|January 30th, 2008||#1|
Robert Faurisson (France)
Holocaust revisionists and the hypocrisy of the French government
Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:26:21
By Paul Grubach
This is an open letter to France's Ambassador to the US, Pierre Vimont, By Paul Grubach, January 15, 2008
Dear Ambassador Vimont
It has been reported that revisionist historian Robert Faurisson will face trial on charges that he made statements at the Iran Holocaust Conference in December 2006, which cast doubt on the Holocaust.
As you know, the Gayssot Act of 1990 prohibits any public doubt in France about the Holocaust. This legal action was apparently initiated by former President Jaques Chirac. The duplicity, hypocritical double standards, and intellectual impotence of the French government are appalling. Offend Zionist Jews and the French government erupts in indignation.
Yet, if someone makes public statements that are offensive to Muslims, this is depicted as an expression of “free speech.”
The case of the high school philosophy teacher and author, Robert Redeker, illustrates the hypocrisy and double standard most clearly. In a commentary in the center-right daily Le Figaro, he made a scathing attack upon the Prophet Mohammed and the Islamic religion.
[Press TV is obliged to omit a certain Robert Redeker's quote from the original text.]
The French government labeled his statements as “expressions of free speech.” He was not put on trial or dismissed from his job. After receiving death threats, including one from an online Islamic forum, Redeker went into hiding under police protection.
In a show of support, the French government came to the defense of Mr. Redeker. Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called the threats "unacceptable." He then added this most blatant falsehood: "We are in a democracy. Everyone has the right to express his views freely, while respecting others, of course." (See The New York Times, 30 September 2006, p. A 3)
That this is an outrageous lie is demonstrated by the plight of Dr. Faurisson. In 1991 he was removed from his university chair on the basis of his Holocaust revisionist views under the Gayssot Act. Many years later he was given a three-month suspended jail term for Holocaust revisionist remarks he made on Iranian television in October 2006.
The double standard here is blatantly obvious. The French government defends a man who insults the Islamic religion, despite the fact that his statements are offensive to millions of Muslims. Indeed, not only did they defend his right to freedom of speech in a well publicized statement, but they offered him police protection as well.
Yet, this same French government allows a French professor to be removed from his university chair, orders criminal probes into his comments, and gives him a suspended jail sentence because of his Holocaust revisionist beliefs. This clearly falsifies Prime Minister Dominque de Villepin's hypocritical claim that France is a democracy “where everyone has the right to express his views freely, while respecting others." One has the right to insult and attack the Islamic religion and deny the existence of God, but Holocaust revisionists are not allowed to freely express their viewpoints. The free speech rights of revisionists like Dr. Faurisson are routinely violated.
Furthermore, it appears as though the policy of the French government to prosecute Holocaust revisionists is simply a reflection of the wishes of influential French Jews. It was reported in the February 4, 2005 issue of The International Jerusalem Post (p.10) that filmmaker Claude Lanzmann wants Holocaust revisionism to be outlawed. In his own words: “How do you fight against Arab denial of the Holocaust? Certainly not like in Western countries. But I don't know, I'm not Sephardic…It has to be outlawed, like in France, that's all.”
If you do prosecute Dr. Faurisson, this will not only demonstrate the French government's hypocrisy, but it will also help to show that the Holocaust legend really is a weak and flimsy ideology that cannot be defended with reason and science. In a word, the Holocaust is a false doctrine that needs oppressive laws and prison sentences to protect it from rational criticism.
Sincerely, Paul Grubach
|January 31st, 2008||#3|
Re: Robert Faurisson
January 24, 2008:
Professor Faurisson in police custody for questioning and a search of his house
RETIRED university professor Robert Faurisson lives in the central French town of Vichy. At 9 AM on January 24  he answered a summons to appear at the local police station. No sooner had he arrived there than he was notified by three senior officers, sent from Paris the day before, that he was now in their custody for questioning and that a search of his house would also be carried out.
In December 2006 then French President Jacques Chirac had publicly called for an investigation into Faurisson's participation in the conference in Tehran on the Holocaust (December 11th and 12th of that year). That conference was open to all, including revisionists. A British subject before being a French citizen, it was in English that the Professor, a specialist in "the appraisal of texts and documents (literature, history, media)", briefly spelled out the results of his research on "the Holocaust". His paper bore the title "The Victories of Revisionism". In it he didn't hide his belief that the more revisionism gained ground, particularly on the Internet, the more revisionists would face repression, first in the media, then at the hands of the police and the law courts.
The Minister of Justice then put a Paris prosecutor in charge of the investigation demanded by one who, dubbed "Superliar" by French television, was now anxious to come to the aid of an imperilled "Superlie". On April 16, 2007 police lieutenant Séverine Besse and a colleague of hers were sent to Vichy to question the professor. But to each of their queries he was to reply stubbornly: "No answer", and he had them put down the following statement in their official record: "I refuse to collaborate with the French police and justice system in the repression of historical revisionism".
Nine months later, on January 24, 2008, the thought police re-offended. In the meantime an examining magistrate, Marc Sommerer, was assigned to the case. And he sent the same Séverine Besse to Vichy, accompanied this time by two other officers of the Police Judiciaire (OPJ). She made it known to the professor that he was henceforth in custody for questioning and that after a session with them in a room in the station his house would be searched. There then followed a bodily search, confiscation of wallet and change purse, pen, watch and… belt (whereas the chances are nil of a man of nearly 79 hanging himself in a police station office in the presence of three officers). In fact, it was all probably just his interrogators' way of trying to intimidate a notorious recalcitrant, whose wife, as the police are aware, is for serious medical reasons in need of his constant presence.
However, with the stubbornness of a Scottish mother's son, R. Faurisson persisted in replying "No answer" to every question put. He reiterated his refusal to collaborate with the police and the justice system against revisionism. Then he was told that he was the target not of one but of three penal actions that had led to the issuing of as many warrants by examining magistrate Sommerer. The first two cited the professor directly for his participation in the Tehran conference; whilst one of these, originating both from the prosecution service and from a slew of pious organisations, attacked him for "disputing crimes against humanity" (under the Fabius-Gayssot law of 1990), the other, from the LICRA (Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l'antisémitisme), charged him with "defamation". The third action, tortuously worded, was brought "against persons unknown" by the daily Libération for the "pirating" of one of its pieces in the review Dubitando where, the police officers said, twenty of the professor's articles had appeared.
Faurisson was then taken to his house. The three "OPJ's" and a Vichy policewoman proceeded with the search. They drew a blank. They discovered neither the coveted computer nor, in a mountain of documents, the papers sought. At the end, towards 3 PM, the professor, making careful note of the three officers' names, affirmed to them, as he'd had occasion to do before judges in court: "It may turn out that your existence will be noted in history only insofar as I'll have mentioned your names and according to how I'll have mentioned you".
The day after this six-hour arrest for interrogation and search, that is, the 25th of January, the professor would celebrate his 79th birthday, not without a thought for those revisionist friends of his who were already in prison or who risked finding themselves there before long. He'd have a special thought for the heroic Vincent Reynouard, today a father of seven: ten years ago this maths teacher, adored by his pupils, was kicked out of the state school system in France for the crime of revisionism; at present his living conditions are more precarious than ever but he nonetheless keeps on doing copious research and producing revisionist material regularly; he stands up in person to the courts where the judges, noting his resolve, deny him the right to make a defence grounded in the substance of the case as he sees it, and sentence him with increasing severity; prison awaits him.
Faurisson would also be thinking of his fellow revisionists imprisoned in either Austria or Germany, for example Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Gerd Honsik and indeed Sylvia Stolz, "the German Joan of Arc".
Over the past nearly sixty years, long has grown the list of revisionists who have paid with their tranquillity, their health, their freedom and, sometimes, their lives for an attachment to the freedom of thought, the freedom of research (which, in history, should not see itself assigned any limits) and, finally, the freedom of expression.
|January 31st, 2008||#4|
Re: Robert Faurisson
"It may turn out that your existence will be noted in history only insofar as I'll have mentioned your names and according to how I'll have mentioned you".
Haha, serious style points for that answer.
|February 17th, 2008||#5|
Zionists Attack Truth-Seeking Scholars
Jews will once again subject Robert Faurisson (aged 78) to a trial for “holocaust denial.” The French judicial police served Faurisson a summons demanding that he appear in court this Thursday (24 Jan 08). Faurisson is charged with attending the December 11, 2006 conference in Iran titled, “Review of the Holocaust: Global Vision.”
This will be the fifteenth time that Jews have hauled Faurisson into court. Jews have already frozen his bank account, while court officials have repeatedly visited his home, threatening him and his wife with seizure of their furniture to pay for financial "damages" caused by his “heretical” remarks.
Faurisson is arguably the most thorough of all examiners of the holo-hoax. Ernst Zündel, Gemar Rudolph and others are in prison, but Jews consider Faurisson enemy #1, because of the meticulousness of his work. And since the holo-hoax cannot be defended with reason and science, Jews use oppressive laws and prison sentences to protect it from rational criticism. In many cases they use extreme violence, as you will see later in this post. Fortunately the Goyim are too cowardly to resist Jewish terrorism.
At the Iran conference, Faurisson said that for the past 32 years, he has been waiting for someone to show him one of the chambers where Jews where supposedly gassed during the holo-hoax.
In July 2006, a Paris court convicted Faurisson of “holocaust denial” because of remarks made by Faurisson on the Sahar 1 Iranian satellite channel in February 2005. Faurisson was given a three-month suspended prison term, and was also fined 7,500 euros.
The former Prime Minister of France, Dominique de Villepin, said, "We [the French people] are in a democracy. Everyone has the right to express his views freely.”
Therefore all defamatory remarks against Muslims or Islam are protected as “free speech.”
However, any questioning of the holo-hoax or Jewish atrocities is illegal.
The Gayssot Act of 1990 – initiated by President Jaques Chirac -- prohibits any questioning or examination of the holo-hoax.
Faurisson’s specialty is examining documents and manuscripts. In 1991 he was fired from his university post for questioning the holo-hoax. He was charged with violating the Gayssot Act, (Loi Gayssot) passed on 13 July 1990 that makes it illegal in France to question the holo-hoax. The law was proposed by the communist deputy Jean-Claude Gayssot, and is one of several European laws that make it illegal to examine the holo-hoax.
Its first article states that "any discrimination founded on the membership or non-membership to an ethnic group, a nation, a race or a religion is prohibited."
Discrimination against Muslims, of course, is permissible.
When Faurisson was terminated at the university, he appealed to the ICCPRHRC (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Human Rights Committee). This is a UN group that polices literature for any questioning of the holo-hoax. (It is not to be confused with the more high-profile Commission on Human Rights, a Charter-based mechanism, or its replacement, the Human Rights Council, which of course is controlled by Jews.)
Faurisson said the Gayssot Act violated international law. The ICCPRHRC disagreed, saying the Gayssot Act is necessary to counter “possible anti-Semitism.”
In 1991 Faurisson (collaborating with Siegfried Verbeke” published the Dutch-language brochure Het "Dagboek" van Anne Frank. Een kritische benadering ( The “Diary” of Anne Frank - A Critical Evaluation). The examination concluded that the “diary” is a forgery, since the original handwritten manuscript cannot be that of a child. The brochure was outlawed in the Netherlands.
Faurisson was born on January 25, 1929, in Shepperton, England. His father was French and his mother was Scottish. In his youth he attended schools in Singapore, Japan, and France. He was educated at a Lycée in Paris, and at the renowned Sorbonne. He received his "State Doctorate" in letters and the humanities from the Sorbonne in 1972, where he also taught from 1969 to 1974. From 1974 until 1990, he was a professor of French literature at the University of Lyon II. He is a recognized specialist of text and document analysis, and is the author of four books on French literature.
Faurisson took the stand as a witness to defend Ernst Zündel in the 1985 and 1988 Jewish trials in Toronto. He brought in Fred Leuchter, an American gas chamber specialist who had personally examined Nazi detention camps. Faurisson also spent hundreds of hours -- often working all day and very late into the night -- preparing questions used by defense attorney Doug Christie to demolish prosecutors.
(Side note: On 7 May 1995, Jews attacked Ernst Zündel’s home in Toronto. A few days later, Jews sent Zündel a booby-trapped package, which Zündel turned over to the police, who exploded it).
During an interview in December 1980 with the French radio network "Europe 1," Faurisson summarized the result of his historical research:
“The alleged gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews constitute one and the same historical lie, which has made possible a gigantic financial-political fraud, the principal beneficiaries of which are Israel and international zionism. The principal victims are the German people -- but not their leaders -- and the entire Palestinian people.”
For these words, Faurisson was convicted in July 1981 of “racial defamation and incitement to racial hatred” (even though Jews are not a race). He was given a suspended three month prison sentence, fined several thousand francs, and ordered to pay 3.6 million francs for the cost of making public the verdict on television and in periodicals. However, in June 1982 an appeals court threw out the charge of incitement to racial hatred and eliminated the 3.6 million franc payment.
In June 1995 a Paris court ordered Faurisson to pay a fine of $3,000 for writing Réponse ŕ Jean-Claude Pressac sur le problčme des chambres ŕ gaz ("Response to Jean-Claude Pressac on the problem of the gas chambers"). Henri Roques, another French revisionist, was likewise fined $3,000 by the court for distributing the work.
On 25 September 1997, the Jews charged Faurisson for a statement made in April 1996 about the Garaudy-Abbé Pierre affair in which he mentioned "the imposture of the Nazi gas chambers." During the trial, Faurisson told the court: "We are only three years away from the year 2000, and there are billions of people who are asked to believe in something they have never seen and don't even know how it worked!"
The prosecutor asked for a new kind of sentence: either imprisonment or a fine, to which Faurisson responded by declaring: "I shall not buy and shall not pay for my freedom. No one has ever bought me and no one will ever buy me."
On 23 October 1997 the court found him “guilty” and ordered him to pay 120,600 francs ($20,000), divided into three parts: 50,000 francs as a fine, 20,600 francs for the Jewish prosecutor, and 50,000 to pay for the publication of the summary of the court's judgment in two daily newspapers.
Three months later the Jews charged him again. In December 1997 Faurisson received a summons from a Paris court official for an essay, "The Horned Visions of the Holocaust," that had been posted on a website without his prior knowledge or approval. In this piece Faurisson wrote, "The Holocaust of the Jews is a fiction."
He responded to the summons with a stern letter in which he declared his refusal to "collaborate" with French justice authorities and police in the repression of revisionism.
Three months after that, the Jews attacked again. On March 16, 1998, Faurisson had to appear before a Paris court to stand trial for a short definition of "revisionism," as inaccurately reported in a newspaper.
The following month, Dutch Jews launched an attack. On April 8, 1998 Faurisson was ordered to stand trial in Amsterdam for the publication in 1991 in Dutch of his detailed analysis of the Anne Frank Diary. The Anne Frank Museum in Amsterdam and the Anne Frank Fonds in Basel, Switzerland, jointly brought the legal action. The Museum complained that Faurisson’s work made it necessary to provide “special training” for museum guides who had been awakened, and that Faurisson’s critique might reduce the number of museum visitors, and therefore museum revenues.
On October 3, 2006, a Paris court found Faurisson guilty of “Holocaust denial” for having said, during an interview with Iranian television, that “there was never” a single execution gas chamber used by the Germans during World War II.
As you can see, the Jews really want to silence this guy.
Jewish terrorists physically attacked Faurisson ten times between November 1978 and May 1993. None of the Jewish terrorists was ever brought to justice. The attack on September 16, 1989 (photo above) almost killed him. A Jewish terrorist group that called itself "The Sons of the Memory of the Jews" claimed responsibility. None were charged with a crime.
Three young Jews set a trap for the 60-year-old scholar, waiting until he was out walking his dog. They hit him with pepper spray, knocked him to the ground, and then repeatedly kicked him in the face and chest. Faurissaon only managed to get to the hospital because a passerby saw him lying on the ground. Badly injured, he had to undergo a lengthy surgical operation.
|November 19th, 2008||#6|
New Police Raid at my House
13 November 2008
Today, Thursday, November 13, at 6:15 AM, two investigators from the Police Judiciaire in Paris, having arrived in Vichy yesterday evening, burst into my house accompanied by three uniformed policemen, not without deliberately making a great deal of noise. This caused a severe nervous shock to my wife, who, at 77, suffers from a heart condition; I now fear the possible consequences. For the next hour and a half the armed policemen kept her, her brother and his wife (the couple had happened to be spending the night at our house) confined in a room, forbidding them to leave it.
The police’s loutish behaviour was all the more inadmissible as the two investigators (officiers de police judiciaire – OPJ’s) knew of my wife’s poor state of health. They had already visited us last January 24. That morning, upon reporting at Vichy police station to answer a summons, I was immediately placed in custody. When told that, after a questioning session, the policemen would be taking me back to my house and carrying out a search, I’d informed the OPJ’s that, as my wife had a weak heart, I had kept the matter of my summons a secret. I told them that at a certain time soon my wife would be leaving the house, and requested that they wait till then to show up for their search. However, they paid no heed to my warning and, with their untimely arrival, they had already given my wife a cardiac trauma.
This November 13 I hauled them over the coals. I told them what was what. And they calmed down.
The three men in uniform went away at 7:30 AM. The OPJ’s, a young woman and a youngish man, performed their search from 6:20 to 10:30.
I refused to answer their questions. For nearly thirty years I’ve been in the habit of responding to all questions from the police with the words: “No answer”, even if the questions are harmless ones. I refuse to collaborate with the French police and justice system in their repression of historical revisionism.
Once again, my two OPJ’s drew a blank. Once again, they found neither the computer nor the documents sought.
They came bearing five (!) warrants, the most important of these concerning my participation at the Tehran conference of December 11-12, 2006. The charges originated with then President Jacques Chirac and an essentially Jewish “anti-racist” organisation.
I ask indulgence of my correspondents beforehand should they find that, for a certain period, I leave their messages or letters unanswered. I am once more entering a time of turbulence. I have still not found a lawyer to replace Eric Delcroix, who has retired. By the way, I shall also ask my contacts not to come forth with recommendations of this or that reputedly courageous lawyer: there are in fact only cowards and inveterate swaggerers. (A model of the type: Jacques Vergčs. It pains me to note how few people have seen through the act he puts on. His pet artifice, clumsy as can be, is anti-racist one-upmanship. “Barbie a racist? You must be joking! No one was ever more racist than the French colonialists or the Australians, exterminators of the Tasmanian race.”)
In France as elsewhere at this moment, the Jews are demanding a greater crackdown on revisionism. As long as the State of Israel persists with its repeated provocations of the Palestinians, it will be putting itself in growing danger and, eventually, bringing about, whether it likes it or not, the Zionist regime’s disappearance. For the time being, that regime must at all costs safeguard its number one propaganda weapon: the lie that is the religion of “the Holocaust” with its alleged homicidal gas chambers.
We may expect to be treated like Palestinians. For my part, I will not give in. People sometimes find fault with me for forgetting, in my struggle, that a man’s first duty is to preserve the safety of his wife and children. But that, perhaps, is only a man’s second duty. Perhaps the first duty of a man is to be a man.
I do not lose sight of the fact than my lot remains enviable when compared with that of a good many other revisionists such as, for example, Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf in Germany, or Wolfgang Fröhlich and Gerd Honsik in Austria, or Fredrick Töben in London. I also think of the heroic Frenchman Vincent Reynouard, his wife and their seven children.