1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:05,054
Banned speech, banned evidence
and banned legal defence.

2
00:00:06,602 --> 00:00:10,430
The reality of "Free Speech".

3
00:00:26,896 --> 00:00:29,834
Our last speaker of the day
will be lecturing on

4
00:00:29,834 --> 00:00:37,540
banned speech, banned evidence and
even a ban on legal defence in court.

5
00:00:37,540 --> 00:00:40,584
On top of everything else, being banned
from defending yourself in court

6
00:00:40,584 --> 00:00:43,872
constitutes
a particularly disturbing problem.

7
00:00:43,872 --> 00:00:49,969
This speaker is a fully qualified lawyer
and throughout her lecture

8
00:00:49,969 --> 00:00:55,435
I find it of particular importance, that
we don't let our judgement be influenced

9
00:00:55,435 --> 00:01:01,186
by what our eyes and ears
have already been shown or told.

10
00:01:01,186 --> 00:01:11,135
She really made the headlines
a few years ago as a defence attorney.

11
00:01:11,135 --> 00:01:17,627
So, let me briefly explain
whom we are dealing with.

12
00:01:22,415 --> 00:01:28,006
This defence lawyer
has the courage of the lion.

13
00:01:28,006 --> 00:01:33,556
She is stronger than a man, and I have
never met a woman with such a profile.

14
00:01:33,556 --> 00:01:41,951
She bravely stood up and took it
upon herself to defend Ernst Zündel

15
00:01:41,951 --> 00:01:45,839
in the famous case against him
for so-called Holocaust denial.

16
00:01:45,839 --> 00:01:50,482
She was the trial lawyer
of Ernst Zündel.

17
00:01:50,482 --> 00:01:59,202
During the legal proceedings
she provided evidence to the court

18
00:01:59,202 --> 00:02:06,732
which could raise doubts regarding
the official account of history.

19
00:02:06,732 --> 00:02:12,008
This caused furore in the courtroom.

20
00:02:12,008 --> 00:02:18,229
And she was prohibited
from speaking any further.

21
00:02:18,229 --> 00:02:24,555
This speech ban was ordered as she was
presenting the arguments of the defendant.

22
00:02:24,555 --> 00:02:30,461
She was not allowed to argue the case
and barred from listing more evidence.

23
00:02:30,461 --> 00:02:37,358
She ignored the speech ban
and continued to submit evidence.

24
00:02:37,358 --> 00:02:41,927
And was then threatened
with penalties if she persisted.

25
00:02:46,276 --> 00:02:52,106
As it became too much for the authorities,

26
00:02:52,118 --> 00:02:56,516
she was arrested right there
in the courtroom

27
00:02:56,516 --> 00:03:03,207
during her defence of the so-called
Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel.

28
00:03:03,207 --> 00:03:05,922
But not even this could silence her;

29
00:03:05,922 --> 00:03:10,478
she continued to argue
the case of her defendant

30
00:03:10,478 --> 00:03:18,736
while being forcefully removed
from the courtroom.

31
00:03:18,736 --> 00:03:23,005
For this she was imprisoned
for almost three and a half years,

32
00:03:23,005 --> 00:03:27,779
in spite of her having
no previous convictions.

33
00:03:27,779 --> 00:03:33,000
Arrested in the courtroom
and locked up.

34
00:03:33,000 --> 00:03:39,005
On top of this, she had to face 5 years
of professional exclusion

35
00:03:39,005 --> 00:03:43,250
through cancellation of her licence
to work as an attorney,

36
00:03:43,250 --> 00:03:47,887
and was removed from
the Association for German Lawyers.

37
00:03:47,887 --> 00:03:54,581
They threw her out, but we would like
to carry her into our midst.

38
00:03:54,581 --> 00:03:57,558
I urge you to help her along.

39
00:03:57,558 --> 00:04:02,072
(Applause)

40
00:04:04,135 --> 00:04:09,818
We are talking about a legend here,
making headlines across Europe.

41
00:04:09,818 --> 00:04:12,236
Welcome Sylvia Stolz.

42
00:04:12,236 --> 00:04:15,829
Frau Sylvia Stolz, if they wouldn't
let you speak there, here you can.

43
00:04:15,829 --> 00:04:19,253
We trust you to know the limitations,

44
00:04:19,253 --> 00:04:21,553
I am sure you do.

45
00:04:21,553 --> 00:04:24,787
Much success with your speech,
our hearts swell for you.

46
00:04:24,787 --> 00:04:27,473
Sylvia Stolz: Thank you for
the warm welcome.

47
00:04:31,916 --> 00:04:41,650
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends,
thank you again for the warm welcome.

48
00:04:41,650 --> 00:04:47,893
I would like to begin my presentation
with one sentence,

49
00:04:47,893 --> 00:04:53,890
with the same one with which I will end.

50
00:04:53,890 --> 00:05:01,956
Since I believe that this sentence is
at the heart of human existence,

51
00:05:01,956 --> 00:05:08,259
and gives, I believe,
what it means to be human.

52
00:05:08,259 --> 00:05:14,898
"To think what is true,
to sense what is beautiful,

53
00:05:14,898 --> 00:05:18,766
and to want what is good,

54
00:05:18,766 --> 00:05:25,026
hereby the spirit finds the purpose
of a life in reason."

55
00:05:25,026 --> 00:05:29,627
This is a quote
from Johann Gottfried von Herder:

56
00:05:32,266 --> 00:05:34,305
To think what is true,

57
00:05:34,305 --> 00:05:37,760
[what is true, not what was,
which sound the same in German]

58
00:05:37,760 --> 00:05:41,030
"To think what is true,
to sense what is beautiful,

59
00:05:41,030 --> 00:05:45,700
and to want what is good."

60
00:05:45,700 --> 00:05:50,694
Regardless of your religion,
your worldview

61
00:05:50,694 --> 00:05:54,899
or philosophical orientation,

62
00:05:54,899 --> 00:05:58,630
this sentence encapsulates
the essence of human life, in my opinion

63
00:05:58,630 --> 00:05:59,891
the "a" and "o",

64
00:05:59,891 --> 00:06:02,204
the alpha and omega.

65
00:06:04,802 --> 00:06:12,291
And one's actions show
how one fulfils this human ideal,

66
00:06:12,291 --> 00:06:15,803
one's actions and one's behaviour.

67
00:06:15,803 --> 00:06:20,264
The first ideal is the predominant one,

68
00:06:20,264 --> 00:06:24,016
"To think what is true,"

69
00:06:24,016 --> 00:06:28,445
for only on truth can one build.

70
00:06:28,445 --> 00:06:35,856
When one builds on something untrue,
when one builds on something false,

71
00:06:35,856 --> 00:06:39,345
it might stand for a while,

72
00:06:39,345 --> 00:06:46,273
but at some time it must,
of itself, collapse.

73
00:06:46,273 --> 00:06:51,675
It is like trying to erect a building

74
00:06:51,675 --> 00:07:00,187
with a foundation of papier mâché
rather than proper stone

75
00:07:00,187 --> 00:07:04,432
or proper concrete.

76
00:07:12,349 --> 00:07:17,325
An important notion in relation
to the question

77
00:07:17,325 --> 00:07:23,266
"true thinking" or "finding the truth" is:

78
00:07:23,266 --> 00:07:26,866
Hear the other side.

79
00:07:26,866 --> 00:07:33,544
That is an ideal that is paid
particular attention to here.

80
00:07:33,544 --> 00:07:40,265
It is an old established principle of law:
<i>audiatur et altera pars</i>,

81
00:07:40,265 --> 00:07:44,559
the other side is to be heard.

82
00:07:44,559 --> 00:07:50,343
To be heard in court and also in science

83
00:07:50,343 --> 00:07:55,407
when there are two different opinions.

84
00:07:55,407 --> 00:07:58,275
In science, for example, there may be
two different opinions

85
00:07:58,275 --> 00:08:00,828
which are both heard,

86
00:08:00,828 --> 00:08:04,236
and one is not excluded from the outset

87
00:08:04,236 --> 00:08:07,345
for whatever reason;

88
00:08:07,345 --> 00:08:09,352
because it does not suit a result,

89
00:08:09,352 --> 00:08:14,655
or because the result does not fit in
with existing opinion.

90
00:08:14,655 --> 00:08:17,678
One should only exclude a result

91
00:08:17,678 --> 00:08:21,629
when it is seen to be definitively wrong.

92
00:08:21,629 --> 00:08:23,997
To that end one must first examine it,

93
00:08:23,997 --> 00:08:30,580
and first hear those
who have the given view;

94
00:08:30,580 --> 00:08:34,577
in the case of law, in a court.

95
00:08:34,577 --> 00:08:39,958
When two sides oppose each other there,
or when one person is accused,

96
00:08:39,958 --> 00:08:45,336
then it is the duty of the judge
to find out first of all what the truth is

97
00:08:45,336 --> 00:08:47,367
and what has really happened,

98
00:08:47,367 --> 00:08:52,303
and only then does one consider
how that is to be judged,

99
00:08:52,303 --> 00:08:57,153
whether it is a matter of illegality
or culpability,

100
00:08:57,153 --> 00:09:02,044
but the truth must first
be clearly established,

101
00:09:02,044 --> 00:09:04,579
what has happened.

102
00:09:06,136 --> 00:09:17,832
"Hear the other side" is today
often termed "the right to be heard",

103
00:09:17,832 --> 00:09:22,799
which means every citizen
has the right to be heard,

104
00:09:22,799 --> 00:09:25,863
before a court and
before other authorities

105
00:09:25,863 --> 00:09:34,963
to be listened to, to put,
to be able to put, his point of view.

106
00:09:34,963 --> 00:09:41,571
And it is not sufficient
that the judge just listens

107
00:09:41,571 --> 00:09:50,126
and thinks I know how this trial will go,
should go, but allow the speeches.

108
00:09:50,126 --> 00:09:57,189
That I have too often in practice over
and over again experienced and observed,

109
00:09:57,189 --> 00:09:59,301
that the judges say,

110
00:09:59,301 --> 00:10:05,255
"So what do you want? We're giving you
a legal hearing, we're letting you speak."

111
00:10:05,255 --> 00:10:11,796
Only by the conclusions
and the judgements is it apparent

112
00:10:11,796 --> 00:10:16,235
that they have taken absolutely nothing
into consideration,

113
00:10:16,235 --> 00:10:21,829
that he could be telling the truth
or that he could be right.

114
00:10:21,829 --> 00:10:27,135
That is an important factor
in legal hearings,

115
00:10:27,135 --> 00:10:31,036
that the judge considers

116
00:10:31,036 --> 00:10:36,451
that someone could be right.

117
00:10:36,451 --> 00:10:41,229
I've often experienced
that this is not so,

118
00:10:41,229 --> 00:10:45,794
that much more the attitude prevails:

119
00:10:45,794 --> 00:10:49,391
He is not right, because it cannot be,

120
00:10:49,391 --> 00:10:52,889
or, far more often, because it may not be.

121
00:10:52,889 --> 00:10:58,477
And one does not concern oneself at all
with the matters he puts forward.

122
00:10:59,896 --> 00:11:06,824
Such an attitude of a judge
can be classified as bias.

123
00:11:10,152 --> 00:11:16,213
He is biased, he is not objective,
he is not factual.

124
00:11:16,213 --> 00:11:24,640
Put another way, he allows himself
to be led by irrelevant considerations.

125
00:11:24,640 --> 00:11:27,792
That is grounds for objecting to a judge.

126
00:11:27,792 --> 00:11:33,957
Every accused can on these grounds
object to a judge.

127
00:11:33,957 --> 00:11:40,078
I have often done that, as a defender,
and in my own case.

128
00:11:40,078 --> 00:11:44,161
A judge has never been declined
in all Holocaust denial trials

129
00:11:44,161 --> 00:11:49,969
in which I have been present and observed,

130
00:11:49,969 --> 00:11:57,335
the objection has never been accepted,

131
00:11:57,335 --> 00:12:04,210
the judges were retained.

132
00:12:04,210 --> 00:12:08,495
One of the important topics
we will be discussing

133
00:12:08,495 --> 00:12:10,583
is "Freedom of Speech".

134
00:12:10,583 --> 00:12:17,687
One hears from many places,

135
00:12:17,687 --> 00:12:26,671
that people who have certain opinions
get into trouble.

136
00:12:26,671 --> 00:12:30,098
And this is not confined
to political discourse.

137
00:12:30,098 --> 00:12:34,041
I am sure you know of quite a few areas
without me listing them.

138
00:12:34,041 --> 00:12:38,806
But to give an example, say,
the issue of vaccines.

139
00:12:38,806 --> 00:12:44,132
There are doctors out there
who have been banned from practising

140
00:12:44,132 --> 00:12:48,132
because they warned against vaccination.

141
00:12:48,132 --> 00:12:55,183
This is just one example out of many
within medicine,

142
00:12:55,183 --> 00:13:00,183
one of the many areas
in which such things happen.

143
00:13:00,183 --> 00:13:06,749
Or journalists who are ostracized

144
00:13:06,749 --> 00:13:15,086
because they have a differing view
of the events of 9/11 2001, for example,

145
00:13:15,086 --> 00:13:17,756
and report on this.

146
00:13:17,756 --> 00:13:20,825
Such journalists are also bound
to get in trouble.

147
00:13:20,825 --> 00:13:27,396
However, these people are not punished
by criminal law,

148
00:13:27,396 --> 00:13:32,207
but find themselves punished
in their respective occupations.

149
00:13:32,207 --> 00:13:36,187
These two examples should suffice to show

150
00:13:36,187 --> 00:13:43,744
that the highly praised
"Freedom of Speech",

151
00:13:43,744 --> 00:13:46,766
in reality, isn't all
that it is made out to be.

152
00:13:48,575 --> 00:13:56,674
And now to the issue of banned evidence,
banned legal defence

153
00:13:56,674 --> 00:14:00,454
within the area of "Holocaust denial".

154
00:14:00,454 --> 00:14:08,258
Much could be said about this,
one hour is far from sufficient.

155
00:14:08,258 --> 00:14:13,137
My job here is to omit that
for which there is no time.

156
00:14:14,737 --> 00:14:19,891
But there are certain points
which I think are essential to emphasize.

157
00:14:19,891 --> 00:14:25,548
First of all, it must be said,
that the principle of

158
00:14:25,548 --> 00:14:28,617
<i>nulla poena sine lege</i>
(no penalty without law)

159
00:14:28,617 --> 00:14:32,270
is not observed
but regularly contravened.

160
00:14:32,270 --> 00:14:38,626
This principle dictates that the accused

161
00:14:38,626 --> 00:14:43,496
must be allowed to know
what he did wrong,

162
00:14:43,496 --> 00:14:46,588
and what would have been right.

163
00:14:46,588 --> 00:14:53,581
If someone takes a bicycle
that does not belong to him,

164
00:14:53,581 --> 00:14:56,340
most people know this is theft
and not allowed.

165
00:14:58,892 --> 00:15:02,370
In cases of libel,

166
00:15:02,370 --> 00:15:10,473
where a person says something negative,
something damaging reputation,

167
00:15:10,473 --> 00:15:17,129
then it's a question
of whether it is true or false.

168
00:15:17,129 --> 00:15:20,978
And if it's true what he has said,

169
00:15:20,978 --> 00:15:23,866
then it does not constitute libel,

170
00:15:23,866 --> 00:15:28,526
because in theory one is allowed
to speak the truth.

171
00:15:28,526 --> 00:15:33,419
In the case of Holocaust denial trials,

172
00:15:33,419 --> 00:15:39,939
the first problem we are faced with is
that the Holocaust isn't defined anywhere.

173
00:15:39,939 --> 00:15:46,913
There is, therefore, a problem
of lack of defining law.

174
00:15:46,913 --> 00:15:51,192
An authoritative definition
is not to be found anywhere.

175
00:15:51,192 --> 00:15:55,991
I'll come back
to what I mean by this later,

176
00:15:55,991 --> 00:16:01,660
what needs to be said exactly
so that it's authoritatively defined.

177
00:16:01,660 --> 00:16:13,412
Let's turn to to the legal passages
in the different laws.

178
00:16:13,412 --> 00:16:19,105
First of all, the ones in German law.

179
00:16:19,105 --> 00:16:24,838
In paragraph 130 section 3,
[of the German Criminal Code]

180
00:16:24,838 --> 00:16:27,992
according to which
so-called Holocaust deniers

181
00:16:27,992 --> 00:16:34,372
can be fined or imprisoned for
up to 5 years for each singular offence,

182
00:16:34,372 --> 00:16:41,300
there is no mention of Holocaust.

183
00:16:41,300 --> 00:16:43,804
It is not defined in the law as such.

184
00:16:43,804 --> 00:16:52,184
Instead it refers to paragraph 6 section 1
of the German International Criminal Code.

185
00:16:52,184 --> 00:16:57,142
And here we find
a definition of genocide.

186
00:16:57,142 --> 00:17:07,201
Whoever denies that such a genocide
has occurred, can be convicted,

187
00:17:07,201 --> 00:17:09,550
provided that additional criteria are met,

188
00:17:09,550 --> 00:17:12,288
the disturbance of public order,
for example.

189
00:17:12,288 --> 00:17:15,208
But what I would like to emphasize

190
00:17:15,208 --> 00:17:21,348
is the definition of genocide
in paragraph 6

191
00:17:21,348 --> 00:17:23,622
of the German International Criminal Code.

192
00:17:23,622 --> 00:17:26,906
It's just a few lines,

193
00:17:26,906 --> 00:17:30,268
I'll not give it quite in its entirety.

194
00:17:35,972 --> 00:17:38,692
It is considered genocide

195
00:17:38,692 --> 00:17:44,463
when <i>one</i> member of an ethnic,
religious or other group

196
00:17:44,463 --> 00:17:48,523
is killed with the intention of causing

197
00:17:48,523 --> 00:17:53,348
the destruction of that group,
in whole or in part.

198
00:17:53,348 --> 00:17:57,503
So, one member of, say,
a religious group is killed,

199
00:17:57,503 --> 00:18:05,051
and the perpetrator intended
to kill the whole or part of the group,

200
00:18:05,051 --> 00:18:11,547
so is genocide defined
in this paragraph 6.

201
00:18:11,547 --> 00:18:14,618
If one brings this together

202
00:18:14,618 --> 00:18:17,217
with paragraph 130 section 3,

203
00:18:17,217 --> 00:18:23,275
the denial of an act defined
in paragraph 6,

204
00:18:23,275 --> 00:18:28,315
then one can according to this definition,

205
00:18:28,315 --> 00:18:32,127
convict a person who denies ...

206
00:18:32,127 --> 00:18:36,131
one must add:
under the rule of National Socialism,

207
00:18:36,131 --> 00:18:38,731
it states in paragraph 130 section 3 ...

208
00:18:47,635 --> 00:18:51,363
So, according to according to
paragraph 130 section 3,

209
00:18:51,363 --> 00:18:53,799
a person can be convicted

210
00:18:53,799 --> 00:18:58,934
who denies that under the rule
of National Socialism

211
00:18:58,934 --> 00:19:07,429
a Jew was killed by someone
to the end of destroying the Jewry

212
00:19:07,429 --> 00:19:10,272
as an ethnic or religious group.

213
00:19:10,272 --> 00:19:13,530
What is not necessary, for example,

214
00:19:13,530 --> 00:19:17,153
is that the German government wanted it,

215
00:19:17,153 --> 00:19:21,696
had given the order,
or even that it knew

216
00:19:21,696 --> 00:19:25,870
that something had happened,
it is not required here.

217
00:19:25,870 --> 00:19:31,499
Equally unrequired is that the killing
was committed by a German,

218
00:19:31,499 --> 00:19:35,677
this is also not to be found
in these laws.

219
00:19:35,677 --> 00:19:40,740
So, one cannot speak
of a clear principle of law,

220
00:19:42,913 --> 00:19:50,341
because of this, in my opinion,
inexact definition of genocide.

221
00:19:50,341 --> 00:19:55,255
Or otherwise, one can define genocide,

222
00:19:55,255 --> 00:20:02,523
but the denial of it is naturally
yet another question.

223
00:20:02,523 --> 00:20:07,464
There are then the questions:
Is it Holocaust denial

224
00:20:07,464 --> 00:20:14,894
when one contests whether 1 was killed
or whether 6 million were killed?

225
00:20:14,894 --> 00:20:18,781
This alone shows the inexactitude.

226
00:20:23,241 --> 00:20:27,184
In the Federal Republic of Austria,
there is also a relevant paragraph,

227
00:20:27,184 --> 00:20:31,846
there too the Holocaust itself
is not defined.

228
00:20:31,846 --> 00:20:36,968
It is not clear what is meant.

229
00:20:36,968 --> 00:20:45,658
Let us now turn to the question of how
it should be defined in order to be clear.

230
00:20:45,658 --> 00:20:49,951
Normally, in cases of murder,

231
00:20:49,951 --> 00:20:55,889
the verdict must state
where the crime took place ...

232
00:20:55,889 --> 00:20:59,593
the police, the investigating magistrate,
must naturally first establish matters

233
00:20:59,593 --> 00:21:03,077
and then present their findings
to the court ...

234
00:21:03,077 --> 00:21:08,691
and in the verdict, when it is
appropriately proved,

235
00:21:08,691 --> 00:21:16,991
the judge can then state that on such
and such a day at such and such a place

236
00:21:16,991 --> 00:21:19,802
a murder took place
with such and such a weapon,

237
00:21:19,802 --> 00:21:21,808
and the perpetrators were so and so,

238
00:21:21,808 --> 00:21:25,631
and it is proved because, for example,

239
00:21:25,631 --> 00:21:32,623
it has become clear,
shown beyond doubt,

240
00:21:32,623 --> 00:21:36,550
that this is the weapon,

241
00:21:36,550 --> 00:21:42,608
that the fingerprints of the perpetrators,
the accused, are on it,

242
00:21:42,608 --> 00:21:46,706
and that there were powder residues
on the perpetrator,

243
00:21:46,706 --> 00:21:50,865
anyway a couple of examples.

244
00:21:50,865 --> 00:21:58,728
These things must be stated
in the judgement.

245
00:21:58,728 --> 00:22:05,306
When we are dealing with the denial
of such an act,

246
00:22:05,306 --> 00:22:08,688
with the criminal denial of such an act,

247
00:22:08,688 --> 00:22:11,825
then, of course, we would expect
the relevant act,

248
00:22:11,825 --> 00:22:17,742
the murder itself, established.

249
00:22:17,742 --> 00:22:21,683
Otherwise, we have no idea
what the accused actually denied.

250
00:22:21,683 --> 00:22:28,007
I suggest it is not clear
what is really denied,

251
00:22:28,007 --> 00:22:30,182
because it is not definitively defined.

252
00:22:30,182 --> 00:22:35,855
There should be at least one case,

253
00:22:35,855 --> 00:22:38,346
against a Holocaust denier,

254
00:22:38,346 --> 00:22:45,520
in which the relevant crime,
the Holocaust itself,

255
00:22:45,520 --> 00:22:50,698
is exactly established
in all necessary details.

256
00:22:50,698 --> 00:22:53,839
I know of no such verdict.

257
00:22:53,839 --> 00:22:59,709
There are no details concerning
the crime scenes, the method of killing,

258
00:22:59,709 --> 00:23:04,538
the number of victims,
the time-frame of the killings,

259
00:23:04,538 --> 00:23:07,813
the perpetrators, the bodies,

260
00:23:07,813 --> 00:23:12,243
or physical trace of a killing.

261
00:23:12,243 --> 00:23:16,899
The testimonies are not specified,

262
00:23:16,899 --> 00:23:21,638
nor are the documents
or similar kinds of evidence.

263
00:23:21,638 --> 00:23:27,318
The intention to destroy
all or part of the Jewry

264
00:23:27,318 --> 00:23:33,388
under National Socialist rule has not been
demonstrated anywhere.

265
00:23:33,388 --> 00:23:40,082
There are no documents showing
any prior decisions, plans or orders.

266
00:23:40,082 --> 00:23:43,978
When it comes to the trial
of Holocaust deniers,

267
00:23:43,978 --> 00:23:48,511
we do not find these things specified.

268
00:23:48,511 --> 00:23:51,743
Nor do we find any references
to other verdicts,

269
00:23:51,743 --> 00:23:54,897
where all these things
could have been stated.

270
00:23:54,897 --> 00:23:58,946
When one wants to show something, it is
the most scientific thing to do

271
00:23:58,946 --> 00:24:02,963
to refer to other verdicts
containing the exact information.

272
00:24:02,963 --> 00:24:06,836
This is also not the case.

273
00:24:06,836 --> 00:24:11,094
This is the problem.

274
00:24:11,094 --> 00:24:17,342
As long as the court will not commit
to certain specified crime scenes

275
00:24:17,342 --> 00:24:21,374
where these mass killings
are supposed to have happened,

276
00:24:21,374 --> 00:24:27,273
as long as the court will not commit to
at least one specified piece of evidence,

277
00:24:27,273 --> 00:24:30,939
as long as this remains the case,

278
00:24:30,939 --> 00:24:34,924
these mass killings simply
cannot be demonstrated.

279
00:24:34,924 --> 00:24:42,765
And no more so the denial
of these mass killings.

280
00:24:59,670 --> 00:25:03,759
Now one might say,

281
00:25:03,759 --> 00:25:05,489
"What about the Nuremberg trial?

282
00:25:05,489 --> 00:25:10,198
It's probably in there somewhere,
the details."

283
00:25:10,198 --> 00:25:12,699
This is not the case.

284
00:25:12,699 --> 00:25:21,643
Let me read you the relevant passage
of the Nuremberg verdict

285
00:25:21,643 --> 00:25:24,136
where gas chambers are mentioned.

286
00:25:24,136 --> 00:25:28,156
Here it says and I quote:

287
00:25:30,367 --> 00:25:33,361
A certain number
of the concentration camps

288
00:25:33,361 --> 00:25:37,044
were equipped with gas chambers

289
00:25:37,044 --> 00:25:39,131
for the wholesale destruction
of the inmates,

290
00:25:39,131 --> 00:25:42,259
and with furnaces
for the burning of the bodies.

291
00:25:42,259 --> 00:25:46,573
Some of them were in fact used
for the extermination of Jews

292
00:25:46,573 --> 00:25:51,995
as part of the "final solution"
of the Jewish problem.

293
00:25:51,995 --> 00:25:57,087
Most of the non-Jewish inmates
were used for labour,

294
00:25:57,087 --> 00:26:00,276
although the conditions
under which they worked

295
00:26:00,276 --> 00:26:05,087
made labour and death
almost synonymous terms.

296
00:26:05,087 --> 00:26:10,148
Those inmates who became ill
and were unable to work

297
00:26:10,148 --> 00:26:16,763
were either murdered in the gas chambers
or sent to special infirmaries,

298
00:26:16,763 --> 00:26:21,642
where they were given
entirely inadequate medical treatment,

299
00:26:21,642 --> 00:26:28,645
worse food if possible
than the working inmates,

300
00:26:28,645 --> 00:26:36,271
and left to die.
End quote.

301
00:26:36,271 --> 00:26:42,847
That is all it says about gas chambers
in the Nuremberg verdicts.

302
00:26:42,847 --> 00:26:44,543
It is all stated in general terms

303
00:26:44,543 --> 00:26:47,171
such as "a certain number
of concentration camps".

304
00:26:47,171 --> 00:26:53,938
It is not mentioned
where the gas chambers were.

305
00:26:53,938 --> 00:26:59,834
This means that a defence lawyer
is left with no place to begin.

306
00:26:59,834 --> 00:27:03,392
It is also important to emphasize

307
00:27:03,392 --> 00:27:13,842
that the rules of evidence
were nullified in the Nuremberg trials.

308
00:27:13,842 --> 00:27:16,592
Perhaps not all of them,
but in substantial part.

309
00:27:16,592 --> 00:27:23,600
It says here, in the London Charter

310
00:27:23,600 --> 00:27:28,770
which decreed laws specifically
for this military tribunal,

311
00:27:28,770 --> 00:27:32,317
in Article 19:

312
00:27:32,317 --> 00:27:38,384
The Tribunal shall not be bound
by technical rules of evidence.

313
00:27:38,384 --> 00:27:42,675
That is a sentence
that is worth pondering.

314
00:27:42,675 --> 00:27:50,635
That a military tribunal
from its inception

315
00:27:50,635 --> 00:27:58,070
is given a free hand
when it comes to rules of evidence.

316
00:27:58,070 --> 00:28:01,510
And further in article 20:

317
00:28:01,510 --> 00:28:09,468
The Tribunal shall not require
proof of facts of common knowledge

318
00:28:09,468 --> 00:28:15,862
but shall take judicial notice thereof.

319
00:28:15,862 --> 00:28:18,687
Interesting, right?

320
00:28:18,687 --> 00:28:23,292
It shall not require proof
of facts of common knowledge.

321
00:28:23,292 --> 00:28:28,250
But what are facts of common knowledge?

322
00:28:28,250 --> 00:28:33,124
It is usually the job of the courts
to establish the facts,

323
00:28:33,124 --> 00:28:38,728
not presume the facts.

324
00:28:38,728 --> 00:28:44,286
It all becomes somewhat clearer

325
00:28:44,286 --> 00:28:49,678
in the words
of the American chief prosecutor,

326
00:28:49,678 --> 00:28:53,897
Robert H Jackson.

327
00:28:53,897 --> 00:29:04,725
They are given in the Nuremberg protocols
vol. 19 p. 440:

328
00:29:04,725 --> 00:29:10,258
As a military tribunal,

329
00:29:10,258 --> 00:29:21,547
this Tribunal is a continuation
of the war effort

330
00:29:21,547 --> 00:29:25,044
of the Allied nations.

331
00:29:25,044 --> 00:29:33,796
I'll repeat, the Nuremberg tribunal is
a continuation of the war effort

332
00:29:33,796 --> 00:29:38,923
of the Allied nations.

333
00:29:38,923 --> 00:29:44,714
Does a nation engaged in a war effort
need rules of evidence

334
00:29:44,714 --> 00:29:49,730
as it seeks to burden
its opponent with guilt?

335
00:29:49,730 --> 00:29:53,979
I would now like to read you a passage
from another verdict,

336
00:29:53,979 --> 00:30:00,982
in which one might assume
to find the details

337
00:30:00,982 --> 00:30:05,483
of the Holocaust specified.

338
00:30:05,483 --> 00:30:12,123
This is from the so-called
Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials.

339
00:30:12,140 --> 00:30:16,669
Here it says in the final verdict,
and I quote:

340
00:30:16,699 --> 00:30:22,264
Almost all the usual forms of evidence
of a normal murder trial

341
00:30:22,283 --> 00:30:26,554
necessary for gaining
a true image of the events

342
00:30:26,647 --> 00:30:29,639
at the time of the murder

343
00:30:29,644 --> 00:30:33,137
were unavailable to the court.

344
00:30:33,227 --> 00:30:36,205
There were no bodies of the victims,

345
00:30:36,238 --> 00:30:39,336
no autopsy reports,

346
00:30:39,341 --> 00:30:47,725
no expert reports on the cause
and time of death,

347
00:30:47,776 --> 00:30:51,573
there was no evidence
as to the perpetrators,

348
00:30:51,613 --> 00:30:55,059
the murder weapons, and so on.

349
00:30:55,090 --> 00:31:01,204
Verification of the witness testimonies
was only possible in a few cases.

350
00:31:01,242 --> 00:31:03,127
And further below:

351
00:31:03,143 --> 00:31:09,313
The court was, therefore, almost solely
dependent upon witness testimonies

352
00:31:09,320 --> 00:31:16,066
in the clarification of the crimes
of the accused.

353
00:31:16,092 --> 00:31:20,793
And yet further on:

354
00:31:20,818 --> 00:31:23,391
There were hardly any witnesses

355
00:31:23,410 --> 00:31:28,607
who lived through the events
at Auschwitz concentration camp

356
00:31:28,609 --> 00:31:32,060
as neutral observers.

357
00:31:32,081 --> 00:31:37,078
One can conclude from this verdict,

358
00:31:37,104 --> 00:31:42,515
or rather simply see what stands there,

359
00:31:42,525 --> 00:31:48,047
the court was almost solely dependent
upon witness testimonies

360
00:31:48,071 --> 00:31:51,377
in the clarification
of the crimes of the accused.

361
00:31:51,406 --> 00:32:00,736
Such is the situation at the start
of a trial for Holocaust denial,

362
00:32:00,794 --> 00:32:05,226
and it is also the situation at the end,
because nothing is changed.

363
00:32:05,263 --> 00:32:07,446
One gets to know,

364
00:32:07,474 --> 00:32:09,888
neither as defence attorney
nor as accused,

365
00:32:09,916 --> 00:32:14,270
absolutely nothing of what has
actually been established as fact,

366
00:32:14,309 --> 00:32:18,290
because it is not given in the verdict.

367
00:32:18,294 --> 00:32:23,250
Not in older verdicts
nor in newer verdicts.

368
00:32:23,349 --> 00:32:27,487
There is a lot in the media
and much can be read in books about it,

369
00:32:27,503 --> 00:32:34,155
but we want to hear it from the courts,
we want to hear it stated officially.

370
00:32:34,168 --> 00:32:37,637
We want to know.
Really know.

371
00:32:37,691 --> 00:32:44,993
One does not want to deny what is proved,
but one wants to know what was,

372
00:32:45,001 --> 00:32:49,625
only one cannot find it stated officially,
that's the problem.

373
00:32:49,697 --> 00:32:52,639
One is accused and condemned

374
00:32:52,663 --> 00:33:00,879
without being told authoritatively
of what one is really accused.

375
00:33:00,888 --> 00:33:05,912
What can one say to put it firmly?

376
00:33:05,932 --> 00:33:11,010
I'll come back to this later,
how things go in a trial.

377
00:33:11,034 --> 00:33:17,430
When an accused wants to know
what he should have said,

378
00:33:17,448 --> 00:33:19,098
he gets no answer.

379
00:33:19,162 --> 00:33:21,587
But more about that later.

380
00:33:24,325 --> 00:33:30,816
At this point I would like to add
a very telling revelation

381
00:33:30,816 --> 00:33:34,496
made by 34 French historians.

382
00:33:34,496 --> 00:33:40,825
In 1979, they issued a statement.

383
00:33:40,825 --> 00:33:48,238
These historians specialize
in the history of the Holocaust.

384
00:33:48,238 --> 00:33:56,061
The revisionist historian,
Professor Robert Faurisson,

385
00:33:56,061 --> 00:34:04,547
put forward technical arguments
against the existence of gas chambers.

386
00:34:06,724 --> 00:34:13,766
These 34 French historians
stated the following

387
00:34:13,766 --> 00:34:20,895
to the counterargument
of Professor Faurisson in 1979.

388
00:34:20,895 --> 00:34:26,237
Quote:
It must not be asked

389
00:34:26,237 --> 00:34:35,415
how such a mass murder
was technically possible.

390
00:34:35,415 --> 00:34:40,293
It was technically possible
because it happened.

391
00:34:40,293 --> 00:34:46,848
That is the required point of departure,
– <i>point of departure!?</i> –

392
00:34:46,848 --> 00:34:52,242
of any historical inquiry on this subject.

393
00:34:52,242 --> 00:34:57,030
These truths we should
just recall to memory:

394
00:34:57,030 --> 00:35:03,012
There is no debate about the existence
of the gas chambers

395
00:35:03,012 --> 00:35:10,644
and there may not be one.
End quote.

396
00:35:10,644 --> 00:35:15,425
This also belongs
to the point of departure,

397
00:35:15,425 --> 00:35:20,815
because this is how
the judges, the prosecutors, go on,

398
00:35:20,815 --> 00:35:28,544
as do many other lawyers and other people.

399
00:35:28,544 --> 00:35:30,963
Through their actions
they are clearly letting you know

400
00:35:30,963 --> 00:35:36,811
that you are not allowed to ask.

401
00:35:38,756 --> 00:35:43,353
This has had immense consequences.

402
00:35:43,353 --> 00:35:50,562
I am in no way the first lawyer
to be punished for Holocaust denial.

403
00:35:50,562 --> 00:35:52,666
Please don't think that.

404
00:35:52,666 --> 00:35:56,852
I might be the first lawyer
to be imprisoned for it though.

405
00:35:56,852 --> 00:36:02,324
But for years, lawyers have been
forever accused of Holocaust denial

406
00:36:02,324 --> 00:36:10,871
because they submitted evidence
regarding details of the Holocaust.

407
00:36:10,871 --> 00:36:13,870
When submitting evidence,

408
00:36:13,870 --> 00:36:22,678
one necessarily has to phrase it
as statement of fact,

409
00:36:22,678 --> 00:36:27,928
otherwise it will not be termed evidence.

410
00:36:27,928 --> 00:36:32,251
That means you have to claim as fact,
what you want to demonstrate to the court.

411
00:36:32,251 --> 00:36:35,409
Otherwise it will be dismissed,
on formal grounds.

412
00:36:35,409 --> 00:36:40,937
Only when one as a defender
of a Holocaust denier

413
00:36:40,937 --> 00:36:46,439
puts an argument, and says
this and this is true,

414
00:36:46,439 --> 00:36:49,678
and there is this and that
expert evidence,

415
00:36:49,678 --> 00:36:52,615
this and that is proved,

416
00:36:52,615 --> 00:36:59,687
the court may determine it,
may ask an expert witness, for example,

417
00:36:59,687 --> 00:37:04,695
then if this submission is declined,

418
00:37:04,695 --> 00:37:12,011
the defender is then additionally accused
and convicted of Holocaust denial.

419
00:37:12,011 --> 00:37:14,938
These things are not so well-known

420
00:37:14,938 --> 00:37:17,768
because most lawyers don't make
much of a fuss about it.

421
00:37:17,768 --> 00:37:20,360
They are just given a fine,
which they then pay,

422
00:37:20,360 --> 00:37:22,873
and then say or think to themselves,

423
00:37:22,873 --> 00:37:26,249
they'll not do it again, they'll not cause
themselves the trouble ever again.

424
00:37:26,249 --> 00:37:29,551
But there are many, many cases
of this nature.

425
00:37:29,551 --> 00:37:36,490
Only, I just wonder,
why this should remain so unknown,

426
00:37:36,490 --> 00:37:43,508
this way of going on with the accused,
with the law,

427
00:37:43,508 --> 00:37:50,541
and to punish defence lawyers
for quite normal professional practice.

428
00:37:50,541 --> 00:37:57,417
I find it important that the people
become aware of it.

429
00:37:57,417 --> 00:38:00,520
(Applause)

430
00:38:14,187 --> 00:38:17,961
There are many, many people,
not just lawyers,

431
00:38:17,961 --> 00:38:21,252
but also scientists, of different types,

432
00:38:21,252 --> 00:38:24,691
who have been punished
for Holocaust denial.

433
00:38:24,691 --> 00:38:30,921
I will not name many because
it would become a task without end

434
00:38:30,921 --> 00:38:38,436
to name the many scientists and others
who have been punished with fines,

435
00:38:38,436 --> 00:38:41,144
or many times even with prison sentences.

436
00:38:41,144 --> 00:38:46,449
I would like to mention just a few,
for example, Germar Rudolf,

437
00:38:46,449 --> 00:38:51,123
who also was subjected
to the treatment I just described.

438
00:38:51,123 --> 00:38:56,534
He is a chemist and made
certain observations –

439
00:38:56,534 --> 00:39:00,673
this is not the place to recite them.

440
00:39:00,673 --> 00:39:05,738
He wrote books on what he observed,

441
00:39:05,738 --> 00:39:10,094
truly scientific books,

442
00:39:10,094 --> 00:39:17,053
and because of these books
he was twice given a prison sentence.

443
00:39:17,053 --> 00:39:21,896
In one case, I defended him in court,

444
00:39:21,896 --> 00:39:24,427
and the books were then destroyed,

445
00:39:24,427 --> 00:39:28,361
they were forbidden,
removed from the index,

446
00:39:28,361 --> 00:39:30,111
completely destroyed.

447
00:39:30,111 --> 00:39:37,842
All the books the authorities
could get hold of were burned.

448
00:39:37,842 --> 00:39:42,411
There were masses of books burned
on these grounds,

449
00:39:42,411 --> 00:39:45,547
including those by Germar Rudolf,

450
00:39:45,547 --> 00:39:54,774
and one must say about this,
one must explain why it happened.

451
00:39:54,774 --> 00:40:00,525
Why a chemist who seriously took
to considering the matter,

452
00:40:00,525 --> 00:40:05,861
why one does not at least discuss
what he says,

453
00:40:05,861 --> 00:40:09,510
because it was not discussed,
it was not openly discussed.

454
00:40:09,510 --> 00:40:17,439
When one passes on what he says,
one can expect a prison sentence.

455
00:40:17,439 --> 00:40:23,533
The discussion is hindered.

456
00:40:23,533 --> 00:40:34,594
How does one explain that in a structure
that considers itself free?

457
00:40:34,594 --> 00:40:36,659
That's quite simple.

458
00:40:36,659 --> 00:40:42,731
One just says he was a pseudoscientist.

459
00:40:42,731 --> 00:40:45,658
It's just that simple!

460
00:40:45,658 --> 00:40:48,086
Well, yes, I could explain
the matter to you –

461
00:40:48,086 --> 00:40:56,588
well, one then gets to the verdict

462
00:40:56,588 --> 00:41:05,583
and it's all about a pseudoscientist
who has denied the Holocaust.

463
00:41:05,583 --> 00:41:11,205
Haven't we already heard today the phrase:
Bad science?

464
00:41:11,205 --> 00:41:15,087
We heard it in a different context,
but the meaning is the same.

465
00:41:15,087 --> 00:41:19,407
If someone accused of Holocaust denial
stands before the court

466
00:41:19,407 --> 00:41:28,370
and he there presents how he came
to not believe in the Holocaust,

467
00:41:28,370 --> 00:41:31,007
to doubt the Holocaust,

468
00:41:31,007 --> 00:41:33,169
to place the Holocaust in question,

469
00:41:33,169 --> 00:41:35,216
or to argue about the Holocaust

470
00:41:35,216 --> 00:41:38,211
– there are several different levels –

471
00:41:38,211 --> 00:41:41,777
when anyway he presents his case,

472
00:41:41,777 --> 00:41:47,364
I've experienced it myself
as defence counsel,

473
00:41:47,364 --> 00:41:56,472
he is again, because of
this declaration in court in his defence,

474
00:41:56,472 --> 00:42:02,620
he is yet further accused and sentenced
for Holocaust denial.

475
00:42:02,620 --> 00:42:07,534
Because he had for sure, in public,
before the court,

476
00:42:07,534 --> 00:42:14,066
he had again questioned the Holocaust,
and is again accused and sentenced.

477
00:42:14,066 --> 00:42:18,268
So that is prohibition of defence,
not only for defence counsel,

478
00:42:18,268 --> 00:42:20,609
but also for the defendant himself.

479
00:42:20,609 --> 00:42:25,717
He may not defend himself,
he may not discuss the issue of

480
00:42:25,717 --> 00:42:29,955
why he questioned the Holocaust,

481
00:42:29,955 --> 00:42:35,667
what grounds, what facts
brought him to do it.

482
00:42:38,541 --> 00:42:47,830
So, not just a prohibition of evidence,
but a prohibition of defence.

483
00:42:47,830 --> 00:43:00,454
I will quote you from the judgement
against me at the Mannheim court.

484
00:43:00,454 --> 00:43:07,780
It states in the verdict:

485
00:43:07,780 --> 00:43:20,718
The court sought to limit increasingly
almost all defence rights of the accused.

486
00:43:20,718 --> 00:43:28,086
It then concerns itself
with which defence rights were limited.

487
00:43:28,086 --> 00:43:32,096
For example,
to express oneself on the matter,

488
00:43:32,096 --> 00:43:35,639
and ask a witness in what concerns me.

489
00:43:35,639 --> 00:43:39,859
So, to sum it up, they took away
my right to speak.

490
00:43:39,859 --> 00:43:52,296
I might not express myself further,
and then I was allowed ten questions.

491
00:43:52,296 --> 00:43:55,978
The questions I put
did not please the court,

492
00:43:55,978 --> 00:43:59,965
and I was not permitted
to ask further questions.

493
00:44:01,472 --> 00:44:03,932
This is just one example.

494
00:44:03,932 --> 00:44:06,715
What is often done then,

495
00:44:06,715 --> 00:44:13,093
is that a relatively newly added paragraph
is introduced,

496
00:44:13,093 --> 00:44:20,137
the Code of Criminal Procedure,
paragraph 252a.

497
00:44:20,137 --> 00:44:25,714
It was introduced in the 90's

498
00:44:25,714 --> 00:44:31,571
to tighten paragraph 130 section 3
relating to Holocaust denial,

499
00:44:31,571 --> 00:44:38,543
and possibly to tighten
the whole of paragraph 130.

500
00:44:41,706 --> 00:44:53,258
This paragraph 252a enables the judge
to require the accused or the defender

501
00:44:53,258 --> 00:44:57,259
to express themselves
only in writing to the court.

502
00:44:57,259 --> 00:45:02,201
So, petitions and statements
are to be presented only in written form,

503
00:45:02,201 --> 00:45:04,859
and not read out loud first.

504
00:45:04,859 --> 00:45:11,438
This the normal way,
to express oneself orally.

505
00:45:11,438 --> 00:45:14,881
It is one of
the most fundamental principles

506
00:45:14,881 --> 00:45:19,244
of German criminal law,
of German criminal proceedings,

507
00:45:19,244 --> 00:45:23,961
the oral principle, that everything
must be spoken out loud before the court.

508
00:45:23,961 --> 00:45:28,069
There are different, good reasons
why this should be,

509
00:45:28,069 --> 00:45:32,263
but this was abolished in the 90's.

510
00:45:33,653 --> 00:45:37,570
Apparently, there are things
that one doesn't want to hear.

511
00:45:37,570 --> 00:45:40,875
And then when the judge
gets the impression,

512
00:45:40,875 --> 00:45:43,570
now it is time,

513
00:45:43,570 --> 00:45:50,401
he commands the defender to communicate
to the court in written form only.

514
00:45:50,401 --> 00:45:54,640
And in the trial of Ernst Zündel
it was exactly like this too.

515
00:45:54,640 --> 00:45:58,989
In other trials it was different,
I could say everything I wanted to,

516
00:45:58,989 --> 00:46:03,495
the accused was nonetheless convicted,

517
00:46:03,495 --> 00:46:06,571
but I could say all I wanted to.

518
00:46:06,571 --> 00:46:15,075
But in the Zündel case and a few others,
this speech prohibition was imposed.

519
00:46:15,075 --> 00:46:20,150
The result, of course,
of communication in writing alone,

520
00:46:20,150 --> 00:46:27,607
is that those listening don't get to know
what the defender wants to convey.

521
00:46:27,607 --> 00:46:31,964
So, only the judges are aware
of what the defender is trying to say,

522
00:46:31,964 --> 00:46:33,672
and not those listening.

523
00:46:33,672 --> 00:46:39,613
The public is excluded.

524
00:46:39,613 --> 00:46:47,088
In this connection I would like
to quickly describe

525
00:46:47,088 --> 00:46:51,649
how things went at the trial
of Ernst Zündel.

526
00:46:51,649 --> 00:46:55,030
It got to be a bit of a muddle,
I must tell you,

527
00:46:55,030 --> 00:46:59,258
it's no wonder,
but it is a bit complicated.

528
00:46:59,258 --> 00:47:04,982
It was the case that
this speech prohibition was imposed,

529
00:47:04,982 --> 00:47:09,312
and it was not only me
but three other defenders.

530
00:47:09,312 --> 00:47:15,765
There were six defenders in all.
Four Ernst Zündel chose himself,

531
00:47:15,765 --> 00:47:21,388
and two were appointed by the court.

532
00:47:21,388 --> 00:47:26,214
Why this was done became clear afterwards.

533
00:47:26,214 --> 00:47:33,330
They wanted lawyers in reserve
in case the others were removed.

534
00:47:33,330 --> 00:47:38,190
If there were only one defender
and he became unavailable,

535
00:47:38,190 --> 00:47:41,707
the trial would have to start
from the beginning again.

536
00:47:41,707 --> 00:47:46,584
So, doing this avoids having to start
the trial from the beginning again.

537
00:47:46,584 --> 00:47:56,312
So, I and two other chosen defenders
were allowed only written communication.

538
00:47:56,312 --> 00:48:00,438
And it was my opinion, and still is,

539
00:48:00,438 --> 00:48:08,648
that it is the duty of the defender
to protect the interests of his client,

540
00:48:08,648 --> 00:48:16,208
and to make it clear
when he is of the opinion

541
00:48:16,208 --> 00:48:25,937
that the legal standards
you expect in court are not being met.

542
00:48:25,937 --> 00:48:30,746
I was accused of damaging
my duty as a defender.

543
00:48:30,746 --> 00:48:35,594
On these grounds, the judges
dismissed me from the case.

544
00:48:35,594 --> 00:48:38,395
But I am of the opposite conviction;

545
00:48:38,395 --> 00:48:44,437
it is just the duty of a defender,
just in such difficult situations,

546
00:48:44,437 --> 00:48:52,396
to point out, stop,
I cannot remain silent,

547
00:48:52,396 --> 00:48:55,778
injustice is going on here.

548
00:48:55,778 --> 00:49:00,558
(Applause)

549
00:49:08,920 --> 00:49:12,835
And had I submitted
to the prohibition imposed on me,

550
00:49:12,835 --> 00:49:20,272
and made my submissions in writing,
then I would have felt

551
00:49:20,272 --> 00:49:23,581
that everything happening
was estranged from the law.

552
00:49:23,581 --> 00:49:29,916
The fact that I could not
express myself orally

553
00:49:29,916 --> 00:49:32,197
was already a breach of the law.

554
00:49:32,197 --> 00:49:40,101
Of others I will not speak,
but for this reason alone

555
00:49:40,101 --> 00:49:44,022
I continued to speak.

556
00:49:44,022 --> 00:49:47,025
And I explained why I continued to speak.

557
00:49:47,025 --> 00:49:52,155
I explained to them exactly
what I am explaining to you.

558
00:49:52,155 --> 00:50:02,626
I explained why the use of this 252a,
this prohibition of speech,

559
00:50:02,626 --> 00:50:06,453
this breach of the oral tradition,
was something I would not submit to it.

560
00:50:06,453 --> 00:50:10,572
I explained it all to the Mannheim court.

561
00:50:10,572 --> 00:50:17,161
In such difficult cases, it is sensible
to make submissions in writing also,

562
00:50:17,161 --> 00:50:20,635
first to read them,
and then to present them in writing,

563
00:50:20,635 --> 00:50:23,685
so everything is documented
and in the files.

564
00:50:23,685 --> 00:50:30,048
I told them exactly why I would not bow
to this speech prohibition.

565
00:50:30,048 --> 00:50:38,416
Because I don't accept it as right
is the reason in essence.

566
00:50:38,416 --> 00:50:46,801
And then it continued
with my nonetheless reading a submission,

567
00:50:46,801 --> 00:50:50,728
at least began to,
I did not have permission to,

568
00:50:50,728 --> 00:50:54,621
I should have just handed it over,
but I read it out.

569
00:50:54,621 --> 00:50:59,073
The judge then asked me to stop,

570
00:50:59,073 --> 00:51:04,467
but I continued to speak on the grounds
I've just explained,

571
00:51:04,467 --> 00:51:07,528
and it collapsed into an argumentation.

572
00:51:07,528 --> 00:51:12,544
It's in
the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,

573
00:51:12,544 --> 00:51:16,296
end of 2005, beginning of 2006,

574
00:51:16,296 --> 00:51:22,360
really well put in parts.

575
00:51:22,360 --> 00:51:26,236
So, there was quite an argumentation,

576
00:51:26,236 --> 00:51:30,527
sometimes speaking over each other,

577
00:51:30,527 --> 00:51:33,436
until the microphone
was taken away from me,

578
00:51:33,436 --> 00:51:38,689
when I had the cheek
to speak without a microphone,

579
00:51:38,689 --> 00:51:40,740
(Applause)

580
00:51:48,599 --> 00:51:50,602
which was referred to in the sentence.

581
00:51:50,602 --> 00:51:56,517
It must be particularly reprehensible
to do such a thing.

582
00:51:56,517 --> 00:52:00,204
And in the end,
after much argument,

583
00:52:00,204 --> 00:52:06,998
it reached the point
where the judge interjected,

584
00:52:06,998 --> 00:52:15,722
that he would entertain my exclusion
as a defender from these proceedings.

585
00:52:15,722 --> 00:52:18,158
But it was not true that I was arrested
there and then,

586
00:52:18,158 --> 00:52:21,977
that was later,

587
00:52:21,977 --> 00:52:26,221
it was requested,

588
00:52:26,221 --> 00:52:34,765
and the high court in Karlsruhe
took the decision to grant the request,

589
00:52:34,765 --> 00:52:38,858
and had me as defender
excluded from the proceedings.

590
00:52:51,902 --> 00:53:04,485
So, the Karlsruhe court had me excluded
as defender from the Zündel proceedings,

591
00:53:04,485 --> 00:53:08,157
but this decision was not yet final,

592
00:53:08,157 --> 00:53:13,787
an appeal was allowable.

593
00:53:13,787 --> 00:53:17,903
The time allowed for the appeal
was not up,

594
00:53:17,903 --> 00:53:23,776
when a new date was given
for the Zündel trial

595
00:53:23,776 --> 00:53:27,464
to which I was not invited.

596
00:53:27,464 --> 00:53:35,287
And a lawyer friend told me about it,
and naturally I appeared,

597
00:53:35,287 --> 00:53:42,047
because the appeal time was not up,

598
00:53:42,047 --> 00:53:48,296
let alone an appeal decision made.

599
00:53:48,296 --> 00:53:52,660
So, I sat down at the defence table.

600
00:53:52,660 --> 00:54:00,351
But then the judge requested
that I leave the defence table.

601
00:54:00,351 --> 00:54:03,549
So, there was a long discussion.

602
00:54:03,549 --> 00:54:12,435
In the first place, if my appeal
deferred my exclusion or not.

603
00:54:12,435 --> 00:54:19,072
If it did, then I still had the right
to sit there,

604
00:54:19,072 --> 00:54:23,300
if it didn't then I had no right
to sit there.

605
00:54:23,300 --> 00:54:28,030
You can imagine
who had which opinion,

606
00:54:28,030 --> 00:54:32,525
but the point is he had power on his side,

607
00:54:32,525 --> 00:54:41,538
and, then, naturally, opining that
the appeal did not defer my exclusion,

608
00:54:41,538 --> 00:54:47,032
I was to leave the defence table.

609
00:54:49,654 --> 00:54:52,995
I answered saying that the time was past

610
00:54:52,995 --> 00:54:56,269
when the German people
would allow themselves to be oppressed.

611
00:54:56,269 --> 00:55:00,202
(Applause)

612
00:55:22,250 --> 00:55:30,550
So, then he ordered the police present
to remove me from the courtroom,

613
00:55:30,550 --> 00:55:38,871
and a couple of policewomen
stood in front of me

614
00:55:38,871 --> 00:55:41,289
and asked me to leave the courtroom.

615
00:55:41,289 --> 00:55:45,958
I said, "You'll have to carry me."

616
00:55:45,958 --> 00:55:48,713
Basically, it all went quite civilly.

617
00:55:48,713 --> 00:55:53,000
The media naturally made
a great show out of it.

618
00:55:53,000 --> 00:55:56,181
I wondered how it would go on,
it wasn't right.

619
00:55:56,181 --> 00:55:58,762
It all went quite calmly.

620
00:55:58,762 --> 00:56:02,564
I said quite civilly to the officers,
"You'll have to carry me."

621
00:56:02,564 --> 00:56:05,140
Which they then did.

622
00:56:05,140 --> 00:56:07,357
(Laughter)

623
00:56:07,357 --> 00:56:16,812
And as I was carried out, I called out,
"The German people will rise."

624
00:56:16,812 --> 00:56:21,587
(Applause)

625
00:56:31,033 --> 00:56:36,240
So, that's how it was.

626
00:56:36,240 --> 00:56:44,234
Anyway, the trial of Ernst Zündel
then lasted a further 10 months.

627
00:56:44,234 --> 00:56:48,580
I mention that because it was suggested

628
00:56:48,580 --> 00:56:51,815
I might have been trying
to protract the trial.

629
00:56:57,553 --> 00:57:02,290
It was suggested I might be trying
to protract the trial

630
00:57:02,290 --> 00:57:07,333
with the petitions I made.

631
00:57:07,333 --> 00:57:15,220
So, after my forced removal, the case
went on for 10 months.

632
00:57:15,220 --> 00:57:20,655
The intention to speed up the trial was,
after my removal,

633
00:57:20,655 --> 00:57:25,244
very quickly lost, it would seem.

634
00:57:25,244 --> 00:57:30,254
Ernst Zündel was sentenced
to 5 years imprisonment.

635
00:57:30,254 --> 00:57:35,735
As he was free in 2010,
he was released earlier.

636
00:57:35,735 --> 00:57:37,862
He was, in total, seven years in prison,

637
00:57:37,862 --> 00:57:42,505
two years in the USA,
which were not taken into consideration,

638
00:57:42,505 --> 00:57:48,938
five years here,
so, seven years continuous imprisonment.

639
00:57:51,123 --> 00:57:54,861
And then, I myself,
I was also brought to trial,

640
00:57:54,861 --> 00:57:58,399
as is well-known
at the court in Mannheim,

641
00:57:58,399 --> 00:58:03,009
where I was, in the first instance,
sentenced to 3½ years imprisonment,

642
00:58:03,009 --> 00:58:05,719
for Holocaust denial,

643
00:58:05,719 --> 00:58:12,726
for defaming the state, to wit, defamation
of the Federal Republic of Germany,

644
00:58:20,845 --> 00:58:26,380
in that I had said that Germany,
since 1945,

645
00:58:26,380 --> 00:58:29,761
stood under the foreign rule
of the victors of the war.

646
00:58:29,761 --> 00:58:33,248
(Applause)

647
00:58:44,009 --> 00:58:51,997
And then I was convicted
of attempted obstruction of justice.

648
00:58:56,471 --> 00:59:00,202
One must look at what I was accused of.

649
00:59:00,202 --> 00:59:03,627
Attempted obstruction of justice,
it says in the verdict.

650
00:59:03,627 --> 00:59:11,339
I made petitions which were intended
to put the Holocaust in question,

651
00:59:11,339 --> 00:59:21,008
and because these petitions so obviously
could not be successful,

652
00:59:21,008 --> 00:59:27,917
they could, therefore,
only have been made to delay the court.

653
00:59:27,917 --> 00:59:31,786
Brilliant logic, would you believe!?

654
00:59:31,786 --> 00:59:38,091
If you make petitions which the court
considers from the beginning as senseless,

655
00:59:38,091 --> 00:59:42,554
then one is seen as obstructing the court.

656
00:59:42,554 --> 00:59:48,430
I was also convicted of
assault of constitutional institutions

657
00:59:48,430 --> 01:00:00,066
because I practically forced my petitions
and positions on the judges.

658
01:00:00,066 --> 01:00:06,870
A further conviction of attempted
assault of constitutional institutions

659
01:00:06,870 --> 01:00:12,821
was then quashed
by the federal court on appeal.

660
01:00:15,389 --> 01:00:20,480
In the first instance I was sentenced
for assault of constitutional institutions

661
01:00:20,480 --> 01:00:24,638
because I threatened the judges
with an address.

662
01:00:24,638 --> 01:00:28,840
It was in relation to instructing
the lay judges

663
01:00:28,840 --> 01:00:31,908
on the legal position –

664
01:00:31,908 --> 01:00:44,774
a lay judge may not know
the legal position in Germany,

665
01:00:44,774 --> 01:00:48,134
and perhaps make themselves
liable to prosecution,

666
01:00:48,134 --> 01:00:56,896
if they send an accused
to prison on political grounds

667
01:00:56,896 --> 01:01:02,865
without justification.

668
01:01:02,865 --> 01:01:09,607
That is at the very least
perversion of the course of justice.

669
01:01:09,607 --> 01:01:16,759
These facts I made fully clear
in my motion,

670
01:01:16,759 --> 01:01:26,007
to wit, that I would have the professional
and the lay judges

671
01:01:26,007 --> 01:01:30,138
answer one day when possible
before a Reich's court

672
01:01:30,138 --> 01:01:32,827
if they convicted Ernst Zündel unjustly.

673
01:01:32,827 --> 01:01:35,892
(Applause)

674
01:01:42,987 --> 01:01:46,386
This was then taken as threats,

675
01:01:46,386 --> 01:01:49,203
and I was convicted of
assault of constitutional institutions.

676
01:01:49,203 --> 01:01:52,192
This was, however, overturned,
as threatening behaviour was not found.

677
01:01:52,192 --> 01:02:01,642
Exceptionally, the situation
was judicially judged.

678
01:02:01,642 --> 01:02:06,079
It was in fact no threat, as I argued,

679
01:02:06,079 --> 01:02:09,726
but a making clear, a warning.

680
01:02:09,726 --> 01:02:13,310
This is not punishable, it's no threat.

681
01:02:15,290 --> 01:02:20,307
But in the media and Internet, yet again,

682
01:02:20,307 --> 01:02:24,637
I was sentenced because
I threatened the judges,

683
01:02:24,637 --> 01:02:32,170
which sounds much better than if one said
I was convicted because I made claims

684
01:02:32,170 --> 01:02:35,588
which brought the Holocaust into question.

685
01:02:40,290 --> 01:02:45,210
And, of course, I was also convicted
of inciting racial hatred.

686
01:02:45,210 --> 01:02:49,915
Because when one places
the Holocaust in doubt,

687
01:02:49,915 --> 01:02:55,207
one vilifies the victims.

688
01:02:55,207 --> 01:02:57,249
And that is inciting racial hatred.

689
01:02:57,249 --> 01:03:01,781
Such is the logic.
If you don't understand it, I can't help.

690
01:03:01,781 --> 01:03:08,392
If you don't understand it,
then you have a clear legal conscience.

691
01:03:08,392 --> 01:03:12,239
(Applause)

692
01:03:20,764 --> 01:03:25,077
The appeal then brought about
a reduction of 3 months,

693
01:03:25,077 --> 01:03:30,140
so, in the end, I was in prison
for 3 years, 3 months.

694
01:03:30,140 --> 01:03:34,582
I was also forbidden to practise law
for 5 years,

695
01:03:34,582 --> 01:03:41,871
which is no longer relevant as I have been
excluded from the legal profession.

696
01:03:43,959 --> 01:03:48,229
I must check
what I want to continue with.

697
01:03:48,229 --> 01:03:56,653
One of the most important things
is that one wants to know

698
01:03:56,653 --> 01:04:01,090
what is seen as legally correct
by the court.

699
01:04:01,090 --> 01:04:05,901
One would like to know
what the problem was.

700
01:04:05,901 --> 01:04:10,573
I have always requested a discussion

701
01:04:10,573 --> 01:04:15,103
of the foundation of the obviousness
of the Holocaust.

702
01:04:15,103 --> 01:04:19,311
Because it's like this,
it's a little complicated.

703
01:04:19,311 --> 01:04:24,695
When one makes a motion
to produce evidence

704
01:04:24,695 --> 01:04:29,944
that brings the Holocaust into question,

705
01:04:29,944 --> 01:04:33,830
then such a motion is declined
on the grounds

706
01:04:33,830 --> 01:04:37,790
that the Holocaust is self-evident.

707
01:04:39,518 --> 01:04:46,968
This is a quite usual procedure

708
01:04:46,968 --> 01:04:51,887
that one doesn't have to produce evidence
for something that is self-evident.

709
01:04:51,887 --> 01:04:53,899
It is entirely superfluous.

710
01:04:53,899 --> 01:04:57,966
If something is self-evident there is
no further evidence to produce.

711
01:04:57,966 --> 01:05:05,240
The text book example is
that it is self-evident

712
01:05:05,240 --> 01:05:10,110
that rain falls down from above
and not from below to above.

713
01:05:10,110 --> 01:05:19,810
And if in a criminal trial it came to
whence the rain falls,

714
01:05:19,810 --> 01:05:25,436
then a motion to produce evidence
by the defence can be denied

715
01:05:25,436 --> 01:05:29,435
on the grounds it is self-evident
that rain falls down from above.

716
01:05:29,435 --> 01:05:32,167
One does not need
to produce evidence for it.

717
01:05:32,167 --> 01:05:38,536
In such cases it is normal, in that
it's something that will always be true.

718
01:05:38,536 --> 01:05:44,998
In a case where the rain
came from the side,

719
01:05:44,998 --> 01:05:47,967
with the wind,
then one must produce evidence,

720
01:05:47,967 --> 01:05:50,010
how it was on the day.

721
01:05:50,010 --> 01:05:51,820
Was it windy or not?

722
01:05:51,820 --> 01:05:55,178
We are getting into details
about the way it is self-evident.

723
01:05:55,178 --> 01:06:06,916
Self-evident means something that for
all laymen is always easily perceptible,

724
01:06:06,916 --> 01:06:11,377
always checkable in reference works,
in books.

725
01:06:11,377 --> 01:06:14,339
And it assumes...

726
01:06:14,339 --> 01:06:21,103
I would not like to withhold
from you the exact definition,

727
01:06:21,103 --> 01:06:28,386
because it's really important
what self-evident actually is.

728
01:06:33,179 --> 01:06:41,389
From this reference book for lawyers:

729
01:06:41,389 --> 01:06:47,148
Historical facts are self-evident

730
01:06:47,148 --> 01:06:50,140
when, on the grounds
of historical research,

731
01:06:50,140 --> 01:06:52,835
they are generally considered proved,

732
01:06:52,835 --> 01:06:54,849
so that anyone can inform himself

733
01:06:54,849 --> 01:06:58,690
with history books, encyclopaedias
and similar reference sources

734
01:06:58,690 --> 01:07:03,389
without specialized subject knowledge.

735
01:07:05,593 --> 01:07:10,489
There's something else
that is very important here,

736
01:07:10,489 --> 01:07:14,646
in the same book, at another place.

737
01:07:14,646 --> 01:07:19,145
The precondition for the acceptance
of the self-evidence of a matter

738
01:07:19,145 --> 01:07:24,233
is the unchallenged nature
of the matter under consideration.

739
01:07:24,233 --> 01:07:29,081
So, only something unchallenged
can be self-evident.

740
01:07:29,081 --> 01:07:33,195
It must hold universal acceptance
in science.

741
01:07:33,195 --> 01:07:35,962
Thereby one understands
why some scientists

742
01:07:35,962 --> 01:07:41,401
are classified as pseudoscientists.

743
01:07:41,401 --> 01:07:47,257
Because then one can ignore them,
and self-evidence is not challenged.

744
01:07:47,257 --> 01:07:51,137
Is, however, the correctness of a matter

745
01:07:51,137 --> 01:07:54,241
argued in the literature,

746
01:07:54,241 --> 01:08:05,297
then the matter is not
thereby self-evident

747
01:08:05,297 --> 01:08:10,400
in that much is written, expounded
and set forth about it;

748
01:08:10,400 --> 01:08:16,220
the deliberation on a matter
in no way relates to its self-evidence.

749
01:08:16,220 --> 01:08:23,551
Motions to hear evidence
regarding the Holocaust

750
01:08:23,551 --> 01:08:30,919
were, in my experience, rejected
because the Holocaust is self-evident.

751
01:08:30,919 --> 01:08:41,372
I have ever and again in every case made
the request to discuss the self-evidence.

752
01:08:41,372 --> 01:08:47,207
These requests were rejected
on the grounds

753
01:08:47,207 --> 01:08:50,885
that the Holocaust is self-evident.

754
01:08:50,885 --> 01:08:53,716
I cannot put it another way.

755
01:08:53,716 --> 01:08:57,696
A discussion of the self-evidence
of the Holocaust

756
01:08:57,696 --> 01:09:02,256
is superfluous because the Holocaust
is self-evident.

757
01:09:02,256 --> 01:09:08,319
So, goes the reasoning in a nutshell,
it is a circular argument.

758
01:09:08,319 --> 01:09:16,247
And I have then often also read
the additional reason,

759
01:09:16,247 --> 01:09:21,798
that it will be seen as misuse of the law

760
01:09:21,798 --> 01:09:24,134
to make such a request,

761
01:09:24,134 --> 01:09:29,947
because, as was the case at my trial,
it means inducing the court

762
01:09:29,947 --> 01:09:34,884
to tackle the subject.

763
01:09:34,884 --> 01:09:41,564
So, it is written, it means considering
the revisionist theories,

764
01:09:41,564 --> 01:09:45,652
but that is just the basis
of the accusation.

765
01:09:45,652 --> 01:09:48,555
So, it will be seen as misuse of the law

766
01:09:48,555 --> 01:09:54,894
to let the court get into a discussion
about the charge.

767
01:09:54,894 --> 01:09:58,807
There's much to say,
but as short as possible...

768
01:10:04,515 --> 01:10:08,851
The Bavarian lawyer's disciplinary court
had to consider

769
01:10:08,851 --> 01:10:13,524
if I should be excluded
from the legal profession.

770
01:10:13,524 --> 01:10:17,739
And also there I made requests

771
01:10:17,739 --> 01:10:22,621
in relation to self-evidence,

772
01:10:22,621 --> 01:10:26,354
and they were rejected on the grounds

773
01:10:26,354 --> 01:10:32,492
that the disciplinary court had no doubt
that the Holocaust is self-evident,

774
01:10:32,492 --> 01:10:42,719
in view of the known available written,
pictorial and sound material.

775
01:10:42,719 --> 01:10:51,300
Then I asked, that is,
I and my defender,

776
01:10:51,300 --> 01:10:58,825
the court to say on which material
it based its opinion.

777
01:11:04,242 --> 01:11:13,792
This question was dismissed on the grounds

778
01:11:13,792 --> 01:11:16,719
that the Holocaust,
or the crimes of violence

779
01:11:16,719 --> 01:11:23,123
by the National Socialists on the Jews,
is self-evident.

780
01:11:23,123 --> 01:11:27,056
So, it was no answer.

781
01:11:27,056 --> 01:11:32,288
On which material the court
based its opinion, no answer,

782
01:11:32,288 --> 01:11:35,325
other than a very vague one, to wit,

783
01:11:35,325 --> 01:11:41,774
passing it all off to, quote:
newspapers, television and radio material,

784
01:11:41,774 --> 01:11:49,024
reference works and history books.
End quote.

785
01:11:49,024 --> 01:11:54,770
So, in other words, if one wants to know
why one has been convicted,

786
01:11:54,770 --> 01:12:00,150
then one should read it in the newspapers,

787
01:12:00,150 --> 01:12:07,096
it's not stated in the court decision
and verdict,

788
01:12:07,096 --> 01:12:12,273
but to be read
in the tabloids, apparently!

789
01:12:14,234 --> 01:12:17,869
So, there's an essential point here.

790
01:12:17,869 --> 01:12:21,467
The newspapers,
what's in the newspapers, then?

791
01:12:24,146 --> 01:12:32,387
A French historian by the name
of Jacques Beynac,

792
01:12:32,387 --> 01:12:40,366
was quoted in the Swiss newspaper,
<i>Le Nouveau Quotidien de Lausanne</i>,

793
01:12:40,366 --> 01:12:45,065
in September 1996.

794
01:12:45,065 --> 01:12:52,803
He said, "When it comes to the existence
of Nazi gas chambers,

795
01:12:52,803 --> 01:12:56,665
one can only point to
the absence of documents,

796
01:12:56,665 --> 01:13:01,585
physical traces and
other material evidence."

797
01:13:01,585 --> 01:13:04,751
One can only point to
the absence of documents,

798
01:13:04,751 --> 01:13:12,030
physical traces and
other material evidence.

799
01:13:12,030 --> 01:13:16,154
This opinion of a French historian,

800
01:13:16,154 --> 01:13:19,727
who specializes in the history
of the Holocaust,

801
01:13:19,727 --> 01:13:29,029
does this not show that the "obviousness"
could and should be questioned in court?

802
01:13:29,029 --> 01:13:35,577
Another historian, Ernst Nolte,

803
01:13:35,577 --> 01:13:44,390
wrote in his book, <i>The Causal Nexus</i>,
quote:

804
01:13:44,390 --> 01:13:49,440
"The witness testimonies are,
for the most part, based on hearsay,

805
01:13:49,440 --> 01:13:52,055
and assumptions.

806
01:13:52,055 --> 01:13:57,122
The few eye-witness testimonies we have,
are in part contradictory,

807
01:13:57,122 --> 01:14:05,271
and raise questions
regarding their credibility."

808
01:14:05,271 --> 01:14:10,505
The historian Hans Mommsen was quoted
in the <i>Süddeutsche Zeitung</i>, saying,

809
01:14:10,505 --> 01:14:18,415
"The Holocaust was not, <i>not</i>,
ordered by Hitler."

810
01:14:18,415 --> 01:14:23,812
Again statements showing that questions

811
01:14:23,812 --> 01:14:27,167
regarding the "obviousness"
of the Holocaust are valid.

812
01:14:27,167 --> 01:14:34,596
The last statement I would like to read
is from Fritjof Meyer.

813
01:14:34,596 --> 01:14:39,045
In the journal <i>Osteuropa</i>
in an article entitled,

814
01:14:39,045 --> 01:14:46,887
<i>The number of Auschwitz Victims:
New insights from new-found archives,</i>

815
01:14:46,887 --> 01:14:49,855
he wrote the following
with regard to the crime-scene.

816
01:14:49,855 --> 01:14:52,672
He is editor at <i>Der Spiegel</i>,
by the way...

817
01:14:52,672 --> 01:14:59,156
And in May 2002 this journal
came out in which he states

818
01:14:59,156 --> 01:15:06,865
that the genocide did not happen within
Auschwitz concentration camp,

819
01:15:06,865 --> 01:15:24,258
but, quote: Probably, in two farmhouses
outside of the camp.

820
01:15:24,258 --> 01:15:27,644
So, the genocide did not happen
inside the camp,

821
01:15:27,644 --> 01:15:31,838
but probably in two farmhouses
outside of the camp.

822
01:15:31,838 --> 01:15:40,580
Again this shows the need for discussion
of the "obviousness" of the Holocaust.

823
01:15:45,695 --> 01:15:53,731
Here the Federal Constitutional Court,
I'll leave some of it out,

824
01:15:53,731 --> 01:15:56,573
but this is very important, I feel,

825
01:15:56,573 --> 01:16:09,188
states its position regarding
the criminality of Holocaust denial.

826
01:16:09,188 --> 01:16:11,224
It comes clean with regard
to freedom of speech,

827
01:16:11,224 --> 01:16:14,553
but since it is
a specific freedom of speech,

828
01:16:14,553 --> 01:16:16,826
it is a special law.

829
01:16:16,826 --> 01:16:24,638
A special law is unconstitutional
because a specific opinion is forbidden.

830
01:16:24,638 --> 01:16:32,392
It was determined by the supreme court
in a relatively new decision, in 2009,

831
01:16:32,392 --> 01:16:37,101
that it was a special law.

832
01:16:37,101 --> 01:16:39,831
That it's been officially determined
to be a special law

833
01:16:39,831 --> 01:16:41,887
is an advance.

834
01:16:41,887 --> 01:16:45,617
It just remains
to declare it unconstitutional

835
01:16:45,617 --> 01:16:52,405
and abolished it,
the offence of Holocaust denial.

836
01:16:52,405 --> 01:17:03,934
However, I will not spare you
their reasons for not doing so,

837
01:17:03,934 --> 01:17:08,405
the justifications given
by the supreme court.

838
01:17:18,066 --> 01:17:20,284
In the so-called Wunsiedel decision,

839
01:17:20,284 --> 01:17:24,598
the Federal Constitutional Court declared
that the Federal Republic of Germany

840
01:17:24,598 --> 01:17:30,911
is by way of exception allowed to keep
special statutes such as paragraph 130.

841
01:17:30,911 --> 01:17:35,049
That is, in fact, criminalize
a particular opinion

842
01:17:35,049 --> 01:17:39,023
with implied prohibition of defence
and prohibition of evidence.

843
01:17:39,023 --> 01:17:42,675
Germany is by exception allowed
to keep this special statute

844
01:17:42,675 --> 01:17:50,148
because of, quote:
The unique historical identity

845
01:17:50,148 --> 01:17:52,020
of the Federal Republic of Germany,

846
01:17:52,020 --> 01:17:54,866
in contrast to National Socialism.

847
01:17:54,866 --> 01:17:57,597
In other words, they are allowed to do it,

848
01:17:57,597 --> 01:18:01,096
because it's
the Federal Republic of Germany.

849
01:18:01,096 --> 01:18:04,785
This is naturally
a very pretty formulation.

850
01:18:04,785 --> 01:18:10,383
A clear case of arbitrary despotism.

851
01:18:10,383 --> 01:18:15,281
The second explanation given
which is not stated so boldly,

852
01:18:15,281 --> 01:18:23,285
but which is given
in another part of this decision.

853
01:18:23,285 --> 01:18:31,870
It's not exactly defined, but it talks
about singular breaches.

854
01:18:31,870 --> 01:18:37,821
One might conclude from it, that
in the case of a singular type of breach

855
01:18:37,821 --> 01:18:46,566
the hearing of evidence is
superfluous and punishable.

856
01:18:46,566 --> 01:18:51,168
The hearing of evidence is
superfluous and punishable

857
01:18:51,168 --> 01:18:54,871
when it is a unique crime.

858
01:18:54,871 --> 01:18:59,317
Do you find any logic in that?

859
01:18:59,317 --> 01:19:02,975
So, that is in the end the two pillars

860
01:19:02,975 --> 01:19:06,871
on which the punishability
of Holocaust denial is based.

861
01:19:06,871 --> 01:19:11,657
The legal philosophy or legal grounds

862
01:19:11,657 --> 01:19:19,138
for justifying the punishability
of Holocaust denial

863
01:19:19,138 --> 01:19:23,174
is the historical identity
of the Federal Republic of Germany

864
01:19:23,174 --> 01:19:26,507
and the uniqueness of the crime.

865
01:19:26,507 --> 01:19:32,646
Because of that no presentation
of one's case is required.

866
01:19:32,646 --> 01:19:36,139
Revisions and constitutional complaint
are regularly rejected

867
01:19:36,139 --> 01:19:39,773
as being obviously ungrounded.

868
01:19:39,773 --> 01:19:46,181
This has the effect of making reasons
for the decision unnecessary.

869
01:19:46,181 --> 01:19:49,794
If something is obviously without grounds
there can be no grounds for it.

870
01:19:49,794 --> 01:19:52,212
That's practical!

871
01:19:52,212 --> 01:19:55,936
So, no answer there either.

872
01:19:55,936 --> 01:19:59,980
What can one say,
one does not get an answer.

873
01:20:04,665 --> 01:20:09,231
I heard myself
during the trial of Ernst Zündel

874
01:20:09,231 --> 01:20:13,059
the following said by judge Meinerzhagen.

875
01:20:13,059 --> 01:20:18,014
If it were just I who told you,
probably no one would believe me.

876
01:20:18,014 --> 01:20:20,014
Naturally, it's not
in the court transcript.

877
01:20:20,014 --> 01:20:24,288
But <i>Die Tageszeitung</i>, the so-called <i>TAZ</i>,

878
01:20:24,288 --> 01:20:29,781
rendered the service of reporting it.

879
01:20:34,642 --> 01:20:38,719
I quote from <i>Die Tageszeitung</i>, the <i>TAZ</i>,
from 9 February 2007,

880
01:20:38,719 --> 01:20:41,343
reporting on the trial
against Ernst Zündel:

881
01:20:45,103 --> 01:20:50,812
In the end, the court tersely refused
all petitions

882
01:20:50,812 --> 01:20:56,010
on grounds which came as a shock to
some anti-Fascist members of the public,

883
01:20:56,010 --> 01:21:05,361
that it was completely irrelevant
whether the Holocaust took place or not,

884
01:21:05,361 --> 01:21:19,560
its denial was illegal in Germany
and that was all that concerned the court.

885
01:21:19,560 --> 01:21:24,377
To conclude,
I left some things out, of course ...

886
01:21:24,377 --> 01:21:33,431
... to conclude, or rather
in preparation for my conclusion,

887
01:21:33,431 --> 01:21:42,354
let's consider how one can change things.

888
01:21:42,354 --> 01:21:48,217
I see all over the place,
one reads on the Internet, in newspapers,

889
01:21:48,217 --> 01:21:55,477
that many distance themselves
from the Nazis.

890
01:21:55,477 --> 01:21:59,149
There are people, for example,

891
01:21:59,149 --> 01:22:04,431
who know fully what happens
[in cases like we're discussiing],

892
01:22:04,431 --> 01:22:08,670
but who nonetheless say,
"I am, however, no Nazi."

893
01:22:08,670 --> 01:22:15,843
And they distance themselves from others
who might be described as Nazis.

894
01:22:15,843 --> 01:22:21,402
They say, "Don't call me a Nazi.
I'm not one. I'm not one of them,

895
01:22:21,402 --> 01:22:21,415
those Nazis."
They say, "Don't call me a Nazi.
I'm not one. I'm not one of them,

896
01:22:21,415 --> 01:22:23,607
those Nazis."

897
01:22:23,607 --> 01:22:32,055
They mean only they would unjustly be
described as evil Nazis;

898
01:22:32,055 --> 01:22:36,928
the others would justly
be described as evil Nazis.

899
01:22:36,928 --> 01:22:38,860
It's been like that for me.

900
01:22:38,860 --> 01:22:42,619
I was first called a Nazi many years ago

901
01:22:42,619 --> 01:22:46,990
on an information stand
against experiments on animals.

902
01:22:46,990 --> 01:22:54,455
"You must be Nazis,
Hitler was also a vegetarian."

903
01:22:54,455 --> 01:23:03,254
At that I began to ask myself
what Nazis actually are,

904
01:23:03,254 --> 01:23:11,011
because with my picture of Nazis,
I could not attune myself

905
01:23:11,011 --> 01:23:17,623
to the idea that I should be a Nazi,
as a defender of animal rights.

906
01:23:17,644 --> 01:23:23,400
The next time I was described as a Nazi
was in relation to philosophy.

907
01:23:23,400 --> 01:23:29,210
When one studies Plato,
when one speaks about Plato,

908
01:23:29,210 --> 01:23:33,363
Plato is considered the forerunner
of the National Socialists,

909
01:23:33,363 --> 01:23:36,719
a forerunner of Hitler,
someone who prepared the way,

910
01:23:36,719 --> 01:23:43,744
because he was, for example,
a severe critic of democracy,

911
01:23:43,744 --> 01:23:49,731
he rejected the democratic system.

912
01:23:49,736 --> 01:23:59,706
This is one of the reasons
why one condemns Plato, in part.

913
01:23:59,744 --> 01:24:03,089
Or one asserts, I've also read,

914
01:24:03,089 --> 01:24:06,324
that he said something
quite different about democracy.

915
01:24:06,324 --> 01:24:10,951
That's not true,
but just to mention it.

916
01:24:10,951 --> 01:24:17,745
One tries to alter the image.

917
01:24:17,745 --> 01:24:22,830
When one doesn't want to attack Plato,
one says he said something different,

918
01:24:22,830 --> 01:24:26,120
although it stands unambiguously
in his book <i>The Republic.</i>

919
01:24:26,120 --> 01:24:33,541
It is not to be denied that he was
a severe critic of democracy.

920
01:24:33,554 --> 01:24:42,161
Anyway, these were the first times
that I was called a Nazi,

921
01:24:42,176 --> 01:24:48,954
and I got really interested
in what a Nazi is.

922
01:24:48,954 --> 01:24:51,236
One must build a picture for oneself.

923
01:24:51,236 --> 01:24:57,424
One must get to know people
who are described as Nazis,

924
01:24:57,434 --> 01:25:00,200
and people who consider themselves Nazis.

925
01:25:00,200 --> 01:25:02,285
Both, they're not the same.

926
01:25:02,285 --> 01:25:06,799
But it is interesting to get to know both,
then one get a picture for oneself.

927
01:25:06,802 --> 01:25:08,506
One should do.

928
01:25:08,506 --> 01:25:10,307
That is crucial.

929
01:25:10,307 --> 01:25:13,656
That one doesn't engage in this exclusion.

930
01:25:13,656 --> 01:25:19,191
Well, one asks, who then is not a Nazi.

931
01:25:19,191 --> 01:25:22,252
Because anyone who says
anything meaningful,

932
01:25:22,252 --> 01:25:25,502
or does anything useful,
anything healing,

933
01:25:25,502 --> 01:25:29,844
he must sooner or later expect
to be called a Nazi.

934
01:25:29,844 --> 01:25:33,512
(Applause)

935
01:25:39,583 --> 01:25:45,131
Which means he should not be listened to.

936
01:25:45,131 --> 01:25:49,285
Suddenly, he is labelled a Nazi,

937
01:25:49,285 --> 01:25:53,865
and from then on one is not to listen
to him any more,

938
01:25:53,865 --> 01:26:01,426
because one could be corrupted,
one could be ... um, well, what ...

939
01:26:01,426 --> 01:26:05,456
I cannot understand
what people are afraid of.

940
01:26:05,456 --> 01:26:09,767
Probably they are much less worried
by those called Nazis,

941
01:26:09,767 --> 01:26:14,051
than they are worried
of being ostracized

942
01:26:14,051 --> 01:26:17,495
if they have anything to do with a Nazi.

943
01:26:17,495 --> 01:26:20,956
It's not the Nazis being dangerous,

944
01:26:20,956 --> 01:26:25,853
but the consequences when one carries on
with someone who is considered a Nazi.

945
01:26:29,559 --> 01:26:33,883
It's nothing to do with what is true
and what is untrue,

946
01:26:33,883 --> 01:26:36,005
what is useful or harmful;

947
01:26:36,005 --> 01:26:39,113
it's just about who has said it.

948
01:26:39,113 --> 01:26:43,912
And when it's someone considered a Nazi
who says something,

949
01:26:43,912 --> 01:26:45,912
then it must be false.

950
01:26:45,912 --> 01:26:48,177
One doesn't want to be concerned with it,

951
01:26:48,177 --> 01:26:50,001
it is in any case false,

952
01:26:50,001 --> 01:26:52,731
it is worse than false, it is repulsive,

953
01:26:52,731 --> 01:26:55,066
by nature.

954
01:26:55,066 --> 01:26:59,936
Now, a very important point
in relation to this.

955
01:26:59,936 --> 01:27:10,062
Recently, the opinions of groups
purporting to maintain an ideal standard

956
01:27:10,062 --> 01:27:13,556
are increasing on the Internet.

957
01:27:13,556 --> 01:27:18,985
They distance themselves from Nazis
and right-wing extremists,

958
01:27:18,985 --> 01:27:21,198
they say they want
nothing to do with them.

959
01:27:21,198 --> 01:27:26,820
A few months ago, I read of
a call to demonstration

960
01:27:26,820 --> 01:27:28,729
against the ESM,
[European Stability Mechanism]

961
01:27:28,729 --> 01:27:34,270
first only against the ESM and then
against the ESM and right-wing extremism.

962
01:27:40,825 --> 01:27:45,678
For me, when someone distances himself,

963
01:27:45,678 --> 01:27:53,100
it shows that he does not understand
what is going on.

964
01:27:53,100 --> 01:27:56,071
(Applause)

965
01:28:00,946 --> 01:28:07,168
And such a group I would not join,
because I would lose perspective,

966
01:28:07,168 --> 01:28:13,361
not because they might not want me, but
because I would lose my own perspective.

967
01:28:16,784 --> 01:28:21,084
When one wants to avoid
being called a Nazi,

968
01:28:21,084 --> 01:28:24,185
and there are many such people,

969
01:28:24,185 --> 01:28:30,021
most people want to avoid
being called a Nazi,

970
01:28:30,021 --> 01:28:32,059
what does that involve?

971
01:28:32,059 --> 01:28:42,740
It involves, results in, holding aside
important issues.

972
01:28:42,740 --> 01:28:46,071
When one addresses serious issues,

973
01:28:46,071 --> 01:28:51,832
when one gets to the heart of the matter,

974
01:28:51,832 --> 01:28:57,371
then the danger of being called a Nazi
arises very quickly.

975
01:28:57,371 --> 01:29:08,506
But, holding aside important issues,
one is ineffective, totally ineffective.

976
01:29:08,506 --> 01:29:25,099
One works for what already exists,
but not at all for something different.

977
01:29:25,099 --> 01:29:31,169
I really will end soon.

978
01:29:31,169 --> 01:29:36,302
I would like to consider shortly
who is decidedly called a Nazi.

979
01:29:36,302 --> 01:29:39,921
This is a very interesting matter to me.

980
01:29:41,377 --> 01:29:47,317
Naturally, as a denier of the Holocaust,

981
01:29:47,317 --> 01:29:51,014
or as one who takes
the national standpoint,

982
01:29:51,014 --> 01:29:53,120
one is very quickly called a Nazi.

983
01:29:53,120 --> 01:29:57,780
When one simply takes to the interests
of one's people,

984
01:29:57,780 --> 01:29:59,780
then ... "Nazi."

985
01:29:59,780 --> 01:30:03,332
(Applause)

986
01:30:09,292 --> 01:30:18,171
When one speaks of interest slavery
... "Nazi."

987
01:30:18,171 --> 01:30:20,171
(Applause)

988
01:30:23,506 --> 01:30:27,315
There's another word which is
very closely connected with it:

989
01:30:27,315 --> 01:30:29,654
anti-semite.

990
01:30:29,654 --> 01:30:34,998
It is almost identical,
anti-semite and Nazi,

991
01:30:34,998 --> 01:30:43,600
in the propaganda, so to speak,
of the opponents, the Nazi opponents.

992
01:30:43,600 --> 01:30:49,632
Who, for example, connects
the following terms with the Jews,

993
01:30:49,632 --> 01:30:54,755
is called a right-wing
or left-wing anti-semite,

994
01:30:54,755 --> 01:30:58,158
and sometimes punished.

995
01:30:58,158 --> 01:31:00,950
The following terms, for example:

996
01:31:00,950 --> 01:31:04,534
international finance,

997
01:31:04,534 --> 01:31:07,856
US East Coast,

998
01:31:07,856 --> 01:31:10,149
interest slavery,

999
01:31:10,149 --> 01:31:12,584
capitalism,

1000
01:31:12,584 --> 01:31:14,584
financial crisis,

1001
01:31:14,584 --> 01:31:16,657
globalization,

1002
01:31:16,657 --> 01:31:19,018
democratization,

1003
01:31:19,018 --> 01:31:21,634
Highgrade Freemason,

1004
01:31:21,634 --> 01:31:23,634
EU,

1005
01:31:23,634 --> 01:31:25,634
UN,

1006
01:31:25,634 --> 01:31:29,347
or New World Order.

1007
01:31:29,347 --> 01:31:33,813
Whoever, for example, connects
these terms with the Jews,

1008
01:31:33,813 --> 01:31:40,196
will be considered a right-wing
or left-wing anti-semite and punished.

1009
01:31:40,196 --> 01:31:43,077
(Applause)

1010
01:31:43,077 --> 01:31:52,889
Equally, whoever opines
the currency markets, the stock exchanges,

1011
01:31:52,889 --> 01:32:01,168
the democratic parties, the media
are in Jewish hands.

1012
01:32:01,168 --> 01:32:03,464
For example, lawyer, Horst Mahler,

1013
01:32:03,464 --> 01:32:09,702
was sentenced in 1999
to over 10 years in jail

1014
01:32:09,702 --> 01:32:14,283
for Holocaust denial
and anti-semitic remarks

1015
01:32:14,283 --> 01:32:16,574
and was arrested in the courtroom.

1016
01:32:16,574 --> 01:32:20,363
That is taken into custody immediately
after sentencing,

1017
01:32:20,363 --> 01:32:21,959
just like me.

1018
01:32:21,959 --> 01:32:30,516
After the sentence was given,
I was arrested.

1019
01:32:36,861 --> 01:32:41,916
I return to my beginning sentence,
which is also my closing sentence,

1020
01:32:41,916 --> 01:32:44,742
"To think what is true,
to sense what is beautiful,

1021
01:32:44,742 --> 01:32:48,065
and to want what is good."

1022
01:32:48,065 --> 01:32:54,401
This implies recognizing
and denoting lies,

1023
01:32:54,401 --> 01:33:00,947
this implies recognizing
and denoting inhumanity,

1024
01:33:00,947 --> 01:33:10,383
this implies recognizing
and denoting injustice.

1025
01:33:10,383 --> 01:33:14,150
Belonging with this

1026
01:33:14,150 --> 01:33:20,860
are the qualities that are
of particular importance today:

1027
01:33:23,457 --> 01:33:26,838
the consciousness of immortality,

1028
01:33:26,838 --> 01:33:32,399
steadfastness and incorruptibility.

1029
01:33:34,189 --> 01:33:39,113
With these qualities we might be able
to create a world

1030
01:33:39,113 --> 01:33:41,960
for the children who are with us today,

1031
01:33:41,960 --> 01:33:48,436
a world in which one can speak the truth
without being punished.

1032
01:33:48,436 --> 01:33:51,214
(Applause)