WEBVTT
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.054
Banned speech, banned evidence
and banned legal defence.
00:00:06.602 --> 00:00:10.430
The reality of "Free Speech".
00:00:26.896 --> 00:00:29.834
Our last speaker of the day
will be lecturing on
00:00:29.834 --> 00:00:37.540
banned speech, banned evidence and
even a ban on legal defence in court.
00:00:37.540 --> 00:00:40.584
On top of everything else, being banned
from defending yourself in court
00:00:40.584 --> 00:00:43.872
constitutes
a particularly disturbing problem.
00:00:43.872 --> 00:00:49.969
This speaker is a fully qualified lawyer
and throughout her lecture
00:00:49.969 --> 00:00:55.435
I find it of particular importance, that
we don't let our judgement be influenced
00:00:55.435 --> 00:01:01.186
by what our eyes and ears
have already been shown or told.
00:01:01.186 --> 00:01:11.135
She really made the headlines
a few years ago as a defence attorney.
00:01:11.135 --> 00:01:17.627
So, let me briefly explain
whom we are dealing with.
00:01:22.415 --> 00:01:28.006
This defence lawyer
has the courage of the lion.
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.
00:01:33.556 --> 00:01:41.951
She bravely stood up and took it
upon herself to defend Ernst Zündel
00:01:41.951 --> 00:01:45.839
in the famous case against him
for so-called Holocaust denial.
00:01:45.839 --> 00:01:50.482
She was the trial lawyer
of Ernst Zündel.
00:01:50.482 --> 00:01:59.202
During the legal proceedings
she provided evidence to the court
00:01:59.202 --> 00:02:06.732
which could raise doubts regarding
the official account of history.
00:02:06.732 --> 00:02:12.008
This caused furore in the courtroom.
00:02:12.008 --> 00:02:18.229
And she was prohibited
from speaking any further.
00:02:18.229 --> 00:02:24.555
This speech ban was ordered as she was
presenting the arguments of the defendant.
00:02:24.555 --> 00:02:30.461
She was not allowed to argue the case
and barred from listing more evidence.
00:02:30.461 --> 00:02:37.358
She ignored the speech ban
and continued to submit evidence.
00:02:37.358 --> 00:02:41.927
And was then threatened
with penalties if she persisted.
00:02:46.276 --> 00:02:52.106
As it became too much for the authorities,
00:02:52.118 --> 00:02:56.516
she was arrested right there
in the courtroom
00:02:56.516 --> 00:03:03.207
during her defence of the so-called
Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel.
00:03:03.207 --> 00:03:05.922
But not even this could silence her;
00:03:05.922 --> 00:03:10.478
she continued to argue
the case of her defendant
00:03:10.478 --> 00:03:18.736
while being forcefully removed
from the courtroom.
00:03:18.736 --> 00:03:23.005
For this she was imprisoned
for almost three and a half years,
00:03:23.005 --> 00:03:27.779
in spite of her having
no previous convictions.
00:03:27.779 --> 00:03:33.000
Arrested in the courtroom
and locked up.
00:03:33.000 --> 00:03:39.005
On top of this, she had to face 5 years
of professional exclusion
00:03:39.005 --> 00:03:43.250
through cancellation of her licence
to work as an attorney,
00:03:43.250 --> 00:03:47.887
and was removed from
the Association for German Lawyers.
00:03:47.887 --> 00:03:54.581
They threw her out, but we would like
to carry her into our midst.
00:03:54.581 --> 00:03:57.558
I urge you to help her along.
00:03:57.558 --> 00:04:02.072
(Applause)
00:04:04.135 --> 00:04:09.818
We are talking about a legend here,
making headlines across Europe.
00:04:09.818 --> 00:04:12.236
Welcome Sylvia Stolz.
00:04:12.236 --> 00:04:15.829
Frau Sylvia Stolz, if they wouldn't
let you speak there, here you can.
00:04:15.829 --> 00:04:19.253
We trust you to know the limitations,
00:04:19.253 --> 00:04:21.553
I am sure you do.
00:04:21.553 --> 00:04:24.787
Much success with your speech,
our hearts swell for you.
00:04:24.787 --> 00:04:27.473
Sylvia Stolz: Thank you for
the warm welcome.
00:04:31.916 --> 00:04:41.650
Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends,
thank you again for the warm welcome.
00:04:41.650 --> 00:04:47.893
I would like to begin my presentation
with one sentence,
00:04:47.893 --> 00:04:53.890
with the same one with which I will end.
00:04:53.890 --> 00:05:01.956
Since I believe that this sentence is
at the heart of human existence,
00:05:01.956 --> 00:05:08.259
and gives, I believe,
what it means to be human.
00:05:08.259 --> 00:05:14.898
"To think what is true,
to sense what is beautiful,
00:05:14.898 --> 00:05:18.766
and to want what is good,
00:05:18.766 --> 00:05:25.026
hereby the spirit finds the purpose
of a life in reason."
00:05:25.026 --> 00:05:29.627
This is a quote
from Johann Gottfried von Herder:
00:05:32.266 --> 00:05:34.305
To think what is true,
00:05:34.305 --> 00:05:37.760
[what is true, not what was,
which sound the same in German]
00:05:37.760 --> 00:05:41.030
"To think what is true,
to sense what is beautiful,
00:05:41.030 --> 00:05:45.700
and to want what is good."
00:05:45.700 --> 00:05:50.694
Regardless of your religion,
your worldview
00:05:50.694 --> 00:05:54.899
or philosophical orientation,
00:05:54.899 --> 00:05:58.630
this sentence encapsulates
the essence of human life, in my opinion
00:05:58.630 --> 00:05:59.891
the "a" and "o",
00:05:59.891 --> 00:06:02.204
the alpha and omega.
00:06:04.802 --> 00:06:12.291
And one's actions show
how one fulfils this human ideal,
00:06:12.291 --> 00:06:15.803
one's actions and one's behaviour.
00:06:15.803 --> 00:06:20.264
The first ideal is the predominant one,
00:06:20.264 --> 00:06:24.016
"To think what is true,"
00:06:24.016 --> 00:06:28.445
for only on truth can one build.
00:06:28.445 --> 00:06:35.856
When one builds on something untrue,
when one builds on something false,
00:06:35.856 --> 00:06:39.345
it might stand for a while,
00:06:39.345 --> 00:06:46.273
but at some time it must,
of itself, collapse.
00:06:46.273 --> 00:06:51.675
It is like trying to erect a building
00:06:51.675 --> 00:07:00.187
with a foundation of papier mâché
rather than proper stone
00:07:00.187 --> 00:07:04.432
or proper concrete.
00:07:12.349 --> 00:07:17.325
An important notion in relation
to the question
00:07:17.325 --> 00:07:23.266
"true thinking" or "finding the truth" is:
00:07:23.266 --> 00:07:26.866
Hear the other side.
00:07:26.866 --> 00:07:33.544
That is an ideal that is paid
particular attention to here.
00:07:33.544 --> 00:07:40.265
It is an old established principle of law:
audiatur et altera pars,
00:07:40.265 --> 00:07:44.559
the other side is to be heard.
00:07:44.559 --> 00:07:50.343
To be heard in court and also in science
00:07:50.343 --> 00:07:55.407
when there are two different opinions.
00:07:55.407 --> 00:07:58.275
In science, for example, there may be
two different opinions
00:07:58.275 --> 00:08:00.828
which are both heard,
00:08:00.828 --> 00:08:04.236
and one is not excluded from the outset
00:08:04.236 --> 00:08:07.345
for whatever reason;
00:08:07.345 --> 00:08:09.352
because it does not suit a result,
00:08:09.352 --> 00:08:14.655
or because the result does not fit in
with existing opinion.
00:08:14.655 --> 00:08:17.678
One should only exclude a result
00:08:17.678 --> 00:08:21.629
when it is seen to be definitively wrong.
00:08:21.629 --> 00:08:23.997
To that end one must first examine it,
00:08:23.997 --> 00:08:30.580
and first hear those
who have the given view;
00:08:30.580 --> 00:08:34.577
in the case of law, in a court.
00:08:34.577 --> 00:08:39.958
When two sides oppose each other there,
or when one person is accused,
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
00:08:45.336 --> 00:08:47.367
and what has really happened,
00:08:47.367 --> 00:08:52.303
and only then does one consider
how that is to be judged,
00:08:52.303 --> 00:08:57.153
whether it is a matter of illegality
or culpability,
00:08:57.153 --> 00:09:02.044
but the truth must first
be clearly established,
00:09:02.044 --> 00:09:04.579
what has happened.
00:09:06.136 --> 00:09:17.832
"Hear the other side" is today
often termed "the right to be heard",
00:09:17.832 --> 00:09:22.799
which means every citizen
has the right to be heard,
00:09:22.799 --> 00:09:25.863
before a court and
before other authorities
00:09:25.863 --> 00:09:34.963
to be listened to, to put,
to be able to put, his point of view.
00:09:34.963 --> 00:09:41.571
And it is not sufficient
that the judge just listens
00:09:41.571 --> 00:09:50.126
and thinks I know how this trial will go,
should go, but allow the speeches.
00:09:50.126 --> 00:09:57.189
That I have too often in practice over
and over again experienced and observed,
00:09:57.189 --> 00:09:59.301
that the judges say,
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."
00:10:05.255 --> 00:10:11.796
Only by the conclusions
and the judgements is it apparent
00:10:11.796 --> 00:10:16.235
that they have taken absolutely nothing
into consideration,
00:10:16.235 --> 00:10:21.829
that he could be telling the truth
or that he could be right.
00:10:21.829 --> 00:10:27.135
That is an important factor
in legal hearings,
00:10:27.135 --> 00:10:31.036
that the judge considers
00:10:31.036 --> 00:10:36.451
that someone could be right.
00:10:36.451 --> 00:10:41.229
I've often experienced
that this is not so,
00:10:41.229 --> 00:10:45.794
that much more the attitude prevails:
00:10:45.794 --> 00:10:49.391
He is not right, because it cannot be,
00:10:49.391 --> 00:10:52.889
or, far more often, because it may not be.
00:10:52.889 --> 00:10:58.477
And one does not concern oneself at all
with the matters he puts forward.
00:10:59.896 --> 00:11:06.824
Such an attitude of a judge
can be classified as bias.
00:11:10.152 --> 00:11:16.213
He is biased, he is not objective,
he is not factual.
00:11:16.213 --> 00:11:24.640
Put another way, he allows himself
to be led by irrelevant considerations.
00:11:24.640 --> 00:11:27.792
That is grounds for objecting to a judge.
00:11:27.792 --> 00:11:33.957
Every accused can on these grounds
object to a judge.
00:11:33.957 --> 00:11:40.078
I have often done that, as a defender,
and in my own case.
00:11:40.078 --> 00:11:44.161
A judge has never been declined
in all Holocaust denial trials
00:11:44.161 --> 00:11:49.969
in which I have been present and observed,
00:11:49.969 --> 00:11:57.335
the objection has never been accepted,
00:11:57.335 --> 00:12:04.210
the judges were retained.
00:12:04.210 --> 00:12:08.495
One of the important topics
we will be discussing
00:12:08.495 --> 00:12:10.583
is "Freedom of Speech".
00:12:10.583 --> 00:12:17.687
One hears from many places,
00:12:17.687 --> 00:12:26.671
that people who have certain opinions
get into trouble.
00:12:26.671 --> 00:12:30.098
And this is not confined
to political discourse.
00:12:30.098 --> 00:12:34.041
I am sure you know of quite a few areas
without me listing them.
00:12:34.041 --> 00:12:38.806
But to give an example, say,
the issue of vaccines.
00:12:38.806 --> 00:12:44.132
There are doctors out there
who have been banned from practising
00:12:44.132 --> 00:12:48.132
because they warned against vaccination.
00:12:48.132 --> 00:12:55.183
This is just one example out of many
within medicine,
00:12:55.183 --> 00:13:00.183
one of the many areas
in which such things happen.
00:13:00.183 --> 00:13:06.749
Or journalists who are ostracized
00:13:06.749 --> 00:13:15.086
because they have a differing view
of the events of 9/11 2001, for example,
00:13:15.086 --> 00:13:17.756
and report on this.
00:13:17.756 --> 00:13:20.825
Such journalists are also bound
to get in trouble.
00:13:20.825 --> 00:13:27.396
However, these people are not punished
by criminal law,
00:13:27.396 --> 00:13:32.207
but find themselves punished
in their respective occupations.
00:13:32.207 --> 00:13:36.187
These two examples should suffice to show
00:13:36.187 --> 00:13:43.744
that the highly praised
"Freedom of Speech",
00:13:43.744 --> 00:13:46.766
in reality, isn't all
that it is made out to be.
00:13:48.575 --> 00:13:56.674
And now to the issue of banned evidence,
banned legal defence
00:13:56.674 --> 00:14:00.454
within the area of "Holocaust denial".
00:14:00.454 --> 00:14:08.258
Much could be said about this,
one hour is far from sufficient.
00:14:08.258 --> 00:14:13.137
My job here is to omit that
for which there is no time.
00:14:14.737 --> 00:14:19.891
But there are certain points
which I think are essential to emphasize.
00:14:19.891 --> 00:14:25.548
First of all, it must be said,
that the principle of
00:14:25.548 --> 00:14:28.617
nulla poena sine lege
(no penalty without law)
00:14:28.617 --> 00:14:32.270
is not observed
but regularly contravened.
00:14:32.270 --> 00:14:38.626
This principle dictates that the accused
00:14:38.626 --> 00:14:43.496
must be allowed to know
what he did wrong,
00:14:43.496 --> 00:14:46.588
and what would have been right.
00:14:46.588 --> 00:14:53.581
If someone takes a bicycle
that does not belong to him,
00:14:53.581 --> 00:14:56.340
most people know this is theft
and not allowed.
00:14:58.892 --> 00:15:02.370
In cases of libel,
00:15:02.370 --> 00:15:10.473
where a person says something negative,
something damaging reputation,
00:15:10.473 --> 00:15:17.129
then it's a question
of whether it is true or false.
00:15:17.129 --> 00:15:20.978
And if it's true what he has said,
00:15:20.978 --> 00:15:23.866
then it does not constitute libel,
00:15:23.866 --> 00:15:28.526
because in theory one is allowed
to speak the truth.
00:15:28.526 --> 00:15:33.419
In the case of Holocaust denial trials,
00:15:33.419 --> 00:15:39.939
the first problem we are faced with is
that the Holocaust isn't defined anywhere.
00:15:39.939 --> 00:15:46.913
There is, therefore, a problem
of lack of defining law.
00:15:46.913 --> 00:15:51.192
An authoritative definition
is not to be found anywhere.
00:15:51.192 --> 00:15:55.991
I'll come back
to what I mean by this later,
00:15:55.991 --> 00:16:01.660
what needs to be said exactly
so that it's authoritatively defined.
00:16:01.660 --> 00:16:13.412
Let's turn to to the legal passages
in the different laws.
00:16:13.412 --> 00:16:19.105
First of all, the ones in German law.
00:16:19.105 --> 00:16:24.838
In paragraph 130 section 3,
[of the German Criminal Code]
00:16:24.838 --> 00:16:27.992
according to which
so-called Holocaust deniers
00:16:27.992 --> 00:16:34.372
can be fined or imprisoned for
up to 5 years for each singular offence,
00:16:34.372 --> 00:16:41.300
there is no mention of Holocaust.
00:16:41.300 --> 00:16:43.804
It is not defined in the law as such.
00:16:43.804 --> 00:16:52.184
Instead it refers to paragraph 6 section 1
of the German International Criminal Code.
00:16:52.184 --> 00:16:57.142
And here we find
a definition of genocide.
00:16:57.142 --> 00:17:07.201
Whoever denies that such a genocide
has occurred, can be convicted,
00:17:07.201 --> 00:17:09.550
provided that additional criteria are met,
00:17:09.550 --> 00:17:12.288
the disturbance of public order,
for example.
00:17:12.288 --> 00:17:15.208
But what I would like to emphasize
00:17:15.208 --> 00:17:21.348
is the definition of genocide
in paragraph 6
00:17:21.348 --> 00:17:23.622
of the German International Criminal Code.
00:17:23.622 --> 00:17:26.906
It's just a few lines,
00:17:26.906 --> 00:17:30.268
I'll not give it quite in its entirety.
00:17:35.972 --> 00:17:38.692
It is considered genocide
00:17:38.692 --> 00:17:44.463
when one member of an ethnic,
religious or other group
00:17:44.463 --> 00:17:48.523
is killed with the intention of causing
00:17:48.523 --> 00:17:53.348
the destruction of that group,
in whole or in part.
00:17:53.348 --> 00:17:57.503
So, one member of, say,
a religious group is killed,
00:17:57.503 --> 00:18:05.051
and the perpetrator intended
to kill the whole or part of the group,
00:18:05.051 --> 00:18:11.547
so is genocide defined
in this paragraph 6.
00:18:11.547 --> 00:18:14.618
If one brings this together
00:18:14.618 --> 00:18:17.217
with paragraph 130 section 3,
00:18:17.217 --> 00:18:23.275
the denial of an act defined
in paragraph 6,
00:18:23.275 --> 00:18:28.315
then one can according to this definition,
00:18:28.315 --> 00:18:32.127
convict a person who denies ...
00:18:32.127 --> 00:18:36.131
one must add:
under the rule of National Socialism,
00:18:36.131 --> 00:18:38.731
it states in paragraph 130 section 3 ...
00:18:47.635 --> 00:18:51.363
So, according to according to
paragraph 130 section 3,
00:18:51.363 --> 00:18:53.799
a person can be convicted
00:18:53.799 --> 00:18:58.934
who denies that under the rule
of National Socialism
00:18:58.934 --> 00:19:07.429
a Jew was killed by someone
to the end of destroying the Jewry
00:19:07.429 --> 00:19:10.272
as an ethnic or religious group.
00:19:10.272 --> 00:19:13.530
What is not necessary, for example,
00:19:13.530 --> 00:19:17.153
is that the German government wanted it,
00:19:17.153 --> 00:19:21.696
had given the order,
or even that it knew
00:19:21.696 --> 00:19:25.870
that something had happened,
it is not required here.
00:19:25.870 --> 00:19:31.499
Equally unrequired is that the killing
was committed by a German,
00:19:31.499 --> 00:19:35.677
this is also not to be found
in these laws.
00:19:35.677 --> 00:19:40.740
So, one cannot speak
of a clear principle of law,
00:19:42.913 --> 00:19:50.341
because of this, in my opinion,
inexact definition of genocide.
00:19:50.341 --> 00:19:55.255
Or otherwise, one can define genocide,
00:19:55.255 --> 00:20:02.523
but the denial of it is naturally
yet another question.
00:20:02.523 --> 00:20:07.464
There are then the questions:
Is it Holocaust denial
00:20:07.464 --> 00:20:14.894
when one contests whether 1 was killed
or whether 6 million were killed?
00:20:14.894 --> 00:20:18.781
This alone shows the inexactitude.
00:20:23.241 --> 00:20:27.184
In the Federal Republic of Austria,
there is also a relevant paragraph,
00:20:27.184 --> 00:20:31.846
there too the Holocaust itself
is not defined.
00:20:31.846 --> 00:20:36.968
It is not clear what is meant.
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.
00:20:45.658 --> 00:20:49.951
Normally, in cases of murder,
00:20:49.951 --> 00:20:55.889
the verdict must state
where the crime took place ...
00:20:55.889 --> 00:20:59.593
the police, the investigating magistrate,
must naturally first establish matters
00:20:59.593 --> 00:21:03.077
and then present their findings
to the court ...
00:21:03.077 --> 00:21:08.691
and in the verdict, when it is
appropriately proved,
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
00:21:16.991 --> 00:21:19.802
a murder took place
with such and such a weapon,
00:21:19.802 --> 00:21:21.808
and the perpetrators were so and so,
00:21:21.808 --> 00:21:25.631
and it is proved because, for example,
00:21:25.631 --> 00:21:32.623
it has become clear,
shown beyond doubt,
00:21:32.623 --> 00:21:36.550
that this is the weapon,
00:21:36.550 --> 00:21:42.608
that the fingerprints of the perpetrators,
the accused, are on it,
00:21:42.608 --> 00:21:46.706
and that there were powder residues
on the perpetrator,
00:21:46.706 --> 00:21:50.865
anyway a couple of examples.
00:21:50.865 --> 00:21:58.728
These things must be stated
in the judgement.
00:21:58.728 --> 00:22:05.306
When we are dealing with the denial
of such an act,
00:22:05.306 --> 00:22:08.688
with the criminal denial of such an act,
00:22:08.688 --> 00:22:11.825
then, of course, we would expect
the relevant act,
00:22:11.825 --> 00:22:17.742
the murder itself, established.
00:22:17.742 --> 00:22:21.683
Otherwise, we have no idea
what the accused actually denied.
00:22:21.683 --> 00:22:28.007
I suggest it is not clear
what is really denied,
00:22:28.007 --> 00:22:30.182
because it is not definitively defined.
00:22:30.182 --> 00:22:35.855
There should be at least one case,
00:22:35.855 --> 00:22:38.346
against a Holocaust denier,
00:22:38.346 --> 00:22:45.520
in which the relevant crime,
the Holocaust itself,
00:22:45.520 --> 00:22:50.698
is exactly established
in all necessary details.
00:22:50.698 --> 00:22:53.839
I know of no such verdict.
00:22:53.839 --> 00:22:59.709
There are no details concerning
the crime scenes, the method of killing,
00:22:59.709 --> 00:23:04.538
the number of victims,
the time-frame of the killings,
00:23:04.538 --> 00:23:07.813
the perpetrators, the bodies,
00:23:07.813 --> 00:23:12.243
or physical trace of a killing.
00:23:12.243 --> 00:23:16.899
The testimonies are not specified,
00:23:16.899 --> 00:23:21.638
nor are the documents
or similar kinds of evidence.
00:23:21.638 --> 00:23:27.318
The intention to destroy
all or part of the Jewry
00:23:27.318 --> 00:23:33.388
under National Socialist rule has not been
demonstrated anywhere.
00:23:33.388 --> 00:23:40.082
There are no documents showing
any prior decisions, plans or orders.
00:23:40.082 --> 00:23:43.978
When it comes to the trial
of Holocaust deniers,
00:23:43.978 --> 00:23:48.511
we do not find these things specified.
00:23:48.511 --> 00:23:51.743
Nor do we find any references
to other verdicts,
00:23:51.743 --> 00:23:54.897
where all these things
could have been stated.
00:23:54.897 --> 00:23:58.946
When one wants to show something, it is
the most scientific thing to do
00:23:58.946 --> 00:24:02.963
to refer to other verdicts
containing the exact information.
00:24:02.963 --> 00:24:06.836
This is also not the case.
00:24:06.836 --> 00:24:11.094
This is the problem.
00:24:11.094 --> 00:24:17.342
As long as the court will not commit
to certain specified crime scenes
00:24:17.342 --> 00:24:21.374
where these mass killings
are supposed to have happened,
00:24:21.374 --> 00:24:27.273
as long as the court will not commit to
at least one specified piece of evidence,
00:24:27.273 --> 00:24:30.939
as long as this remains the case,
00:24:30.939 --> 00:24:34.924
these mass killings simply
cannot be demonstrated.
00:24:34.924 --> 00:24:42.765
And no more so the denial
of these mass killings.
00:24:59.670 --> 00:25:03.759
Now one might say,
00:25:03.759 --> 00:25:05.489
"What about the Nuremberg trial?
00:25:05.489 --> 00:25:10.198
It's probably in there somewhere,
the details."
00:25:10.198 --> 00:25:12.699
This is not the case.
00:25:12.699 --> 00:25:21.643
Let me read you the relevant passage
of the Nuremberg verdict
00:25:21.643 --> 00:25:24.136
where gas chambers are mentioned.
00:25:24.136 --> 00:25:28.156
Here it says and I quote:
00:25:30.367 --> 00:25:33.361
A certain number
of the concentration camps
00:25:33.361 --> 00:25:37.044
were equipped with gas chambers
00:25:37.044 --> 00:25:39.131
for the wholesale destruction
of the inmates,
00:25:39.131 --> 00:25:42.259
and with furnaces
for the burning of the bodies.
00:25:42.259 --> 00:25:46.573
Some of them were in fact used
for the extermination of Jews
00:25:46.573 --> 00:25:51.995
as part of the "final solution"
of the Jewish problem.
00:25:51.995 --> 00:25:57.087
Most of the non-Jewish inmates
were used for labour,
00:25:57.087 --> 00:26:00.276
although the conditions
under which they worked
00:26:00.276 --> 00:26:05.087
made labour and death
almost synonymous terms.
00:26:05.087 --> 00:26:10.148
Those inmates who became ill
and were unable to work
00:26:10.148 --> 00:26:16.763
were either murdered in the gas chambers
or sent to special infirmaries,
00:26:16.763 --> 00:26:21.642
where they were given
entirely inadequate medical treatment,
00:26:21.642 --> 00:26:28.645
worse food if possible
than the working inmates,
00:26:28.645 --> 00:26:36.271
and left to die.
End quote.
00:26:36.271 --> 00:26:42.847
That is all it says about gas chambers
in the Nuremberg verdicts.
00:26:42.847 --> 00:26:44.543
It is all stated in general terms
00:26:44.543 --> 00:26:47.171
such as "a certain number
of concentration camps".
00:26:47.171 --> 00:26:53.938
It is not mentioned
where the gas chambers were.
00:26:53.938 --> 00:26:59.834
This means that a defence lawyer
is left with no place to begin.
00:26:59.834 --> 00:27:03.392
It is also important to emphasize
00:27:03.392 --> 00:27:13.842
that the rules of evidence
were nullified in the Nuremberg trials.
00:27:13.842 --> 00:27:16.592
Perhaps not all of them,
but in substantial part.
00:27:16.592 --> 00:27:23.600
It says here, in the London Charter
00:27:23.600 --> 00:27:28.770
which decreed laws specifically
for this military tribunal,
00:27:28.770 --> 00:27:32.317
in Article 19:
00:27:32.317 --> 00:27:38.384
The Tribunal shall not be bound
by technical rules of evidence.
00:27:38.384 --> 00:27:42.675
That is a sentence
that is worth pondering.
00:27:42.675 --> 00:27:50.635
That a military tribunal
from its inception
00:27:50.635 --> 00:27:58.070
is given a free hand
when it comes to rules of evidence.
00:27:58.070 --> 00:28:01.510
And further in article 20:
00:28:01.510 --> 00:28:09.468
The Tribunal shall not require
proof of facts of common knowledge
00:28:09.468 --> 00:28:15.862
but shall take judicial notice thereof.
00:28:15.862 --> 00:28:18.687
Interesting, right?
00:28:18.687 --> 00:28:23.292
It shall not require proof
of facts of common knowledge.
00:28:23.292 --> 00:28:28.250
But what are facts of common knowledge?
00:28:28.250 --> 00:28:33.124
It is usually the job of the courts
to establish the facts,
00:28:33.124 --> 00:28:38.728
not presume the facts.
00:28:38.728 --> 00:28:44.286
It all becomes somewhat clearer
00:28:44.286 --> 00:28:49.678
in the words
of the American chief prosecutor,
00:28:49.678 --> 00:28:53.897
Robert H Jackson.
00:28:53.897 --> 00:29:04.725
They are given in the Nuremberg protocols
vol. 19 p. 440:
00:29:04.725 --> 00:29:10.258
As a military tribunal,
00:29:10.258 --> 00:29:21.547
this Tribunal is a continuation
of the war effort
00:29:21.547 --> 00:29:25.044
of the Allied nations.
00:29:25.044 --> 00:29:33.796
I'll repeat, the Nuremberg tribunal is
a continuation of the war effort
00:29:33.796 --> 00:29:38.923
of the Allied nations.
00:29:38.923 --> 00:29:44.714
Does a nation engaged in a war effort
need rules of evidence
00:29:44.714 --> 00:29:49.730
as it seeks to burden
its opponent with guilt?
00:29:49.730 --> 00:29:53.979
I would now like to read you a passage
from another verdict,
00:29:53.979 --> 00:30:00.982
in which one might assume
to find the details
00:30:00.982 --> 00:30:05.483
of the Holocaust specified.
00:30:05.483 --> 00:30:12.123
This is from the so-called
Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials.
00:30:12.140 --> 00:30:16.669
Here it says in the final verdict,
and I quote:
00:30:16.699 --> 00:30:22.264
Almost all the usual forms of evidence
of a normal murder trial
00:30:22.283 --> 00:30:26.554
necessary for gaining
a true image of the events
00:30:26.647 --> 00:30:29.639
at the time of the murder
00:30:29.644 --> 00:30:33.137
were unavailable to the court.
00:30:33.227 --> 00:30:36.205
There were no bodies of the victims,
00:30:36.238 --> 00:30:39.336
no autopsy reports,
00:30:39.341 --> 00:30:47.725
no expert reports on the cause
and time of death,
00:30:47.776 --> 00:30:51.573
there was no evidence
as to the perpetrators,
00:30:51.613 --> 00:30:55.059
the murder weapons, and so on.
00:30:55.090 --> 00:31:01.204
Verification of the witness testimonies
was only possible in a few cases.
00:31:01.242 --> 00:31:03.127
And further below:
00:31:03.143 --> 00:31:09.313
The court was, therefore, almost solely
dependent upon witness testimonies
00:31:09.320 --> 00:31:16.066
in the clarification of the crimes
of the accused.
00:31:16.092 --> 00:31:20.793
And yet further on:
00:31:20.818 --> 00:31:23.391
There were hardly any witnesses
00:31:23.410 --> 00:31:28.607
who lived through the events
at Auschwitz concentration camp
00:31:28.609 --> 00:31:32.060
as neutral observers.
00:31:32.081 --> 00:31:37.078
One can conclude from this verdict,
00:31:37.104 --> 00:31:42.515
or rather simply see what stands there,
00:31:42.525 --> 00:31:48.047
the court was almost solely dependent
upon witness testimonies
00:31:48.071 --> 00:31:51.377
in the clarification
of the crimes of the accused.
00:31:51.406 --> 00:32:00.736
Such is the situation at the start
of a trial for Holocaust denial,
00:32:00.794 --> 00:32:05.226
and it is also the situation at the end,
because nothing is changed.
00:32:05.263 --> 00:32:07.446
One gets to know,
00:32:07.474 --> 00:32:09.888
neither as defence attorney
nor as accused,
00:32:09.916 --> 00:32:14.270
absolutely nothing of what has
actually been established as fact,
00:32:14.309 --> 00:32:18.290
because it is not given in the verdict.
00:32:18.294 --> 00:32:23.250
Not in older verdicts
nor in newer verdicts.
00:32:23.349 --> 00:32:27.487
There is a lot in the media
and much can be read in books about it,
00:32:27.503 --> 00:32:34.155
but we want to hear it from the courts,
we want to hear it stated officially.
00:32:34.168 --> 00:32:37.637
We want to know.
Really know.
00:32:37.691 --> 00:32:44.993
One does not want to deny what is proved,
but one wants to know what was,
00:32:45.001 --> 00:32:49.625
only one cannot find it stated officially,
that's the problem.
00:32:49.697 --> 00:32:52.639
One is accused and condemned
00:32:52.663 --> 00:33:00.879
without being told authoritatively
of what one is really accused.
00:33:00.888 --> 00:33:05.912
What can one say to put it firmly?
00:33:05.932 --> 00:33:11.010
I'll come back to this later,
how things go in a trial.
00:33:11.034 --> 00:33:17.430
When an accused wants to know
what he should have said,
00:33:17.448 --> 00:33:19.098
he gets no answer.
00:33:19.162 --> 00:33:21.587
But more about that later.
00:33:24.325 --> 00:33:30.816
At this point I would like to add
a very telling revelation
00:33:30.816 --> 00:33:34.496
made by 34 French historians.
00:33:34.496 --> 00:33:40.825
In 1979, they issued a statement.
00:33:40.825 --> 00:33:48.238
These historians specialize
in the history of the Holocaust.
00:33:48.238 --> 00:33:56.061
The revisionist historian,
Professor Robert Faurisson,
00:33:56.061 --> 00:34:04.547
put forward technical arguments
against the existence of gas chambers.
00:34:06.724 --> 00:34:13.766
These 34 French historians
stated the following
00:34:13.766 --> 00:34:20.895
to the counterargument
of Professor Faurisson in 1979.
00:34:20.895 --> 00:34:26.237
Quote:
It must not be asked
00:34:26.237 --> 00:34:35.415
how such a mass murder
was technically possible.
00:34:35.415 --> 00:34:40.293
It was technically possible
because it happened.
00:34:40.293 --> 00:34:46.848
That is the required point of departure,
– point of departure!? –
00:34:46.848 --> 00:34:52.242
of any historical inquiry on this subject.
00:34:52.242 --> 00:34:57.030
These truths we should
just recall to memory:
00:34:57.030 --> 00:35:03.012
There is no debate about the existence
of the gas chambers
00:35:03.012 --> 00:35:10.644
and there may not be one.
End quote.
00:35:10.644 --> 00:35:15.425
This also belongs
to the point of departure,
00:35:15.425 --> 00:35:20.815
because this is how
the judges, the prosecutors, go on,
00:35:20.815 --> 00:35:28.544
as do many other lawyers and other people.
00:35:28.544 --> 00:35:30.963
Through their actions
they are clearly letting you know
00:35:30.963 --> 00:35:36.811
that you are not allowed to ask.
00:35:38.756 --> 00:35:43.353
This has had immense consequences.
00:35:43.353 --> 00:35:50.562
I am in no way the first lawyer
to be punished for Holocaust denial.
00:35:50.562 --> 00:35:52.666
Please don't think that.
00:35:52.666 --> 00:35:56.852
I might be the first lawyer
to be imprisoned for it though.
00:35:56.852 --> 00:36:02.324
But for years, lawyers have been
forever accused of Holocaust denial
00:36:02.324 --> 00:36:10.871
because they submitted evidence
regarding details of the Holocaust.
00:36:10.871 --> 00:36:13.870
When submitting evidence,
00:36:13.870 --> 00:36:22.678
one necessarily has to phrase it
as statement of fact,
00:36:22.678 --> 00:36:27.928
otherwise it will not be termed evidence.
00:36:27.928 --> 00:36:32.251
That means you have to claim as fact,
what you want to demonstrate to the court.
00:36:32.251 --> 00:36:35.409
Otherwise it will be dismissed,
on formal grounds.
00:36:35.409 --> 00:36:40.937
Only when one as a defender
of a Holocaust denier
00:36:40.937 --> 00:36:46.439
puts an argument, and says
this and this is true,
00:36:46.439 --> 00:36:49.678
and there is this and that
expert evidence,
00:36:49.678 --> 00:36:52.615
this and that is proved,
00:36:52.615 --> 00:36:59.687
the court may determine it,
may ask an expert witness, for example,
00:36:59.687 --> 00:37:04.695
then if this submission is declined,
00:37:04.695 --> 00:37:12.011
the defender is then additionally accused
and convicted of Holocaust denial.
00:37:12.011 --> 00:37:14.938
These things are not so well-known
00:37:14.938 --> 00:37:17.768
because most lawyers don't make
much of a fuss about it.
00:37:17.768 --> 00:37:20.360
They are just given a fine,
which they then pay,
00:37:20.360 --> 00:37:22.873
and then say or think to themselves,
00:37:22.873 --> 00:37:26.249
they'll not do it again, they'll not cause
themselves the trouble ever again.
00:37:26.249 --> 00:37:29.551
But there are many, many cases
of this nature.
00:37:29.551 --> 00:37:36.490
Only, I just wonder,
why this should remain so unknown,
00:37:36.490 --> 00:37:43.508
this way of going on with the accused,
with the law,
00:37:43.508 --> 00:37:50.541
and to punish defence lawyers
for quite normal professional practice.
00:37:50.541 --> 00:37:57.417
I find it important that the people
become aware of it.
00:37:57.417 --> 00:38:00.520
(Applause)
00:38:14.187 --> 00:38:17.961
There are many, many people,
not just lawyers,
00:38:17.961 --> 00:38:21.252
but also scientists, of different types,
00:38:21.252 --> 00:38:24.691
who have been punished
for Holocaust denial.
00:38:24.691 --> 00:38:30.921
I will not name many because
it would become a task without end
00:38:30.921 --> 00:38:38.436
to name the many scientists and others
who have been punished with fines,
00:38:38.436 --> 00:38:41.144
or many times even with prison sentences.
00:38:41.144 --> 00:38:46.449
I would like to mention just a few,
for example, Germar Rudolf,
00:38:46.449 --> 00:38:51.123
who also was subjected
to the treatment I just described.
00:38:51.123 --> 00:38:56.534
He is a chemist and made
certain observations –
00:38:56.534 --> 00:39:00.673
this is not the place to recite them.
00:39:00.673 --> 00:39:05.738
He wrote books on what he observed,
00:39:05.738 --> 00:39:10.094
truly scientific books,
00:39:10.094 --> 00:39:17.053
and because of these books
he was twice given a prison sentence.
00:39:17.053 --> 00:39:21.896
In one case, I defended him in court,
00:39:21.896 --> 00:39:24.427
and the books were then destroyed,
00:39:24.427 --> 00:39:28.361
they were forbidden,
removed from the index,
00:39:28.361 --> 00:39:30.111
completely destroyed.
00:39:30.111 --> 00:39:37.842
All the books the authorities
could get hold of were burned.
00:39:37.842 --> 00:39:42.411
There were masses of books burned
on these grounds,
00:39:42.411 --> 00:39:45.547
including those by Germar Rudolf,
00:39:45.547 --> 00:39:54.774
and one must say about this,
one must explain why it happened.
00:39:54.774 --> 00:40:00.525
Why a chemist who seriously took
to considering the matter,
00:40:00.525 --> 00:40:05.861
why one does not at least discuss
what he says,
00:40:05.861 --> 00:40:09.510
because it was not discussed,
it was not openly discussed.
00:40:09.510 --> 00:40:17.439
When one passes on what he says,
one can expect a prison sentence.
00:40:17.439 --> 00:40:23.533
The discussion is hindered.
00:40:23.533 --> 00:40:34.594
How does one explain that in a structure
that considers itself free?
00:40:34.594 --> 00:40:36.659
That's quite simple.
00:40:36.659 --> 00:40:42.731
One just says he was a pseudoscientist.
00:40:42.731 --> 00:40:45.658
It's just that simple!
00:40:45.658 --> 00:40:48.086
Well, yes, I could explain
the matter to you –
00:40:48.086 --> 00:40:56.588
well, one then gets to the verdict
00:40:56.588 --> 00:41:05.583
and it's all about a pseudoscientist
who has denied the Holocaust.
00:41:05.583 --> 00:41:11.205
Haven't we already heard today the phrase:
Bad science?
00:41:11.205 --> 00:41:15.087
We heard it in a different context,
but the meaning is the same.
00:41:15.087 --> 00:41:19.407
If someone accused of Holocaust denial
stands before the court
00:41:19.407 --> 00:41:28.370
and he there presents how he came
to not believe in the Holocaust,
00:41:28.370 --> 00:41:31.007
to doubt the Holocaust,
00:41:31.007 --> 00:41:33.169
to place the Holocaust in question,
00:41:33.169 --> 00:41:35.216
or to argue about the Holocaust
00:41:35.216 --> 00:41:38.211
– there are several different levels –
00:41:38.211 --> 00:41:41.777
when anyway he presents his case,
00:41:41.777 --> 00:41:47.364
I've experienced it myself
as defence counsel,
00:41:47.364 --> 00:41:56.472
he is again, because of
this declaration in court in his defence,
00:41:56.472 --> 00:42:02.620
he is yet further accused and sentenced
for Holocaust denial.
00:42:02.620 --> 00:42:07.534
Because he had for sure, in public,
before the court,
00:42:07.534 --> 00:42:14.066
he had again questioned the Holocaust,
and is again accused and sentenced.
00:42:14.066 --> 00:42:18.268
So that is prohibition of defence,
not only for defence counsel,
00:42:18.268 --> 00:42:20.609
but also for the defendant himself.
00:42:20.609 --> 00:42:25.717
He may not defend himself,
he may not discuss the issue of
00:42:25.717 --> 00:42:29.955
why he questioned the Holocaust,
00:42:29.955 --> 00:42:35.667
what grounds, what facts
brought him to do it.
00:42:38.541 --> 00:42:47.830
So, not just a prohibition of evidence,
but a prohibition of defence.
00:42:47.830 --> 00:43:00.454
I will quote you from the judgement
against me at the Mannheim court.
00:43:00.454 --> 00:43:07.780
It states in the verdict:
00:43:07.780 --> 00:43:20.718
The court sought to limit increasingly
almost all defence rights of the accused.
00:43:20.718 --> 00:43:28.086
It then concerns itself
with which defence rights were limited.
00:43:28.086 --> 00:43:32.096
For example,
to express oneself on the matter,
00:43:32.096 --> 00:43:35.639
and ask a witness in what concerns me.
00:43:35.639 --> 00:43:39.859
So, to sum it up, they took away
my right to speak.
00:43:39.859 --> 00:43:52.296
I might not express myself further,
and then I was allowed ten questions.
00:43:52.296 --> 00:43:55.978
The questions I put
did not please the court,
00:43:55.978 --> 00:43:59.965
and I was not permitted
to ask further questions.
00:44:01.472 --> 00:44:03.932
This is just one example.
00:44:03.932 --> 00:44:06.715
What is often done then,
00:44:06.715 --> 00:44:13.093
is that a relatively newly added paragraph
is introduced,
00:44:13.093 --> 00:44:20.137
the Code of Criminal Procedure,
paragraph 252a.
00:44:20.137 --> 00:44:25.714
It was introduced in the 90's
00:44:25.714 --> 00:44:31.571
to tighten paragraph 130 section 3
relating to Holocaust denial,
00:44:31.571 --> 00:44:38.543
and possibly to tighten
the whole of paragraph 130.
00:44:41.706 --> 00:44:53.258
This paragraph 252a enables the judge
to require the accused or the defender
00:44:53.258 --> 00:44:57.259
to express themselves
only in writing to the court.
00:44:57.259 --> 00:45:02.201
So, petitions and statements
are to be presented only in written form,
00:45:02.201 --> 00:45:04.859
and not read out loud first.
00:45:04.859 --> 00:45:11.438
This the normal way,
to express oneself orally.
00:45:11.438 --> 00:45:14.881
It is one of
the most fundamental principles
00:45:14.881 --> 00:45:19.244
of German criminal law,
of German criminal proceedings,
00:45:19.244 --> 00:45:23.961
the oral principle, that everything
must be spoken out loud before the court.
00:45:23.961 --> 00:45:28.069
There are different, good reasons
why this should be,
00:45:28.069 --> 00:45:32.263
but this was abolished in the 90's.
00:45:33.653 --> 00:45:37.570
Apparently, there are things
that one doesn't want to hear.
00:45:37.570 --> 00:45:40.875
And then when the judge
gets the impression,
00:45:40.875 --> 00:45:43.570
now it is time,
00:45:43.570 --> 00:45:50.401
he commands the defender to communicate
to the court in written form only.
00:45:50.401 --> 00:45:54.640
And in the trial of Ernst Zündel
it was exactly like this too.
00:45:54.640 --> 00:45:58.989
In other trials it was different,
I could say everything I wanted to,
00:45:58.989 --> 00:46:03.495
the accused was nonetheless convicted,
00:46:03.495 --> 00:46:06.571
but I could say all I wanted to.
00:46:06.571 --> 00:46:15.075
But in the Zündel case and a few others,
this speech prohibition was imposed.
00:46:15.075 --> 00:46:20.150
The result, of course,
of communication in writing alone,
00:46:20.150 --> 00:46:27.607
is that those listening don't get to know
what the defender wants to convey.
00:46:27.607 --> 00:46:31.964
So, only the judges are aware
of what the defender is trying to say,
00:46:31.964 --> 00:46:33.672
and not those listening.
00:46:33.672 --> 00:46:39.613
The public is excluded.
00:46:39.613 --> 00:46:47.088
In this connection I would like
to quickly describe
00:46:47.088 --> 00:46:51.649
how things went at the trial
of Ernst Zündel.
00:46:51.649 --> 00:46:55.030
It got to be a bit of a muddle,
I must tell you,
00:46:55.030 --> 00:46:59.258
it's no wonder,
but it is a bit complicated.
00:46:59.258 --> 00:47:04.982
It was the case that
this speech prohibition was imposed,
00:47:04.982 --> 00:47:09.312
and it was not only me
but three other defenders.
00:47:09.312 --> 00:47:15.765
There were six defenders in all.
Four Ernst Zündel chose himself,
00:47:15.765 --> 00:47:21.388
and two were appointed by the court.
00:47:21.388 --> 00:47:26.214
Why this was done became clear afterwards.
00:47:26.214 --> 00:47:33.330
They wanted lawyers in reserve
in case the others were removed.
00:47:33.330 --> 00:47:38.190
If there were only one defender
and he became unavailable,
00:47:38.190 --> 00:47:41.707
the trial would have to start
from the beginning again.
00:47:41.707 --> 00:47:46.584
So, doing this avoids having to start
the trial from the beginning again.
00:47:46.584 --> 00:47:56.312
So, I and two other chosen defenders
were allowed only written communication.
00:47:56.312 --> 00:48:00.438
And it was my opinion, and still is,
00:48:00.438 --> 00:48:08.648
that it is the duty of the defender
to protect the interests of his client,
00:48:08.648 --> 00:48:16.208
and to make it clear
when he is of the opinion
00:48:16.208 --> 00:48:25.937
that the legal standards
you expect in court are not being met.
00:48:25.937 --> 00:48:30.746
I was accused of damaging
my duty as a defender.
00:48:30.746 --> 00:48:35.594
On these grounds, the judges
dismissed me from the case.
00:48:35.594 --> 00:48:38.395
But I am of the opposite conviction;
00:48:38.395 --> 00:48:44.437
it is just the duty of a defender,
just in such difficult situations,
00:48:44.437 --> 00:48:52.396
to point out, stop,
I cannot remain silent,
00:48:52.396 --> 00:48:55.778
injustice is going on here.
00:48:55.778 --> 00:49:00.558
(Applause)
00:49:08.920 --> 00:49:12.835
And had I submitted
to the prohibition imposed on me,
00:49:12.835 --> 00:49:20.272
and made my submissions in writing,
then I would have felt
00:49:20.272 --> 00:49:23.581
that everything happening
was estranged from the law.
00:49:23.581 --> 00:49:29.916
The fact that I could not
express myself orally
00:49:29.916 --> 00:49:32.197
was already a breach of the law.
00:49:32.197 --> 00:49:40.101
Of others I will not speak,
but for this reason alone
00:49:40.101 --> 00:49:44.022
I continued to speak.
00:49:44.022 --> 00:49:47.025
And I explained why I continued to speak.
00:49:47.025 --> 00:49:52.155
I explained to them exactly
what I am explaining to you.
00:49:52.155 --> 00:50:02.626
I explained why the use of this 252a,
this prohibition of speech,
00:50:02.626 --> 00:50:06.453
this breach of the oral tradition,
was something I would not submit to it.
00:50:06.453 --> 00:50:10.572
I explained it all to the Mannheim court.
00:50:10.572 --> 00:50:17.161
In such difficult cases, it is sensible
to make submissions in writing also,
00:50:17.161 --> 00:50:20.635
first to read them,
and then to present them in writing,
00:50:20.635 --> 00:50:23.685
so everything is documented
and in the files.
00:50:23.685 --> 00:50:30.048
I told them exactly why I would not bow
to this speech prohibition.
00:50:30.048 --> 00:50:38.416
Because I don't accept it as right
is the reason in essence.
00:50:38.416 --> 00:50:46.801
And then it continued
with my nonetheless reading a submission,
00:50:46.801 --> 00:50:50.728
at least began to,
I did not have permission to,
00:50:50.728 --> 00:50:54.621
I should have just handed it over,
but I read it out.
00:50:54.621 --> 00:50:59.073
The judge then asked me to stop,
00:50:59.073 --> 00:51:04.467
but I continued to speak on the grounds
I've just explained,
00:51:04.467 --> 00:51:07.528
and it collapsed into an argumentation.
00:51:07.528 --> 00:51:12.544
It's in
the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,
00:51:12.544 --> 00:51:16.296
end of 2005, beginning of 2006,
00:51:16.296 --> 00:51:22.360
really well put in parts.
00:51:22.360 --> 00:51:26.236
So, there was quite an argumentation,
00:51:26.236 --> 00:51:30.527
sometimes speaking over each other,
00:51:30.527 --> 00:51:33.436
until the microphone
was taken away from me,
00:51:33.436 --> 00:51:38.689
when I had the cheek
to speak without a microphone,
00:51:38.689 --> 00:51:40.740
(Applause)
00:51:48.599 --> 00:51:50.602
which was referred to in the sentence.
00:51:50.602 --> 00:51:56.517
It must be particularly reprehensible
to do such a thing.
00:51:56.517 --> 00:52:00.204
And in the end,
after much argument,
00:52:00.204 --> 00:52:06.998
it reached the point
where the judge interjected,
00:52:06.998 --> 00:52:15.722
that he would entertain my exclusion
as a defender from these proceedings.
00:52:15.722 --> 00:52:18.158
But it was not true that I was arrested
there and then,
00:52:18.158 --> 00:52:21.977
that was later,
00:52:21.977 --> 00:52:26.221
it was requested,
00:52:26.221 --> 00:52:34.765
and the high court in Karlsruhe
took the decision to grant the request,
00:52:34.765 --> 00:52:38.858
and had me as defender
excluded from the proceedings.
00:52:51.902 --> 00:53:04.485
So, the Karlsruhe court had me excluded
as defender from the Zündel proceedings,
00:53:04.485 --> 00:53:08.157
but this decision was not yet final,
00:53:08.157 --> 00:53:13.787
an appeal was allowable.
00:53:13.787 --> 00:53:17.903
The time allowed for the appeal
was not up,
00:53:17.903 --> 00:53:23.776
when a new date was given
for the Zündel trial
00:53:23.776 --> 00:53:27.464
to which I was not invited.
00:53:27.464 --> 00:53:35.287
And a lawyer friend told me about it,
and naturally I appeared,
00:53:35.287 --> 00:53:42.047
because the appeal time was not up,
00:53:42.047 --> 00:53:48.296
let alone an appeal decision made.
00:53:48.296 --> 00:53:52.660
So, I sat down at the defence table.
00:53:52.660 --> 00:54:00.351
But then the judge requested
that I leave the defence table.
00:54:00.351 --> 00:54:03.549
So, there was a long discussion.
00:54:03.549 --> 00:54:12.435
In the first place, if my appeal
deferred my exclusion or not.
00:54:12.435 --> 00:54:19.072
If it did, then I still had the right
to sit there,
00:54:19.072 --> 00:54:23.300
if it didn't then I had no right
to sit there.
00:54:23.300 --> 00:54:28.030
You can imagine
who had which opinion,
00:54:28.030 --> 00:54:32.525
but the point is he had power on his side,
00:54:32.525 --> 00:54:41.538
and, then, naturally, opining that
the appeal did not defer my exclusion,
00:54:41.538 --> 00:54:47.032
I was to leave the defence table.
00:54:49.654 --> 00:54:52.995
I answered saying that the time was past
00:54:52.995 --> 00:54:56.269
when the German people
would allow themselves to be oppressed.
00:54:56.269 --> 00:55:00.202
(Applause)
00:55:22.250 --> 00:55:30.550
So, then he ordered the police present
to remove me from the courtroom,
00:55:30.550 --> 00:55:38.871
and a couple of policewomen
stood in front of me
00:55:38.871 --> 00:55:41.289
and asked me to leave the courtroom.
00:55:41.289 --> 00:55:45.958
I said, "You'll have to carry me."
00:55:45.958 --> 00:55:48.713
Basically, it all went quite civilly.
00:55:48.713 --> 00:55:53.000
The media naturally made
a great show out of it.
00:55:53.000 --> 00:55:56.181
I wondered how it would go on,
it wasn't right.
00:55:56.181 --> 00:55:58.762
It all went quite calmly.
00:55:58.762 --> 00:56:02.564
I said quite civilly to the officers,
"You'll have to carry me."
00:56:02.564 --> 00:56:05.140
Which they then did.
00:56:05.140 --> 00:56:07.357
(Laughter)
00:56:07.357 --> 00:56:16.812
And as I was carried out, I called out,
"The German people will rise."
00:56:16.812 --> 00:56:21.587
(Applause)
00:56:31.033 --> 00:56:36.240
So, that's how it was.
00:56:36.240 --> 00:56:44.234
Anyway, the trial of Ernst Zündel
then lasted a further 10 months.
00:56:44.234 --> 00:56:48.580
I mention that because it was suggested
00:56:48.580 --> 00:56:51.815
I might have been trying
to protract the trial.
00:56:57.553 --> 00:57:02.290
It was suggested I might be trying
to protract the trial
00:57:02.290 --> 00:57:07.333
with the petitions I made.
00:57:07.333 --> 00:57:15.220
So, after my forced removal, the case
went on for 10 months.
00:57:15.220 --> 00:57:20.655
The intention to speed up the trial was,
after my removal,
00:57:20.655 --> 00:57:25.244
very quickly lost, it would seem.
00:57:25.244 --> 00:57:30.254
Ernst Zündel was sentenced
to 5 years imprisonment.
00:57:30.254 --> 00:57:35.735
As he was free in 2010,
he was released earlier.
00:57:35.735 --> 00:57:37.862
He was, in total, seven years in prison,
00:57:37.862 --> 00:57:42.505
two years in the USA,
which were not taken into consideration,
00:57:42.505 --> 00:57:48.938
five years here,
so, seven years continuous imprisonment.
00:57:51.123 --> 00:57:54.861
And then, I myself,
I was also brought to trial,
00:57:54.861 --> 00:57:58.399
as is well-known
at the court in Mannheim,
00:57:58.399 --> 00:58:03.009
where I was, in the first instance,
sentenced to 3½ years imprisonment,
00:58:03.009 --> 00:58:05.719
for Holocaust denial,
00:58:05.719 --> 00:58:12.726
for defaming the state, to wit, defamation
of the Federal Republic of Germany,
00:58:20.845 --> 00:58:26.380
in that I had said that Germany,
since 1945,
00:58:26.380 --> 00:58:29.761
stood under the foreign rule
of the victors of the war.
00:58:29.761 --> 00:58:33.248
(Applause)
00:58:44.009 --> 00:58:51.997
And then I was convicted
of attempted obstruction of justice.
00:58:56.471 --> 00:59:00.202
One must look at what I was accused of.
00:59:00.202 --> 00:59:03.627
Attempted obstruction of justice,
it says in the verdict.
00:59:03.627 --> 00:59:11.339
I made petitions which were intended
to put the Holocaust in question,
00:59:11.339 --> 00:59:21.008
and because these petitions so obviously
could not be successful,
00:59:21.008 --> 00:59:27.917
they could, therefore,
only have been made to delay the court.
00:59:27.917 --> 00:59:31.786
Brilliant logic, would you believe!?
00:59:31.786 --> 00:59:38.091
If you make petitions which the court
considers from the beginning as senseless,
00:59:38.091 --> 00:59:42.554
then one is seen as obstructing the court.
00:59:42.554 --> 00:59:48.430
I was also convicted of
assault of constitutional institutions
00:59:48.430 --> 01:00:00.066
because I practically forced my petitions
and positions on the judges.
01:00:00.066 --> 01:00:06.870
A further conviction of attempted
assault of constitutional institutions
01:00:06.870 --> 01:00:12.821
was then quashed
by the federal court on appeal.
01:00:15.389 --> 01:00:20.480
In the first instance I was sentenced
for assault of constitutional institutions
01:00:20.480 --> 01:00:24.638
because I threatened the judges
with an address.
01:00:24.638 --> 01:00:28.840
It was in relation to instructing
the lay judges
01:00:28.840 --> 01:00:31.908
on the legal position –
01:00:31.908 --> 01:00:44.774
a lay judge may not know
the legal position in Germany,
01:00:44.774 --> 01:00:48.134
and perhaps make themselves
liable to prosecution,
01:00:48.134 --> 01:00:56.896
if they send an accused
to prison on political grounds
01:00:56.896 --> 01:01:02.865
without justification.
01:01:02.865 --> 01:01:09.607
That is at the very least
perversion of the course of justice.
01:01:09.607 --> 01:01:16.759
These facts I made fully clear
in my motion,
01:01:16.759 --> 01:01:26.007
to wit, that I would have the professional
and the lay judges
01:01:26.007 --> 01:01:30.138
answer one day when possible
before a Reich's court
01:01:30.138 --> 01:01:32.827
if they convicted Ernst Zündel unjustly.
01:01:32.827 --> 01:01:35.892
(Applause)
01:01:42.987 --> 01:01:46.386
This was then taken as threats,
01:01:46.386 --> 01:01:49.203
and I was convicted of
assault of constitutional institutions.
01:01:49.203 --> 01:01:52.192
This was, however, overturned,
as threatening behaviour was not found.
01:01:52.192 --> 01:02:01.642
Exceptionally, the situation
was judicially judged.
01:02:01.642 --> 01:02:06.079
It was in fact no threat, as I argued,
01:02:06.079 --> 01:02:09.726
but a making clear, a warning.
01:02:09.726 --> 01:02:13.310
This is not punishable, it's no threat.
01:02:15.290 --> 01:02:20.307
But in the media and Internet, yet again,
01:02:20.307 --> 01:02:24.637
I was sentenced because
I threatened the judges,
01:02:24.637 --> 01:02:32.170
which sounds much better than if one said
I was convicted because I made claims
01:02:32.170 --> 01:02:35.588
which brought the Holocaust into question.
01:02:40.290 --> 01:02:45.210
And, of course, I was also convicted
of inciting racial hatred.
01:02:45.210 --> 01:02:49.915
Because when one places
the Holocaust in doubt,
01:02:49.915 --> 01:02:55.207
one vilifies the victims.
01:02:55.207 --> 01:02:57.249
And that is inciting racial hatred.
01:02:57.249 --> 01:03:01.781
Such is the logic.
If you don't understand it, I can't help.
01:03:01.781 --> 01:03:08.392
If you don't understand it,
then you have a clear legal conscience.
01:03:08.392 --> 01:03:12.239
(Applause)
01:03:20.764 --> 01:03:25.077
The appeal then brought about
a reduction of 3 months,
01:03:25.077 --> 01:03:30.140
so, in the end, I was in prison
for 3 years, 3 months.
01:03:30.140 --> 01:03:34.582
I was also forbidden to practise law
for 5 years,
01:03:34.582 --> 01:03:41.871
which is no longer relevant as I have been
excluded from the legal profession.
01:03:43.959 --> 01:03:48.229
I must check
what I want to continue with.
01:03:48.229 --> 01:03:56.653
One of the most important things
is that one wants to know
01:03:56.653 --> 01:04:01.090
what is seen as legally correct
by the court.
01:04:01.090 --> 01:04:05.901
One would like to know
what the problem was.
01:04:05.901 --> 01:04:10.573
I have always requested a discussion
01:04:10.573 --> 01:04:15.103
of the foundation of the obviousness
of the Holocaust.
01:04:15.103 --> 01:04:19.311
Because it's like this,
it's a little complicated.
01:04:19.311 --> 01:04:24.695
When one makes a motion
to produce evidence
01:04:24.695 --> 01:04:29.944
that brings the Holocaust into question,
01:04:29.944 --> 01:04:33.830
then such a motion is declined
on the grounds
01:04:33.830 --> 01:04:37.790
that the Holocaust is self-evident.
01:04:39.518 --> 01:04:46.968
This is a quite usual procedure
01:04:46.968 --> 01:04:51.887
that one doesn't have to produce evidence
for something that is self-evident.
01:04:51.887 --> 01:04:53.899
It is entirely superfluous.
01:04:53.899 --> 01:04:57.966
If something is self-evident there is
no further evidence to produce.
01:04:57.966 --> 01:05:05.240
The text book example is
that it is self-evident
01:05:05.240 --> 01:05:10.110
that rain falls down from above
and not from below to above.
01:05:10.110 --> 01:05:19.810
And if in a criminal trial it came to
whence the rain falls,
01:05:19.810 --> 01:05:25.436
then a motion to produce evidence
by the defence can be denied
01:05:25.436 --> 01:05:29.435
on the grounds it is self-evident
that rain falls down from above.
01:05:29.435 --> 01:05:32.167
One does not need
to produce evidence for it.
01:05:32.167 --> 01:05:38.536
In such cases it is normal, in that
it's something that will always be true.
01:05:38.536 --> 01:05:44.998
In a case where the rain
came from the side,
01:05:44.998 --> 01:05:47.967
with the wind,
then one must produce evidence,
01:05:47.967 --> 01:05:50.010
how it was on the day.
01:05:50.010 --> 01:05:51.820
Was it windy or not?
01:05:51.820 --> 01:05:55.178
We are getting into details
about the way it is self-evident.
01:05:55.178 --> 01:06:06.916
Self-evident means something that for
all laymen is always easily perceptible,
01:06:06.916 --> 01:06:11.377
always checkable in reference works,
in books.
01:06:11.377 --> 01:06:14.339
And it assumes...
01:06:14.339 --> 01:06:21.103
I would not like to withhold
from you the exact definition,
01:06:21.103 --> 01:06:28.386
because it's really important
what self-evident actually is.
01:06:33.179 --> 01:06:41.389
From this reference book for lawyers:
01:06:41.389 --> 01:06:47.148
Historical facts are self-evident
01:06:47.148 --> 01:06:50.140
when, on the grounds
of historical research,
01:06:50.140 --> 01:06:52.835
they are generally considered proved,
01:06:52.835 --> 01:06:54.849
so that anyone can inform himself
01:06:54.849 --> 01:06:58.690
with history books, encyclopaedias
and similar reference sources
01:06:58.690 --> 01:07:03.389
without specialized subject knowledge.
01:07:05.593 --> 01:07:10.489
There's something else
that is very important here,
01:07:10.489 --> 01:07:14.646
in the same book, at another place.
01:07:14.646 --> 01:07:19.145
The precondition for the acceptance
of the self-evidence of a matter
01:07:19.145 --> 01:07:24.233
is the unchallenged nature
of the matter under consideration.
01:07:24.233 --> 01:07:29.081
So, only something unchallenged
can be self-evident.
01:07:29.081 --> 01:07:33.195
It must hold universal acceptance
in science.
01:07:33.195 --> 01:07:35.962
Thereby one understands
why some scientists
01:07:35.962 --> 01:07:41.401
are classified as pseudoscientists.
01:07:41.401 --> 01:07:47.257
Because then one can ignore them,
and self-evidence is not challenged.
01:07:47.257 --> 01:07:51.137
Is, however, the correctness of a matter
01:07:51.137 --> 01:07:54.241
argued in the literature,
01:07:54.241 --> 01:08:05.297
then the matter is not
thereby self-evident
01:08:05.297 --> 01:08:10.400
in that much is written, expounded
and set forth about it;
01:08:10.400 --> 01:08:16.220
the deliberation on a matter
in no way relates to its self-evidence.
01:08:16.220 --> 01:08:23.551
Motions to hear evidence
regarding the Holocaust
01:08:23.551 --> 01:08:30.919
were, in my experience, rejected
because the Holocaust is self-evident.
01:08:30.919 --> 01:08:41.372
I have ever and again in every case made
the request to discuss the self-evidence.
01:08:41.372 --> 01:08:47.207
These requests were rejected
on the grounds
01:08:47.207 --> 01:08:50.885
that the Holocaust is self-evident.
01:08:50.885 --> 01:08:53.716
I cannot put it another way.
01:08:53.716 --> 01:08:57.696
A discussion of the self-evidence
of the Holocaust
01:08:57.696 --> 01:09:02.256
is superfluous because the Holocaust
is self-evident.
01:09:02.256 --> 01:09:08.319
So, goes the reasoning in a nutshell,
it is a circular argument.
01:09:08.319 --> 01:09:16.247
And I have then often also read
the additional reason,
01:09:16.247 --> 01:09:21.798
that it will be seen as misuse of the law
01:09:21.798 --> 01:09:24.134
to make such a request,
01:09:24.134 --> 01:09:29.947
because, as was the case at my trial,
it means inducing the court
01:09:29.947 --> 01:09:34.884
to tackle the subject.
01:09:34.884 --> 01:09:41.564
So, it is written, it means considering
the revisionist theories,
01:09:41.564 --> 01:09:45.652
but that is just the basis
of the accusation.
01:09:45.652 --> 01:09:48.555
So, it will be seen as misuse of the law
01:09:48.555 --> 01:09:54.894
to let the court get into a discussion
about the charge.
01:09:54.894 --> 01:09:58.807
There's much to say,
but as short as possible...
01:10:04.515 --> 01:10:08.851
The Bavarian lawyer's disciplinary court
had to consider
01:10:08.851 --> 01:10:13.524
if I should be excluded
from the legal profession.
01:10:13.524 --> 01:10:17.739
And also there I made requests
01:10:17.739 --> 01:10:22.621
in relation to self-evidence,
01:10:22.621 --> 01:10:26.354
and they were rejected on the grounds
01:10:26.354 --> 01:10:32.492
that the disciplinary court had no doubt
that the Holocaust is self-evident,
01:10:32.492 --> 01:10:42.719
in view of the known available written,
pictorial and sound material.
01:10:42.719 --> 01:10:51.300
Then I asked, that is,
I and my defender,
01:10:51.300 --> 01:10:58.825
the court to say on which material
it based its opinion.
01:11:04.242 --> 01:11:13.792
This question was dismissed on the grounds
01:11:13.792 --> 01:11:16.719
that the Holocaust,
or the crimes of violence
01:11:16.719 --> 01:11:23.123
by the National Socialists on the Jews,
is self-evident.
01:11:23.123 --> 01:11:27.056
So, it was no answer.
01:11:27.056 --> 01:11:32.288
On which material the court
based its opinion, no answer,
01:11:32.288 --> 01:11:35.325
other than a very vague one, to wit,
01:11:35.325 --> 01:11:41.774
passing it all off to, quote:
newspapers, television and radio material,
01:11:41.774 --> 01:11:49.024
reference works and history books.
End quote.
01:11:49.024 --> 01:11:54.770
So, in other words, if one wants to know
why one has been convicted,
01:11:54.770 --> 01:12:00.150
then one should read it in the newspapers,
01:12:00.150 --> 01:12:07.096
it's not stated in the court decision
and verdict,
01:12:07.096 --> 01:12:12.273
but to be read
in the tabloids, apparently!
01:12:14.234 --> 01:12:17.869
So, there's an essential point here.
01:12:17.869 --> 01:12:21.467
The newspapers,
what's in the newspapers, then?
01:12:24.146 --> 01:12:32.387
A French historian by the name
of Jacques Beynac,
01:12:32.387 --> 01:12:40.366
was quoted in the Swiss newspaper,
Le Nouveau Quotidien de Lausanne,
01:12:40.366 --> 01:12:45.065
in September 1996.
01:12:45.065 --> 01:12:52.803
He said, "When it comes to the existence
of Nazi gas chambers,
01:12:52.803 --> 01:12:56.665
one can only point to
the absence of documents,
01:12:56.665 --> 01:13:01.585
physical traces and
other material evidence."
01:13:01.585 --> 01:13:04.751
One can only point to
the absence of documents,
01:13:04.751 --> 01:13:12.030
physical traces and
other material evidence.
01:13:12.030 --> 01:13:16.154
This opinion of a French historian,
01:13:16.154 --> 01:13:19.727
who specializes in the history
of the Holocaust,
01:13:19.727 --> 01:13:29.029
does this not show that the "obviousness"
could and should be questioned in court?
01:13:29.029 --> 01:13:35.577
Another historian, Ernst Nolte,
01:13:35.577 --> 01:13:44.390
wrote in his book, The Causal Nexus,
quote:
01:13:44.390 --> 01:13:49.440
"The witness testimonies are,
for the most part, based on hearsay,
01:13:49.440 --> 01:13:52.055
and assumptions.
01:13:52.055 --> 01:13:57.122
The few eye-witness testimonies we have,
are in part contradictory,
01:13:57.122 --> 01:14:05.271
and raise questions
regarding their credibility."
01:14:05.271 --> 01:14:10.505
The historian Hans Mommsen was quoted
in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, saying,
01:14:10.505 --> 01:14:18.415
"The Holocaust was not, not,
ordered by Hitler."
01:14:18.415 --> 01:14:23.812
Again statements showing that questions
01:14:23.812 --> 01:14:27.167
regarding the "obviousness"
of the Holocaust are valid.
01:14:27.167 --> 01:14:34.596
The last statement I would like to read
is from Fritjof Meyer.
01:14:34.596 --> 01:14:39.045
In the journal Osteuropa
in an article entitled,
01:14:39.045 --> 01:14:46.887
The number of Auschwitz Victims:
New insights from new-found archives,
01:14:46.887 --> 01:14:49.855
he wrote the following
with regard to the crime-scene.
01:14:49.855 --> 01:14:52.672
He is editor at Der Spiegel,
by the way...
01:14:52.672 --> 01:14:59.156
And in May 2002 this journal
came out in which he states
01:14:59.156 --> 01:15:06.865
that the genocide did not happen within
Auschwitz concentration camp,
01:15:06.865 --> 01:15:24.258
but, quote: Probably, in two farmhouses
outside of the camp.
01:15:24.258 --> 01:15:27.644
So, the genocide did not happen
inside the camp,
01:15:27.644 --> 01:15:31.838
but probably in two farmhouses
outside of the camp.
01:15:31.838 --> 01:15:40.580
Again this shows the need for discussion
of the "obviousness" of the Holocaust.
01:15:45.695 --> 01:15:53.731
Here the Federal Constitutional Court,
I'll leave some of it out,
01:15:53.731 --> 01:15:56.573
but this is very important, I feel,
01:15:56.573 --> 01:16:09.188
states its position regarding
the criminality of Holocaust denial.
01:16:09.188 --> 01:16:11.224
It comes clean with regard
to freedom of speech,
01:16:11.224 --> 01:16:14.553
but since it is
a specific freedom of speech,
01:16:14.553 --> 01:16:16.826
it is a special law.
01:16:16.826 --> 01:16:24.638
A special law is unconstitutional
because a specific opinion is forbidden.
01:16:24.638 --> 01:16:32.392
It was determined by the supreme court
in a relatively new decision, in 2009,
01:16:32.392 --> 01:16:37.101
that it was a special law.
01:16:37.101 --> 01:16:39.831
That it's been officially determined
to be a special law
01:16:39.831 --> 01:16:41.887
is an advance.
01:16:41.887 --> 01:16:45.617
It just remains
to declare it unconstitutional
01:16:45.617 --> 01:16:52.405
and abolished it,
the offence of Holocaust denial.
01:16:52.405 --> 01:17:03.934
However, I will not spare you
their reasons for not doing so,
01:17:03.934 --> 01:17:08.405
the justifications given
by the supreme court.
01:17:18.066 --> 01:17:20.284
In the so-called Wunsiedel decision,
01:17:20.284 --> 01:17:24.598
the Federal Constitutional Court declared
that the Federal Republic of Germany
01:17:24.598 --> 01:17:30.911
is by way of exception allowed to keep
special statutes such as paragraph 130.
01:17:30.911 --> 01:17:35.049
That is, in fact, criminalize
a particular opinion
01:17:35.049 --> 01:17:39.023
with implied prohibition of defence
and prohibition of evidence.
01:17:39.023 --> 01:17:42.675
Germany is by exception allowed
to keep this special statute
01:17:42.675 --> 01:17:50.148
because of, quote:
The unique historical identity
01:17:50.148 --> 01:17:52.020
of the Federal Republic of Germany,
01:17:52.020 --> 01:17:54.866
in contrast to National Socialism.
01:17:54.866 --> 01:17:57.597
In other words, they are allowed to do it,
01:17:57.597 --> 01:18:01.096
because it's
the Federal Republic of Germany.
01:18:01.096 --> 01:18:04.785
This is naturally
a very pretty formulation.
01:18:04.785 --> 01:18:10.383
A clear case of arbitrary despotism.
01:18:10.383 --> 01:18:15.281
The second explanation given
which is not stated so boldly,
01:18:15.281 --> 01:18:23.285
but which is given
in another part of this decision.
01:18:23.285 --> 01:18:31.870
It's not exactly defined, but it talks
about singular breaches.
01:18:31.870 --> 01:18:37.821
One might conclude from it, that
in the case of a singular type of breach
01:18:37.821 --> 01:18:46.566
the hearing of evidence is
superfluous and punishable.
01:18:46.566 --> 01:18:51.168
The hearing of evidence is
superfluous and punishable
01:18:51.168 --> 01:18:54.871
when it is a unique crime.
01:18:54.871 --> 01:18:59.317
Do you find any logic in that?
01:18:59.317 --> 01:19:02.975
So, that is in the end the two pillars
01:19:02.975 --> 01:19:06.871
on which the punishability
of Holocaust denial is based.
01:19:06.871 --> 01:19:11.657
The legal philosophy or legal grounds
01:19:11.657 --> 01:19:19.138
for justifying the punishability
of Holocaust denial
01:19:19.138 --> 01:19:23.174
is the historical identity
of the Federal Republic of Germany
01:19:23.174 --> 01:19:26.507
and the uniqueness of the crime.
01:19:26.507 --> 01:19:32.646
Because of that no presentation
of one's case is required.
01:19:32.646 --> 01:19:36.139
Revisions and constitutional complaint
are regularly rejected
01:19:36.139 --> 01:19:39.773
as being obviously ungrounded.
01:19:39.773 --> 01:19:46.181
This has the effect of making reasons
for the decision unnecessary.
01:19:46.181 --> 01:19:49.794
If something is obviously without grounds
there can be no grounds for it.
01:19:49.794 --> 01:19:52.212
That's practical!
01:19:52.212 --> 01:19:55.936
So, no answer there either.
01:19:55.936 --> 01:19:59.980
What can one say,
one does not get an answer.
01:20:04.665 --> 01:20:09.231
I heard myself
during the trial of Ernst Zündel
01:20:09.231 --> 01:20:13.059
the following said by judge Meinerzhagen.
01:20:13.059 --> 01:20:18.014
If it were just I who told you,
probably no one would believe me.
01:20:18.014 --> 01:20:20.014
Naturally, it's not
in the court transcript.
01:20:20.014 --> 01:20:24.288
But Die Tageszeitung, the so-called TAZ,
01:20:24.288 --> 01:20:29.781
rendered the service of reporting it.
01:20:34.642 --> 01:20:38.719
I quote from Die Tageszeitung, the TAZ,
from 9 February 2007,
01:20:38.719 --> 01:20:41.343
reporting on the trial
against Ernst Zündel:
01:20:45.103 --> 01:20:50.812
In the end, the court tersely refused
all petitions
01:20:50.812 --> 01:20:56.010
on grounds which came as a shock to
some anti-Fascist members of the public,
01:20:56.010 --> 01:21:05.361
that it was completely irrelevant
whether the Holocaust took place or not,
01:21:05.361 --> 01:21:19.560
its denial was illegal in Germany
and that was all that concerned the court.
01:21:19.560 --> 01:21:24.377
To conclude,
I left some things out, of course ...
01:21:24.377 --> 01:21:33.431
... to conclude, or rather
in preparation for my conclusion,
01:21:33.431 --> 01:21:42.354
let's consider how one can change things.
01:21:42.354 --> 01:21:48.217
I see all over the place,
one reads on the Internet, in newspapers,
01:21:48.217 --> 01:21:55.477
that many distance themselves
from the Nazis.
01:21:55.477 --> 01:21:59.149
There are people, for example,
01:21:59.149 --> 01:22:04.431
who know fully what happens
[in cases like we're discussiing],
01:22:04.431 --> 01:22:08.670
but who nonetheless say,
"I am, however, no Nazi."
01:22:08.670 --> 01:22:15.843
And they distance themselves from others
who might be described as Nazis.
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,
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,
01:22:21.415 --> 01:22:23.607
those Nazis."
01:22:23.607 --> 01:22:32.055
They mean only they would unjustly be
described as evil Nazis;
01:22:32.055 --> 01:22:36.928
the others would justly
be described as evil Nazis.
01:22:36.928 --> 01:22:38.860
It's been like that for me.
01:22:38.860 --> 01:22:42.619
I was first called a Nazi many years ago
01:22:42.619 --> 01:22:46.990
on an information stand
against experiments on animals.
01:22:46.990 --> 01:22:54.455
"You must be Nazis,
Hitler was also a vegetarian."
01:22:54.455 --> 01:23:03.254
At that I began to ask myself
what Nazis actually are,
01:23:03.254 --> 01:23:11.011
because with my picture of Nazis,
I could not attune myself
01:23:11.011 --> 01:23:17.623
to the idea that I should be a Nazi,
as a defender of animal rights.
01:23:17.644 --> 01:23:23.400
The next time I was described as a Nazi
was in relation to philosophy.
01:23:23.400 --> 01:23:29.210
When one studies Plato,
when one speaks about Plato,
01:23:29.210 --> 01:23:33.363
Plato is considered the forerunner
of the National Socialists,
01:23:33.363 --> 01:23:36.719
a forerunner of Hitler,
someone who prepared the way,
01:23:36.719 --> 01:23:43.744
because he was, for example,
a severe critic of democracy,
01:23:43.744 --> 01:23:49.731
he rejected the democratic system.
01:23:49.736 --> 01:23:59.706
This is one of the reasons
why one condemns Plato, in part.
01:23:59.744 --> 01:24:03.089
Or one asserts, I've also read,
01:24:03.089 --> 01:24:06.324
that he said something
quite different about democracy.
01:24:06.324 --> 01:24:10.951
That's not true,
but just to mention it.
01:24:10.951 --> 01:24:17.745
One tries to alter the image.
01:24:17.745 --> 01:24:22.830
When one doesn't want to attack Plato,
one says he said something different,
01:24:22.830 --> 01:24:26.120
although it stands unambiguously
in his book The Republic.
01:24:26.120 --> 01:24:33.541
It is not to be denied that he was
a severe critic of democracy.
01:24:33.554 --> 01:24:42.161
Anyway, these were the first times
that I was called a Nazi,
01:24:42.176 --> 01:24:48.954
and I got really interested
in what a Nazi is.
01:24:48.954 --> 01:24:51.236
One must build a picture for oneself.
01:24:51.236 --> 01:24:57.424
One must get to know people
who are described as Nazis,
01:24:57.434 --> 01:25:00.200
and people who consider themselves Nazis.
01:25:00.200 --> 01:25:02.285
Both, they're not the same.
01:25:02.285 --> 01:25:06.799
But it is interesting to get to know both,
then one get a picture for oneself.
01:25:06.802 --> 01:25:08.506
One should do.
01:25:08.506 --> 01:25:10.307
That is crucial.
01:25:10.307 --> 01:25:13.656
That one doesn't engage in this exclusion.
01:25:13.656 --> 01:25:19.191
Well, one asks, who then is not a Nazi.
01:25:19.191 --> 01:25:22.252
Because anyone who says
anything meaningful,
01:25:22.252 --> 01:25:25.502
or does anything useful,
anything healing,
01:25:25.502 --> 01:25:29.844
he must sooner or later expect
to be called a Nazi.
01:25:29.844 --> 01:25:33.512
(Applause)
01:25:39.583 --> 01:25:45.131
Which means he should not be listened to.
01:25:45.131 --> 01:25:49.285
Suddenly, he is labelled a Nazi,
01:25:49.285 --> 01:25:53.865
and from then on one is not to listen
to him any more,
01:25:53.865 --> 01:26:01.426
because one could be corrupted,
one could be ... um, well, what ...
01:26:01.426 --> 01:26:05.456
I cannot understand
what people are afraid of.
01:26:05.456 --> 01:26:09.767
Probably they are much less worried
by those called Nazis,
01:26:09.767 --> 01:26:14.051
than they are worried
of being ostracized
01:26:14.051 --> 01:26:17.495
if they have anything to do with a Nazi.
01:26:17.495 --> 01:26:20.956
It's not the Nazis being dangerous,
01:26:20.956 --> 01:26:25.853
but the consequences when one carries on
with someone who is considered a Nazi.
01:26:29.559 --> 01:26:33.883
It's nothing to do with what is true
and what is untrue,
01:26:33.883 --> 01:26:36.005
what is useful or harmful;
01:26:36.005 --> 01:26:39.113
it's just about who has said it.
01:26:39.113 --> 01:26:43.912
And when it's someone considered a Nazi
who says something,
01:26:43.912 --> 01:26:45.912
then it must be false.
01:26:45.912 --> 01:26:48.177
One doesn't want to be concerned with it,
01:26:48.177 --> 01:26:50.001
it is in any case false,
01:26:50.001 --> 01:26:52.731
it is worse than false, it is repulsive,
01:26:52.731 --> 01:26:55.066
by nature.
01:26:55.066 --> 01:26:59.936
Now, a very important point
in relation to this.
01:26:59.936 --> 01:27:10.062
Recently, the opinions of groups
purporting to maintain an ideal standard
01:27:10.062 --> 01:27:13.556
are increasing on the Internet.
01:27:13.556 --> 01:27:18.985
They distance themselves from Nazis
and right-wing extremists,
01:27:18.985 --> 01:27:21.198
they say they want
nothing to do with them.
01:27:21.198 --> 01:27:26.820
A few months ago, I read of
a call to demonstration
01:27:26.820 --> 01:27:28.729
against the ESM,
[European Stability Mechanism]
01:27:28.729 --> 01:27:34.270
first only against the ESM and then
against the ESM and right-wing extremism.
01:27:40.825 --> 01:27:45.678
For me, when someone distances himself,
01:27:45.678 --> 01:27:53.100
it shows that he does not understand
what is going on.
01:27:53.100 --> 01:27:56.071
(Applause)
01:28:00.946 --> 01:28:07.168
And such a group I would not join,
because I would lose perspective,
01:28:07.168 --> 01:28:13.361
not because they might not want me, but
because I would lose my own perspective.
01:28:16.784 --> 01:28:21.084
When one wants to avoid
being called a Nazi,
01:28:21.084 --> 01:28:24.185
and there are many such people,
01:28:24.185 --> 01:28:30.021
most people want to avoid
being called a Nazi,
01:28:30.021 --> 01:28:32.059
what does that involve?
01:28:32.059 --> 01:28:42.740
It involves, results in, holding aside
important issues.
01:28:42.740 --> 01:28:46.071
When one addresses serious issues,
01:28:46.071 --> 01:28:51.832
when one gets to the heart of the matter,
01:28:51.832 --> 01:28:57.371
then the danger of being called a Nazi
arises very quickly.
01:28:57.371 --> 01:29:08.506
But, holding aside important issues,
one is ineffective, totally ineffective.
01:29:08.506 --> 01:29:25.099
One works for what already exists,
but not at all for something different.
01:29:25.099 --> 01:29:31.169
I really will end soon.
01:29:31.169 --> 01:29:36.302
I would like to consider shortly
who is decidedly called a Nazi.
01:29:36.302 --> 01:29:39.921
This is a very interesting matter to me.
01:29:41.377 --> 01:29:47.317
Naturally, as a denier of the Holocaust,
01:29:47.317 --> 01:29:51.014
or as one who takes
the national standpoint,
01:29:51.014 --> 01:29:53.120
one is very quickly called a Nazi.
01:29:53.120 --> 01:29:57.780
When one simply takes to the interests
of one's people,
01:29:57.780 --> 01:29:59.780
then ... "Nazi."
01:29:59.780 --> 01:30:03.332
(Applause)
01:30:09.292 --> 01:30:18.171
When one speaks of interest slavery
... "Nazi."
01:30:18.171 --> 01:30:20.171
(Applause)
01:30:23.506 --> 01:30:27.315
There's another word which is
very closely connected with it:
01:30:27.315 --> 01:30:29.654
anti-semite.
01:30:29.654 --> 01:30:34.998
It is almost identical,
anti-semite and Nazi,
01:30:34.998 --> 01:30:43.600
in the propaganda, so to speak,
of the opponents, the Nazi opponents.
01:30:43.600 --> 01:30:49.632
Who, for example, connects
the following terms with the Jews,
01:30:49.632 --> 01:30:54.755
is called a right-wing
or left-wing anti-semite,
01:30:54.755 --> 01:30:58.158
and sometimes punished.
01:30:58.158 --> 01:31:00.950
The following terms, for example:
01:31:00.950 --> 01:31:04.534
international finance,
01:31:04.534 --> 01:31:07.856
US East Coast,
01:31:07.856 --> 01:31:10.149
interest slavery,
01:31:10.149 --> 01:31:12.584
capitalism,
01:31:12.584 --> 01:31:14.584
financial crisis,
01:31:14.584 --> 01:31:16.657
globalization,
01:31:16.657 --> 01:31:19.018
democratization,
01:31:19.018 --> 01:31:21.634
Highgrade Freemason,
01:31:21.634 --> 01:31:23.634
EU,
01:31:23.634 --> 01:31:25.634
UN,
01:31:25.634 --> 01:31:29.347
or New World Order.
01:31:29.347 --> 01:31:33.813
Whoever, for example, connects
these terms with the Jews,
01:31:33.813 --> 01:31:40.196
will be considered a right-wing
or left-wing anti-semite and punished.
01:31:40.196 --> 01:31:43.077
(Applause)
01:31:43.077 --> 01:31:52.889
Equally, whoever opines
the currency markets, the stock exchanges,
01:31:52.889 --> 01:32:01.168
the democratic parties, the media
are in Jewish hands.
01:32:01.168 --> 01:32:03.464
For example, lawyer, Horst Mahler,
01:32:03.464 --> 01:32:09.702
was sentenced in 1999
to over 10 years in jail
01:32:09.702 --> 01:32:14.283
for Holocaust denial
and anti-semitic remarks
01:32:14.283 --> 01:32:16.574
and was arrested in the courtroom.
01:32:16.574 --> 01:32:20.363
That is taken into custody immediately
after sentencing,
01:32:20.363 --> 01:32:21.959
just like me.
01:32:21.959 --> 01:32:30.516
After the sentence was given,
I was arrested.
01:32:36.861 --> 01:32:41.916
I return to my beginning sentence,
which is also my closing sentence,
01:32:41.916 --> 01:32:44.742
"To think what is true,
to sense what is beautiful,
01:32:44.742 --> 01:32:48.065
and to want what is good."
01:32:48.065 --> 01:32:54.401
This implies recognizing
and denoting lies,
01:32:54.401 --> 01:33:00.947
this implies recognizing
and denoting inhumanity,
01:33:00.947 --> 01:33:10.383
this implies recognizing
and denoting injustice.
01:33:10.383 --> 01:33:14.150
Belonging with this
01:33:14.150 --> 01:33:20.860
are the qualities that are
of particular importance today:
01:33:23.457 --> 01:33:26.838
the consciousness of immortality,
01:33:26.838 --> 01:33:32.399
steadfastness and incorruptibility.
01:33:34.189 --> 01:33:39.113
With these qualities we might be able
to create a world
01:33:39.113 --> 01:33:41.960
for the children who are with us today,
01:33:41.960 --> 01:33:48.436
a world in which one can speak the truth
without being punished.
01:33:48.436 --> 01:33:51.214
(Applause)