/2009, 1BvR 2150/2008).

With this decision the BVerfG claims that the Holocaust is not to be
judged according to general categories. That means the interpretation
concerning the Holocaust is outside of the law.

It is a clear case of despotism when proof is superfluous and even
declared punishable because it deals with a singular crime.

It is noteworthy what prosecutor Grossman, off the cuff, said about
the motion: “We interpret the decision of the BVerfGE not the way
you interpret it." … &130 needs to be interpreted?! The wording of
&130 is not understandable?!

Science does not matter

Guenter Deckert moved to get the expert opinion of an historian to
prove that Carlo Mattogno’s book “Auschwitz-the First Gassing,
Rumors and Reality” is scientifically correct.

The motion was denied: “Not only the professional judge, but also
the two lay judges have enough expertise in order to judge the problem
in question.”

Revealing is the further explanation of the chamber: The scientific
proof of the incriminating book is in regard to the court decision
“meaningless.” In judging the defendant it is irrelevant, even if
one holds the opinion that the publication is scientifically correct.
To have assisted in the translation of the book and its final revision
by the defendant, the defendant committed an offense of incitement or
assisting in the incitement of the public. The demand for proof is not
applicable in regard to &&130 Abs. i.V.m. 86 Abs. 3 StGB (social
adequacy clause) since the format of the case does not apply here.

In other words: It does not matter if the incriminating book is
scientifically correct. Assisting in the formation of the book has to
be punished.


Finally, Guenter Deckert rejected the judges due to bias giving
following reason (January 3, 2012):

The denial of my motion of November 14, 2011, pronounced today to
discuss the principles of “facts know to the court” of the
so-called Holocaust is worrisome because the lay judges let themselves
be guided by foreign interests instead of facts and take a position
which can not be squared with their duty to impartiality.

Unsubscribe / Change Profile: http://ymlp306.net/ugmjhqsqgsgbbqgwwmgguewwmw
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
<< Start < Prev 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Next > End >>
Page 81 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog