Despite UN comment: Speech prohibition - Evidence prohibition - Defence prohibition: Sylvia Stolz, AZK (Anti-Censorship Coalition), Chur, Switzerland 24.11.12
-
0:00 - 0:05Banned speech, banned evidence
and banned legal defence. -
0:07 - 0:10The reality of "Free Speech".
-
0:27 - 0:30Our last speaker of the day
will be lecturing on -
0:30 - 0:38banned speech, banned evidence and
even a ban on legal defence in court. -
0:38 - 0:41On top of everything else, being banned
from defending yourself in court -
0:41 - 0:44constitutes
a particularly disturbing problem. -
0:44 - 0:50This speaker is a fully qualified lawyer
and throughout her lecture -
0:50 - 0:55I find it of particular importance, that
we don't let our judgement be influenced -
0:55 - 1:01by what our eyes and ears
have already been shown or told. -
1:01 - 1:11She really made the headlines
a few years ago as a defence attorney. -
1:11 - 1:18So, let me briefly explain
whom we are dealing with. -
1:22 - 1:28This defence lawyer
has the courage of the lion. -
1:28 - 1:34She is stronger than a man, and I have
never met a woman with such a profile. -
1:34 - 1:42She bravely stood up and took it
upon herself to defend Ernst Zündel -
1:42 - 1:46in the famous case against him
for so-called Holocaust denial. -
1:46 - 1:50She was the trial lawyer
of Ernst Zündel. -
1:50 - 1:59During the legal proceedings
she provided evidence to the court -
1:59 - 2:07which could raise doubts regarding
the official account of history. -
2:07 - 2:12This caused furore in the courtroom.
-
2:12 - 2:18And she was prohibited
from speaking any further. -
2:18 - 2:25This speech ban was ordered as she was
presenting the arguments of the defendant. -
2:25 - 2:30She was not allowed to argue the case
and barred from listing more evidence. -
2:30 - 2:37She ignored the speech ban
and continued to submit evidence. -
2:37 - 2:42And was then threatened
with penalties if she persisted. -
2:46 - 2:52As it became too much for the authorities,
-
2:52 - 2:57she was arrested right there
in the courtroom -
2:57 - 3:03during her defence of the so-called
Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel. -
3:03 - 3:06But not even this could silence her;
-
3:06 - 3:10she continued to argue
the case of her defendant -
3:10 - 3:19while being forcefully removed
from the courtroom. -
3:19 - 3:23For this she was imprisoned
for almost three and a half years, -
3:23 - 3:28in spite of her having
no previous convictions. -
3:28 - 3:33Arrested in the courtroom
and locked up. -
3:33 - 3:39On top of this, she had to face 5 years
of professional exclusion -
3:39 - 3:43through cancellation of her licence
to work as an attorney, -
3:43 - 3:48and was removed from
the Association for German Lawyers. -
3:48 - 3:55They threw her out, but we would like
to carry her into our midst. -
3:55 - 3:58I urge you to help her along.
-
3:58 - 4:02(Applause)
-
4:04 - 4:10We are talking about a legend here,
making headlines across Europe. -
4:10 - 4:12Welcome Sylvia Stolz.
-
4:12 - 4:16Frau Sylvia Stolz, if they wouldn't
let you speak there, here you can. -
4:16 - 4:19We trust you to know the limitations,
-
4:19 - 4:22I am sure you do.
-
4:22 - 4:25Much success with your speech,
our hearts swell for you. -
4:25 - 4:27Sylvia Stolz: Thank you for
the warm welcome. -
4:32 - 4:42Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends,
thank you again for the warm welcome. -
4:42 - 4:48I would like to begin my presentation
with one sentence, -
4:48 - 4:54with the same one with which I will end.
-
4:54 - 5:02Since I believe that this sentence is
at the heart of human existence, -
5:02 - 5:08and gives, I believe,
what it means to be human. -
5:08 - 5:15"To think what is true,
to sense what is beautiful, -
5:15 - 5:19and to want what is good,
-
5:19 - 5:25hereby the spirit finds the purpose
of a life in reason." -
5:25 - 5:30This is a quote
from Johann Gottfried von Herder: -
5:32 - 5:34To think what is true,
-
5:34 - 5:38[what is true, not what was,
which sound the same in German] -
5:38 - 5:41"To think what is true,
to sense what is beautiful, -
5:41 - 5:46and to want what is good."
-
5:46 - 5:51Regardless of your religion,
your worldview -
5:51 - 5:55or philosophical orientation,
-
5:55 - 5:59this sentence encapsulates
the essence of human life, in my opinion -
5:59 - 6:00the "a" and "o",
-
6:00 - 6:02the alpha and omega.
-
6:05 - 6:12And one's actions show
how one fulfils this human ideal, -
6:12 - 6:16one's actions and one's behaviour.
-
6:16 - 6:20The first ideal is the predominant one,
-
6:20 - 6:24"To think what is true,"
-
6:24 - 6:28for only on truth can one build.
-
6:28 - 6:36When one builds on something untrue,
when one builds on something false, -
6:36 - 6:39it might stand for a while,
-
6:39 - 6:46but at some time it must,
of itself, collapse. -
6:46 - 6:52It is like trying to erect a building
-
6:52 - 7:00with a foundation of papier mâché
rather than proper stone -
7:00 - 7:04or proper concrete.
-
7:12 - 7:17An important notion in relation
to the question -
7:17 - 7:23"true thinking" or "finding the truth" is:
-
7:23 - 7:27Hear the other side.
-
7:27 - 7:34That is an ideal that is paid
particular attention to here. -
7:34 - 7:40It is an old established principle of law:
audiatur et altera pars, -
7:40 - 7:45the other side is to be heard.
-
7:45 - 7:50To be heard in court and also in science
-
7:50 - 7:55when there are two different opinions.
-
7:55 - 7:58In science, for example, there may be
two different opinions -
7:58 - 8:01which are both heard,
-
8:01 - 8:04and one is not excluded from the outset
-
8:04 - 8:07for whatever reason;
-
8:07 - 8:09because it does not suit a result,
-
8:09 - 8:15or because the result does not fit in
with existing opinion. -
8:15 - 8:18One should only exclude a result
-
8:18 - 8:22when it is seen to be definitively wrong.
-
8:22 - 8:24To that end one must first examine it,
-
8:24 - 8:31and first hear those
who have the given view; -
8:31 - 8:35in the case of law, in a court.
-
8:35 - 8:40When two sides oppose each other there,
or when one person is accused, -
8:40 - 8:45then it is the duty of the judge
to find out first of all what the truth is -
8:45 - 8:47and what has really happened,
-
8:47 - 8:52and only then does one consider
how that is to be judged, -
8:52 - 8:57whether it is a matter of illegality
or culpability, -
8:57 - 9:02but the truth must first
be clearly established, -
9:02 - 9:05what has happened.
-
9:06 - 9:18"Hear the other side" is today
often termed "the right to be heard", -
9:18 - 9:23which means every citizen
has the right to be heard, -
9:23 - 9:26before a court and
before other authorities -
9:26 - 9:35to be listened to, to put,
to be able to put, his point of view. -
9:35 - 9:42And it is not sufficient
that the judge just listens -
9:42 - 9:50and thinks I know how this trial will go,
should go, but allow the speeches. -
9:50 - 9:57That I have too often in practice over
and over again experienced and observed, -
9:57 - 9:59that the judges say,
-
9:59 - 10:05"So what do you want? We're giving you
a legal hearing, we're letting you speak." -
10:05 - 10:12Only by the conclusions
and the judgements is it apparent -
10:12 - 10:16that they have taken absolutely nothing
into consideration, -
10:16 - 10:22that he could be telling the truth
or that he could be right. -
10:22 - 10:27That is an important factor
in legal hearings, -
10:27 - 10:31that the judge considers
-
10:31 - 10:36that someone could be right.
-
10:36 - 10:41I've often experienced
that this is not so, -
10:41 - 10:46that much more the attitude prevails:
-
10:46 - 10:49He is not right, because it cannot be,
-
10:49 - 10:53or, far more often, because it may not be.
-
10:53 - 10:58And one does not concern oneself at all
with the matters he puts forward. -
11:00 - 11:07Such an attitude of a judge
can be classified as bias. -
11:10 - 11:16He is biased, he is not objective,
he is not factual. -
11:16 - 11:25Put another way, he allows himself
to be led by irrelevant considerations. -
11:25 - 11:28That is grounds for objecting to a judge.
-
11:28 - 11:34Every accused can on these grounds
object to a judge. -
11:34 - 11:40I have often done that, as a defender,
and in my own case. -
11:40 - 11:44A judge has never been declined
in all Holocaust denial trials -
11:44 - 11:50in which I have been present and observed,
-
11:50 - 11:57the objection has never been accepted,
-
11:57 - 12:04the judges were retained.
-
12:04 - 12:08One of the important topics
we will be discussing -
12:08 - 12:11is "Freedom of Speech".
-
12:11 - 12:18One hears from many places,
-
12:18 - 12:27that people who have certain opinions
get into trouble. -
12:27 - 12:30And this is not confined
to political discourse. -
12:30 - 12:34I am sure you know of quite a few areas
without me listing them. -
12:34 - 12:39But to give an example, say,
the issue of vaccines. -
12:39 - 12:44There are doctors out there
who have been banned from practising -
12:44 - 12:48because they warned against vaccination.
-
12:48 - 12:55This is just one example out of many
within medicine, -
12:55 - 13:00one of the many areas
in which such things happen. -
13:00 - 13:07Or journalists who are ostracized
-
13:07 - 13:15because they have a differing view
of the events of 9/11 2001, for example, -
13:15 - 13:18and report on this.
-
13:18 - 13:21Such journalists are also bound
to get in trouble. -
13:21 - 13:27However, these people are not punished
by criminal law, -
13:27 - 13:32but find themselves punished
in their respective occupations. -
13:32 - 13:36These two examples should suffice to show
-
13:36 - 13:44that the highly praised
"Freedom of Speech", -
13:44 - 13:47in reality, isn't all
that it is made out to be. -
13:49 - 13:57And now to the issue of banned evidence,
banned legal defence -
13:57 - 14:00within the area of "Holocaust denial".
-
14:00 - 14:08Much could be said about this,
one hour is far from sufficient. -
14:08 - 14:13My job here is to omit that
for which there is no time. -
14:15 - 14:20But there are certain points
which I think are essential to emphasize. -
14:20 - 14:26First of all, it must be said,
that the principle of -
14:26 - 14:29nulla poena sine lege
(no penalty without law) -
14:29 - 14:32is not observed
but regularly contravened. -
14:32 - 14:39This principle dictates that the accused
-
14:39 - 14:43must be allowed to know
what he did wrong, -
14:43 - 14:47and what would have been right.
-
14:47 - 14:54If someone takes a bicycle
that does not belong to him, -
14:54 - 14:56most people know this is theft
and not allowed. -
14:59 - 15:02In cases of libel,
-
15:02 - 15:10where a person says something negative,
something damaging reputation, -
15:10 - 15:17then it's a question
of whether it is true or false. -
15:17 - 15:21And if it's true what he has said,
-
15:21 - 15:24then it does not constitute libel,
-
15:24 - 15:29because in theory one is allowed
to speak the truth. -
15:29 - 15:33In the case of Holocaust denial trials,
-
15:33 - 15:40the first problem we are faced with is
that the Holocaust isn't defined anywhere. -
15:40 - 15:47There is, therefore, a problem
of lack of defining law. -
15:47 - 15:51An authoritative definition
is not to be found anywhere. -
15:51 - 15:56I'll come back
to what I mean by this later, -
15:56 - 16:02what needs to be said exactly
so that it's authoritatively defined. -
16:02 - 16:13Let's turn to to the legal passages
in the different laws. -
16:13 - 16:19First of all, the ones in German law.
-
16:19 - 16:25In paragraph 130 section 3,
[of the German Criminal Code] -
16:25 - 16:28according to which
so-called Holocaust deniers -
16:28 - 16:34can be fined or imprisoned for
up to 5 years for each singular offence, -
16:34 - 16:41there is no mention of Holocaust.
-
16:41 - 16:44It is not defined in the law as such.
-
16:44 - 16:52Instead it refers to paragraph 6 section 1
of the German International Criminal Code. -
16:52 - 16:57And here we find
a definition of genocide. -
16:57 - 17:07Whoever denies that such a genocide
has occurred, can be convicted, -
17:07 - 17:10provided that additional criteria are met,
-
17:10 - 17:12the disturbance of public order,
for example. -
17:12 - 17:15But what I would like to emphasize
-
17:15 - 17:21is the definition of genocide
in paragraph 6 -
17:21 - 17:24of the German International Criminal Code.
-
17:24 - 17:27It's just a few lines,
-
17:27 - 17:30I'll not give it quite in its entirety.
-
17:36 - 17:39It is considered genocide
-
17:39 - 17:44when one member of an ethnic,
religious or other group -
17:44 - 17:49is killed with the intention of causing
-
17:49 - 17:53the destruction of that group,
in whole or in part. -
17:53 - 17:58So, one member of, say,
a religious group is killed, -
17:58 - 18:05and the perpetrator intended
to kill the whole or part of the group, -
18:05 - 18:12so is genocide defined
in this paragraph 6. -
18:12 - 18:15If one brings this together
-
18:15 - 18:17with paragraph 130 section 3,
-
18:17 - 18:23the denial of an act defined
in paragraph 6, -
18:23 - 18:28then one can according to this definition,
-
18:28 - 18:32convict a person who denies ...
-
18:32 - 18:36one must add:
under the rule of National Socialism, -
18:36 - 18:39it states in paragraph 130 section 3 ...
-
18:48 - 18:51So, according to according to
paragraph 130 section 3, -
18:51 - 18:54a person can be convicted
-
18:54 - 18:59who denies that under the rule
of National Socialism -
18:59 - 19:07a Jew was killed by someone
to the end of destroying the Jewry -
19:07 - 19:10as an ethnic or religious group.
-
19:10 - 19:14What is not necessary, for example,
-
19:14 - 19:17is that the German government wanted it,
-
19:17 - 19:22had given the order,
or even that it knew -
19:22 - 19:26that something had happened,
it is not required here. -
19:26 - 19:31Equally unrequired is that the killing
was committed by a German, -
19:31 - 19:36this is also not to be found
in these laws. -
19:36 - 19:41So, one cannot speak
of a clear principle of law, -
19:43 - 19:50because of this, in my opinion,
inexact definition of genocide. -
19:50 - 19:55Or otherwise, one can define genocide,
-
19:55 - 20:03but the denial of it is naturally
yet another question. -
20:03 - 20:07There are then the questions:
Is it Holocaust denial -
20:07 - 20:15when one contests whether 1 was killed
or whether 6 million were killed? -
20:15 - 20:19This alone shows the inexactitude.
-
20:23 - 20:27In the Federal Republic of Austria,
there is also a relevant paragraph, -
20:27 - 20:32there too the Holocaust itself
is not defined. -
20:32 - 20:37It is not clear what is meant.
-
20:37 - 20:46Let us now turn to the question of how
it should be defined in order to be clear. -
20:46 - 20:50Normally, in cases of murder,
-
20:50 - 20:56the verdict must state
where the crime took place ... -
20:56 - 21:00the police, the investigating magistrate,
must naturally first establish matters -
21:00 - 21:03and then present their findings
to the court ... -
21:03 - 21:09and in the verdict, when it is
appropriately proved, -
21:09 - 21:17the judge can then state that on such
and such a day at such and such a place -
21:17 - 21:20a murder took place
with such and such a weapon, -
21:20 - 21:22and the perpetrators were so and so,
-
21:22 - 21:26and it is proved because, for example,
-
21:26 - 21:33it has become clear,
shown beyond doubt, -
21:33 - 21:37that this is the weapon,
-
21:37 - 21:43that the fingerprints of the perpetrators,
the accused, are on it, -
21:43 - 21:47and that there were powder residues
on the perpetrator, -
21:47 - 21:51anyway a couple of examples.
-
21:51 - 21:59These things must be stated
in the judgement. -
21:59 - 22:05When we are dealing with the denial
of such an act, -
22:05 - 22:09with the criminal denial of such an act,
-
22:09 - 22:12then, of course, we would expect
the relevant act, -
22:12 - 22:18the murder itself, established.
-
22:18 - 22:22Otherwise, we have no idea
what the accused actually denied. -
22:22 - 22:28I suggest it is not clear
what is really denied, -
22:28 - 22:30because it is not definitively defined.
-
22:30 - 22:36There should be at least one case,
-
22:36 - 22:38against a Holocaust denier,
-
22:38 - 22:46in which the relevant crime,
the Holocaust itself, -
22:46 - 22:51is exactly established
in all necessary details. -
22:51 - 22:54I know of no such verdict.
-
22:54 - 23:00There are no details concerning
the crime scenes, the method of killing, -
23:00 - 23:05the number of victims,
the time-frame of the killings, -
23:05 - 23:08the perpetrators, the bodies,
-
23:08 - 23:12or physical trace of a killing.
-
23:12 - 23:17The testimonies are not specified,
-
23:17 - 23:22nor are the documents
or similar kinds of evidence. -
23:22 - 23:27The intention to destroy
all or part of the Jewry -
23:27 - 23:33under National Socialist rule has not been
demonstrated anywhere. -
23:33 - 23:40There are no documents showing
any prior decisions, plans or orders. -
23:40 - 23:44When it comes to the trial
of Holocaust deniers, -
23:44 - 23:49we do not find these things specified.
-
23:49 - 23:52Nor do we find any references
to other verdicts, -
23:52 - 23:55where all these things
could have been stated. -
23:55 - 23:59When one wants to show something, it is
the most scientific thing to do -
23:59 - 24:03to refer to other verdicts
containing the exact information. -
24:03 - 24:07This is also not the case.
-
24:07 - 24:11This is the problem.
-
24:11 - 24:17As long as the court will not commit
to certain specified crime scenes -
24:17 - 24:21where these mass killings
are supposed to have happened, -
24:21 - 24:27as long as the court will not commit to
at least one specified piece of evidence, -
24:27 - 24:31as long as this remains the case,
-
24:31 - 24:35these mass killings simply
cannot be demonstrated. -
24:35 - 24:43And no more so the denial
of these mass killings. -
25:00 - 25:04Now one might say,
-
25:04 - 25:05"What about the Nuremberg trial?
-
25:05 - 25:10It's probably in there somewhere,
the details." -
25:10 - 25:13This is not the case.
-
25:13 - 25:22Let me read you the relevant passage
of the Nuremberg verdict -
25:22 - 25:24where gas chambers are mentioned.
-
25:24 - 25:28Here it says and I quote:
-
25:30 - 25:33A certain number
of the concentration camps -
25:33 - 25:37were equipped with gas chambers
-
25:37 - 25:39for the wholesale destruction
of the inmates, -
25:39 - 25:42and with furnaces
for the burning of the bodies. -
25:42 - 25:47Some of them were in fact used
for the extermination of Jews -
25:47 - 25:52as part of the "final solution"
of the Jewish problem. -
25:52 - 25:57Most of the non-Jewish inmates
were used for labour, -
25:57 - 26:00although the conditions
under which they worked -
26:00 - 26:05made labour and death
almost synonymous terms. -
26:05 - 26:10Those inmates who became ill
and were unable to work -
26:10 - 26:17were either murdered in the gas chambers
or sent to special infirmaries, -
26:17 - 26:22where they were given
entirely inadequate medical treatment, -
26:22 - 26:29worse food if possible
than the working inmates, -
26:29 - 26:36and left to die.
End quote. -
26:36 - 26:43That is all it says about gas chambers
in the Nuremberg verdicts. -
26:43 - 26:45It is all stated in general terms
-
26:45 - 26:47such as "a certain number
of concentration camps". -
26:47 - 26:54It is not mentioned
where the gas chambers were. -
26:54 - 27:00This means that a defence lawyer
is left with no place to begin. -
27:00 - 27:03It is also important to emphasize
-
27:03 - 27:14that the rules of evidence
were nullified in the Nuremberg trials. -
27:14 - 27:17Perhaps not all of them,
but in substantial part. -
27:17 - 27:24It says here, in the London Charter
-
27:24 - 27:29which decreed laws specifically
for this military tribunal, -
27:29 - 27:32in Article 19:
-
27:32 - 27:38The Tribunal shall not be bound
by technical rules of evidence. -
27:38 - 27:43That is a sentence
that is worth pondering. -
27:43 - 27:51That a military tribunal
from its inception -
27:51 - 27:58is given a free hand
when it comes to rules of evidence. -
27:58 - 28:02And further in article 20:
-
28:02 - 28:09The Tribunal shall not require
proof of facts of common knowledge -
28:09 - 28:16but shall take judicial notice thereof.
-
28:16 - 28:19Interesting, right?
-
28:19 - 28:23It shall not require proof
of facts of common knowledge. -
28:23 - 28:28But what are facts of common knowledge?
-
28:28 - 28:33It is usually the job of the courts
to establish the facts, -
28:33 - 28:39not presume the facts.
-
28:39 - 28:44It all becomes somewhat clearer
-
28:44 - 28:50in the words
of the American chief prosecutor, -
28:50 - 28:54Robert H Jackson.
-
28:54 - 29:05They are given in the Nuremberg protocols
vol. 19 p. 440: -
29:05 - 29:10As a military tribunal,
-
29:10 - 29:22this Tribunal is a continuation
of the war effort -
29:22 - 29:25of the Allied nations.
-
29:25 - 29:34I'll repeat, the Nuremberg tribunal is
a continuation of the war effort -
29:34 - 29:39of the Allied nations.
-
29:39 - 29:45Does a nation engaged in a war effort
need rules of evidence -
29:45 - 29:50as it seeks to burden
its opponent with guilt? -
29:50 - 29:54I would now like to read you a passage
from another verdict, -
29:54 - 30:01in which one might assume
to find the details -
30:01 - 30:05of the Holocaust specified.
-
30:05 - 30:12This is from the so-called
Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials. -
30:12 - 30:17Here it says in the final verdict,
and I quote: -
30:17 - 30:22Almost all the usual forms of evidence
of a normal murder trial -
30:22 - 30:27necessary for gaining
a true image of the events -
30:27 - 30:30at the time of the murder
-
30:30 - 30:33were unavailable to the court.
-
30:33 - 30:36There were no bodies of the victims,
-
30:36 - 30:39no autopsy reports,
-
30:39 - 30:48no expert reports on the cause
and time of death, -
30:48 - 30:52there was no evidence
as to the perpetrators, -
30:52 - 30:55the murder weapons, and so on.
-
30:55 - 31:01Verification of the witness testimonies
was only possible in a few cases. -
31:01 - 31:03And further below:
-
31:03 - 31:09The court was, therefore, almost solely
dependent upon witness testimonies -
31:09 - 31:16in the clarification of the crimes
of the accused. -
31:16 - 31:21And yet further on:
-
31:21 - 31:23There were hardly any witnesses
-
31:23 - 31:29who lived through the events
at Auschwitz concentration camp -
31:29 - 31:32as neutral observers.
-
31:32 - 31:37One can conclude from this verdict,
-
31:37 - 31:43or rather simply see what stands there,
-
31:43 - 31:48the court was almost solely dependent
upon witness testimonies -
31:48 - 31:51in the clarification
of the crimes of the accused. -
31:51 - 32:01Such is the situation at the start
of a trial for Holocaust denial, -
32:01 - 32:05and it is also the situation at the end,
because nothing is changed. -
32:05 - 32:07One gets to know,
-
32:07 - 32:10neither as defence attorney
nor as accused, -
32:10 - 32:14absolutely nothing of what has
actually been established as fact, -
32:14 - 32:18because it is not given in the verdict.
-
32:18 - 32:23Not in older verdicts
nor in newer verdicts. -
32:23 - 32:27There is a lot in the media
and much can be read in books about it, -
32:28 - 32:34but we want to hear it from the courts,
we want to hear it stated officially. -
32:34 - 32:38We want to know.
Really know. -
32:38 - 32:45One does not want to deny what is proved,
but one wants to know what was, -
32:45 - 32:50only one cannot find it stated officially,
that's the problem. -
32:50 - 32:53One is accused and condemned
-
32:53 - 33:01without being told authoritatively
of what one is really accused. -
33:01 - 33:06What can one say to put it firmly?
-
33:06 - 33:11I'll come back to this later,
how things go in a trial. -
33:11 - 33:17When an accused wants to know
what he should have said, -
33:17 - 33:19he gets no answer.
-
33:19 - 33:22But more about that later.
-
33:24 - 33:31At this point I would like to add
a very telling revelation -
33:31 - 33:34made by 34 French historians.
-
33:34 - 33:41In 1979, they issued a statement.
-
33:41 - 33:48These historians specialize
in the history of the Holocaust. -
33:48 - 33:56The revisionist historian,
Professor Robert Faurisson, -
33:56 - 34:05put forward technical arguments
against the existence of gas chambers. -
34:07 - 34:14These 34 French historians
stated the following -
34:14 - 34:21to the counterargument
of Professor Faurisson in 1979. -
34:21 - 34:26Quote:
It must not be asked -
34:26 - 34:35how such a mass murder
was technically possible. -
34:35 - 34:40It was technically possible
because it happened. -
34:40 - 34:47That is the required point of departure,
– point of departure!? – -
34:47 - 34:52of any historical inquiry on this subject.
-
34:52 - 34:57These truths we should
just recall to memory: -
34:57 - 35:03There is no debate about the existence
of the gas chambers -
35:03 - 35:11and there may not be one.
End quote. -
35:11 - 35:15This also belongs
to the point of departure, -
35:15 - 35:21because this is how
the judges, the prosecutors, go on, -
35:21 - 35:29as do many other lawyers and other people.
-
35:29 - 35:31Through their actions
they are clearly letting you know -
35:31 - 35:37that you are not allowed to ask.
-
35:39 - 35:43This has had immense consequences.
-
35:43 - 35:51I am in no way the first lawyer
to be punished for Holocaust denial. -
35:51 - 35:53Please don't think that.
-
35:53 - 35:57I might be the first lawyer
to be imprisoned for it though. -
35:57 - 36:02But for years, lawyers have been
forever accused of Holocaust denial -
36:02 - 36:11because they submitted evidence
regarding details of the Holocaust. -
36:11 - 36:14When submitting evidence,
-
36:14 - 36:23one necessarily has to phrase it
as statement of fact, -
36:23 - 36:28otherwise it will not be termed evidence.
-
36:28 - 36:32That means you have to claim as fact,
what you want to demonstrate to the court. -
36:32 - 36:35Otherwise it will be dismissed,
on formal grounds. -
36:35 - 36:41Only when one as a defender
of a Holocaust denier -
36:41 - 36:46puts an argument, and says
this and this is true, -
36:46 - 36:50and there is this and that
expert evidence, -
36:50 - 36:53this and that is proved,
-
36:53 - 37:00the court may determine it,
may ask an expert witness, for example, -
37:00 - 37:05then if this submission is declined,
-
37:05 - 37:12the defender is then additionally accused
and convicted of Holocaust denial. -
37:12 - 37:15These things are not so well-known
-
37:15 - 37:18because most lawyers don't make
much of a fuss about it. -
37:18 - 37:20They are just given a fine,
which they then pay, -
37:20 - 37:23and then say or think to themselves,
-
37:23 - 37:26they'll not do it again, they'll not cause
themselves the trouble ever again. -
37:26 - 37:30But there are many, many cases
of this nature. -
37:30 - 37:36Only, I just wonder,
why this should remain so unknown, -
37:36 - 37:44this way of going on with the accused,
with the law, -
37:44 - 37:51and to punish defence lawyers
for quite normal professional practice. -
37:51 - 37:57I find it important that the people
become aware of it. -
37:57 - 38:01(Applause)
-
38:14 - 38:18There are many, many people,
not just lawyers, -
38:18 - 38:21but also scientists, of different types,
-
38:21 - 38:25who have been punished
for Holocaust denial. -
38:25 - 38:31I will not name many because
it would become a task without end -
38:31 - 38:38to name the many scientists and others
who have been punished with fines, -
38:38 - 38:41or many times even with prison sentences.
-
38:41 - 38:46I would like to mention just a few,
for example, Germar Rudolf, -
38:46 - 38:51who also was subjected
to the treatment I just described. -
38:51 - 38:57He is a chemist and made
certain observations – -
38:57 - 39:01this is not the place to recite them.
-
39:01 - 39:06He wrote books on what he observed,
-
39:06 - 39:10truly scientific books,
-
39:10 - 39:17and because of these books
he was twice given a prison sentence. -
39:17 - 39:22In one case, I defended him in court,
-
39:22 - 39:24and the books were then destroyed,
-
39:24 - 39:28they were forbidden,
removed from the index, -
39:28 - 39:30completely destroyed.
-
39:30 - 39:38All the books the authorities
could get hold of were burned. -
39:38 - 39:42There were masses of books burned
on these grounds, -
39:42 - 39:46including those by Germar Rudolf,
-
39:46 - 39:55and one must say about this,
one must explain why it happened. -
39:55 - 40:01Why a chemist who seriously took
to considering the matter, -
40:01 - 40:06why one does not at least discuss
what he says, -
40:06 - 40:10because it was not discussed,
it was not openly discussed. -
40:10 - 40:17When one passes on what he says,
one can expect a prison sentence. -
40:17 - 40:24The discussion is hindered.
-
40:24 - 40:35How does one explain that in a structure
that considers itself free? -
40:35 - 40:37That's quite simple.
-
40:37 - 40:43One just says he was a pseudoscientist.
-
40:43 - 40:46It's just that simple!
-
40:46 - 40:48Well, yes, I could explain
the matter to you – -
40:48 - 40:57well, one then gets to the verdict
-
40:57 - 41:06and it's all about a pseudoscientist
who has denied the Holocaust. -
41:06 - 41:11Haven't we already heard today the phrase:
Bad science? -
41:11 - 41:15We heard it in a different context,
but the meaning is the same. -
41:15 - 41:19If someone accused of Holocaust denial
stands before the court -
41:19 - 41:28and he there presents how he came
to not believe in the Holocaust, -
41:28 - 41:31to doubt the Holocaust,
-
41:31 - 41:33to place the Holocaust in question,
-
41:33 - 41:35or to argue about the Holocaust
-
41:35 - 41:38– there are several different levels –
-
41:38 - 41:42when anyway he presents his case,
-
41:42 - 41:47I've experienced it myself
as defence counsel, -
41:47 - 41:56he is again, because of
this declaration in court in his defence, -
41:56 - 42:03he is yet further accused and sentenced
for Holocaust denial. -
42:03 - 42:08Because he had for sure, in public,
before the court, -
42:08 - 42:14he had again questioned the Holocaust,
and is again accused and sentenced. -
42:14 - 42:18So that is prohibition of defence,
not only for defence counsel, -
42:18 - 42:21but also for the defendant himself.
-
42:21 - 42:26He may not defend himself,
he may not discuss the issue of -
42:26 - 42:30why he questioned the Holocaust,
-
42:30 - 42:36what grounds, what facts
brought him to do it. -
42:39 - 42:48So, not just a prohibition of evidence,
but a prohibition of defence. -
42:48 - 43:00I will quote you from the judgement
against me at the Mannheim court. -
43:00 - 43:08It states in the verdict:
-
43:08 - 43:21The court sought to limit increasingly
almost all defence rights of the accused. -
43:21 - 43:28It then concerns itself
with which defence rights were limited. -
43:28 - 43:32For example,
to express oneself on the matter, -
43:32 - 43:36and ask a witness in what concerns me.
-
43:36 - 43:40So, to sum it up, they took away
my right to speak. -
43:40 - 43:52I might not express myself further,
and then I was allowed ten questions. -
43:52 - 43:56The questions I put
did not please the court, -
43:56 - 44:00and I was not permitted
to ask further questions. -
44:01 - 44:04This is just one example.
-
44:04 - 44:07What is often done then,
-
44:07 - 44:13is that a relatively newly added paragraph
is introduced, -
44:13 - 44:20the Code of Criminal Procedure,
paragraph 252a. -
44:20 - 44:26It was introduced in the 90's
-
44:26 - 44:32to tighten paragraph 130 section 3
relating to Holocaust denial, -
44:32 - 44:39and possibly to tighten
the whole of paragraph 130. -
44:42 - 44:53This paragraph 252a enables the judge
to require the accused or the defender -
44:53 - 44:57to express themselves
only in writing to the court. -
44:57 - 45:02So, petitions and statements
are to be presented only in written form, -
45:02 - 45:05and not read out loud first.
-
45:05 - 45:11This the normal way,
to express oneself orally. -
45:11 - 45:15It is one of
the most fundamental principles -
45:15 - 45:19of German criminal law,
of German criminal proceedings, -
45:19 - 45:24the oral principle, that everything
must be spoken out loud before the court. -
45:24 - 45:28There are different, good reasons
why this should be, -
45:28 - 45:32but this was abolished in the 90's.
-
45:34 - 45:38Apparently, there are things
that one doesn't want to hear. -
45:38 - 45:41And then when the judge
gets the impression, -
45:41 - 45:44now it is time,
-
45:44 - 45:50he commands the defender to communicate
to the court in written form only. -
45:50 - 45:55And in the trial of Ernst Zündel
it was exactly like this too. -
45:55 - 45:59In other trials it was different,
I could say everything I wanted to, -
45:59 - 46:03the accused was nonetheless convicted,
-
46:03 - 46:07but I could say all I wanted to.
-
46:07 - 46:15But in the Zündel case and a few others,
this speech prohibition was imposed. -
46:15 - 46:20The result, of course,
of communication in writing alone, -
46:20 - 46:28is that those listening don't get to know
what the defender wants to convey. -
46:28 - 46:32So, only the judges are aware
of what the defender is trying to say, -
46:32 - 46:34and not those listening.
-
46:34 - 46:40The public is excluded.
-
46:40 - 46:47In this connection I would like
to quickly describe -
46:47 - 46:52how things went at the trial
of Ernst Zündel. -
46:52 - 46:55It got to be a bit of a muddle,
I must tell you, -
46:55 - 46:59it's no wonder,
but it is a bit complicated. -
46:59 - 47:05It was the case that
this speech prohibition was imposed, -
47:05 - 47:09and it was not only me
but three other defenders. -
47:09 - 47:16There were six defenders in all.
Four Ernst Zündel chose himself, -
47:16 - 47:21and two were appointed by the court.
-
47:21 - 47:26Why this was done became clear afterwards.
-
47:26 - 47:33They wanted lawyers in reserve
in case the others were removed. -
47:33 - 47:38If there were only one defender
and he became unavailable, -
47:38 - 47:42the trial would have to start
from the beginning again. -
47:42 - 47:47So, doing this avoids having to start
the trial from the beginning again. -
47:47 - 47:56So, I and two other chosen defenders
were allowed only written communication. -
47:56 - 48:00And it was my opinion, and still is,
-
48:00 - 48:09that it is the duty of the defender
to protect the interests of his client, -
48:09 - 48:16and to make it clear
when he is of the opinion -
48:16 - 48:26that the legal standards
you expect in court are not being met. -
48:26 - 48:31I was accused of damaging
my duty as a defender. -
48:31 - 48:36On these grounds, the judges
dismissed me from the case. -
48:36 - 48:38But I am of the opposite conviction;
-
48:38 - 48:44it is just the duty of a defender,
just in such difficult situations, -
48:44 - 48:52to point out, stop,
I cannot remain silent, -
48:52 - 48:56injustice is going on here.
-
48:56 - 49:01(Applause)
-
49:09 - 49:13And had I submitted
to the prohibition imposed on me, -
49:13 - 49:20and made my submissions in writing,
then I would have felt -
49:20 - 49:24that everything happening
was estranged from the law. -
49:24 - 49:30The fact that I could not
express myself orally -
49:30 - 49:32was already a breach of the law.
-
49:32 - 49:40Of others I will not speak,
but for this reason alone -
49:40 - 49:44I continued to speak.
-
49:44 - 49:47And I explained why I continued to speak.
-
49:47 - 49:52I explained to them exactly
what I am explaining to you. -
49:52 - 50:03I explained why the use of this 252a,
this prohibition of speech, -
50:03 - 50:06this breach of the oral tradition,
was something I would not submit to it. -
50:06 - 50:11I explained it all to the Mannheim court.
-
50:11 - 50:17In such difficult cases, it is sensible
to make submissions in writing also, -
50:17 - 50:21first to read them,
and then to present them in writing, -
50:21 - 50:24so everything is documented
and in the files. -
50:24 - 50:30I told them exactly why I would not bow
to this speech prohibition. -
50:30 - 50:38Because I don't accept it as right
is the reason in essence. -
50:38 - 50:47And then it continued
with my nonetheless reading a submission, -
50:47 - 50:51at least began to,
I did not have permission to, -
50:51 - 50:55I should have just handed it over,
but I read it out. -
50:55 - 50:59The judge then asked me to stop,
-
50:59 - 51:04but I continued to speak on the grounds
I've just explained, -
51:04 - 51:08and it collapsed into an argumentation.
-
51:08 - 51:13It's in
the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, -
51:13 - 51:16end of 2005, beginning of 2006,
-
51:16 - 51:22really well put in parts.
-
51:22 - 51:26So, there was quite an argumentation,
-
51:26 - 51:31sometimes speaking over each other,
-
51:31 - 51:33until the microphone
was taken away from me, -
51:33 - 51:39when I had the cheek
to speak without a microphone, -
51:39 - 51:41(Applause)
-
51:49 - 51:51which was referred to in the sentence.
-
51:51 - 51:57It must be particularly reprehensible
to do such a thing. -
51:57 - 52:00And in the end,
after much argument, -
52:00 - 52:07it reached the point
where the judge interjected, -
52:07 - 52:16that he would entertain my exclusion
as a defender from these proceedings. -
52:16 - 52:18But it was not true that I was arrested
there and then, -
52:18 - 52:22that was later,
-
52:22 - 52:26it was requested,
-
52:26 - 52:35and the high court in Karlsruhe
took the decision to grant the request, -
52:35 - 52:39and had me as defender
excluded from the proceedings. -
52:52 - 53:04So, the Karlsruhe court had me excluded
as defender from the Zündel proceedings, -
53:04 - 53:08but this decision was not yet final,
-
53:08 - 53:14an appeal was allowable.
-
53:14 - 53:18The time allowed for the appeal
was not up, -
53:18 - 53:24when a new date was given
for the Zündel trial -
53:24 - 53:27to which I was not invited.
-
53:27 - 53:35And a lawyer friend told me about it,
and naturally I appeared, -
53:35 - 53:42because the appeal time was not up,
-
53:42 - 53:48let alone an appeal decision made.
-
53:48 - 53:53So, I sat down at the defence table.
-
53:53 - 54:00But then the judge requested
that I leave the defence table. -
54:00 - 54:04So, there was a long discussion.
-
54:04 - 54:12In the first place, if my appeal
deferred my exclusion or not. -
54:12 - 54:19If it did, then I still had the right
to sit there, -
54:19 - 54:23if it didn't then I had no right
to sit there. -
54:23 - 54:28You can imagine
who had which opinion, -
54:28 - 54:33but the point is he had power on his side,
-
54:33 - 54:42and, then, naturally, opining that
the appeal did not defer my exclusion, -
54:42 - 54:47I was to leave the defence table.
-
54:50 - 54:53I answered saying that the time was past
-
54:53 - 54:56when the German people
would allow themselves to be oppressed. -
54:56 - 55:00(Applause)
-
55:22 - 55:31So, then he ordered the police present
to remove me from the courtroom, -
55:31 - 55:39and a couple of policewomen
stood in front of me -
55:39 - 55:41and asked me to leave the courtroom.
-
55:41 - 55:46I said, "You'll have to carry me."
-
55:46 - 55:49Basically, it all went quite civilly.
-
55:49 - 55:53The media naturally made
a great show out of it. -
55:53 - 55:56I wondered how it would go on,
it wasn't right. -
55:56 - 55:59It all went quite calmly.
-
55:59 - 56:03I said quite civilly to the officers,
"You'll have to carry me." -
56:03 - 56:05Which they then did.
-
56:05 - 56:07(Laughter)
-
56:07 - 56:17And as I was carried out, I called out,
"The German people will rise." -
56:17 - 56:22(Applause)
-
56:31 - 56:36So, that's how it was.
-
56:36 - 56:44Anyway, the trial of Ernst Zündel
then lasted a further 10 months. -
56:44 - 56:49I mention that because it was suggested
-
56:49 - 56:52I might have been trying
to protract the trial. -
56:58 - 57:02It was suggested I might be trying
to protract the trial -
57:02 - 57:07with the petitions I made.
-
57:07 - 57:15So, after my forced removal, the case
went on for 10 months. -
57:15 - 57:21The intention to speed up the trial was,
after my removal, -
57:21 - 57:25very quickly lost, it would seem.
-
57:25 - 57:30Ernst Zündel was sentenced
to 5 years imprisonment. -
57:30 - 57:36As he was free in 2010,
he was released earlier. -
57:36 - 57:38He was, in total, seven years in prison,
-
57:38 - 57:43two years in the USA,
which were not taken into consideration, -
57:43 - 57:49five years here,
so, seven years continuous imprisonment. -
57:51 - 57:55And then, I myself,
I was also brought to trial, -
57:55 - 57:58as is well-known
at the court in Mannheim, -
57:58 - 58:03where I was, in the first instance,
sentenced to 3½ years imprisonment, -
58:03 - 58:06for Holocaust denial,
-
58:06 - 58:13for defaming the state, to wit, defamation
of the Federal Republic of Germany, -
58:21 - 58:26in that I had said that Germany,
since 1945, -
58:26 - 58:30stood under the foreign rule
of the victors of the war. -
58:30 - 58:33(Applause)
-
58:44 - 58:52And then I was convicted
of attempted obstruction of justice. -
58:56 - 59:00One must look at what I was accused of.
-
59:00 - 59:04Attempted obstruction of justice,
it says in the verdict. -
59:04 - 59:11I made petitions which were intended
to put the Holocaust in question, -
59:11 - 59:21and because these petitions so obviously
could not be successful, -
59:21 - 59:28they could, therefore,
only have been made to delay the court. -
59:28 - 59:32Brilliant logic, would you believe!?
-
59:32 - 59:38If you make petitions which the court
considers from the beginning as senseless, -
59:38 - 59:43then one is seen as obstructing the court.
-
59:43 - 59:48I was also convicted of
assault of constitutional institutions -
59:48 - 60:00because I practically forced my petitions
and positions on the judges. -
60:00 - 60:07A further conviction of attempted
assault of constitutional institutions -
60:07 - 60:13was then quashed
by the federal court on appeal. -
60:15 - 60:20In the first instance I was sentenced
for assault of constitutional institutions -
60:20 - 60:25because I threatened the judges
with an address. -
60:25 - 60:29It was in relation to instructing
the lay judges -
60:29 - 60:32on the legal position –
-
60:32 - 60:45a lay judge may not know
the legal position in Germany, -
60:45 - 60:48and perhaps make themselves
liable to prosecution, -
60:48 - 60:57if they send an accused
to prison on political grounds -
60:57 - 61:03without justification.
-
61:03 - 61:10That is at the very least
perversion of the course of justice. -
61:10 - 61:17These facts I made fully clear
in my motion, -
61:17 - 61:26to wit, that I would have the professional
and the lay judges -
61:26 - 61:30answer one day when possible
before a Reich's court -
61:30 - 61:33if they convicted Ernst Zündel unjustly.
-
61:33 - 61:36(Applause)
-
61:43 - 61:46This was then taken as threats,
-
61:46 - 61:49and I was convicted of
assault of constitutional institutions. -
61:49 - 61:52This was, however, overturned,
as threatening behaviour was not found. -
61:52 - 62:02Exceptionally, the situation
was judicially judged. -
62:02 - 62:06It was in fact no threat, as I argued,
-
62:06 - 62:10but a making clear, a warning.
-
62:10 - 62:13This is not punishable, it's no threat.
-
62:15 - 62:20But in the media and Internet, yet again,
-
62:20 - 62:25I was sentenced because
I threatened the judges, -
62:25 - 62:32which sounds much better than if one said
I was convicted because I made claims -
62:32 - 62:36which brought the Holocaust into question.
-
62:40 - 62:45And, of course, I was also convicted
of inciting racial hatred. -
62:45 - 62:50Because when one places
the Holocaust in doubt, -
62:50 - 62:55one vilifies the victims.
-
62:55 - 62:57And that is inciting racial hatred.
-
62:57 - 63:02Such is the logic.
If you don't understand it, I can't help. -
63:02 - 63:08If you don't understand it,
then you have a clear legal conscience. -
63:08 - 63:12(Applause)
-
63:21 - 63:25The appeal then brought about
a reduction of 3 months, -
63:25 - 63:30so, in the end, I was in prison
for 3 years, 3 months. -
63:30 - 63:35I was also forbidden to practise law
for 5 years, -
63:35 - 63:42which is no longer relevant as I have been
excluded from the legal profession. -
63:44 - 63:48I must check
what I want to continue with. -
63:48 - 63:57One of the most important things
is that one wants to know -
63:57 - 64:01what is seen as legally correct
by the court. -
64:01 - 64:06One would like to know
what the problem was. -
64:06 - 64:11I have always requested a discussion
-
64:11 - 64:15of the foundation of the obviousness
of the Holocaust. -
64:15 - 64:19Because it's like this,
it's a little complicated. -
64:19 - 64:25When one makes a motion
to produce evidence -
64:25 - 64:30that brings the Holocaust into question,
-
64:30 - 64:34then such a motion is declined
on the grounds -
64:34 - 64:38that the Holocaust is self-evident.
-
64:40 - 64:47This is a quite usual procedure
-
64:47 - 64:52that one doesn't have to produce evidence
for something that is self-evident. -
64:52 - 64:54It is entirely superfluous.
-
64:54 - 64:58If something is self-evident there is
no further evidence to produce. -
64:58 - 65:05The text book example is
that it is self-evident -
65:05 - 65:10that rain falls down from above
and not from below to above. -
65:10 - 65:20And if in a criminal trial it came to
whence the rain falls, -
65:20 - 65:25then a motion to produce evidence
by the defence can be denied -
65:25 - 65:29on the grounds it is self-evident
that rain falls down from above. -
65:29 - 65:32One does not need
to produce evidence for it. -
65:32 - 65:39In such cases it is normal, in that
it's something that will always be true. -
65:39 - 65:45In a case where the rain
came from the side, -
65:45 - 65:48with the wind,
then one must produce evidence, -
65:48 - 65:50how it was on the day.
-
65:50 - 65:52Was it windy or not?
-
65:52 - 65:55We are getting into details
about the way it is self-evident. -
65:55 - 66:07Self-evident means something that for
all laymen is always easily perceptible, -
66:07 - 66:11always checkable in reference works,
in books. -
66:11 - 66:14And it assumes...
-
66:14 - 66:21I would not like to withhold
from you the exact definition, -
66:21 - 66:28because it's really important
what self-evident actually is. -
66:33 - 66:41From this reference book for lawyers:
-
66:41 - 66:47Historical facts are self-evident
-
66:47 - 66:50when, on the grounds
of historical research, -
66:50 - 66:53they are generally considered proved,
-
66:53 - 66:55so that anyone can inform himself
-
66:55 - 66:59with history books, encyclopaedias
and similar reference sources -
66:59 - 67:03without specialized subject knowledge.
-
67:06 - 67:10There's something else
that is very important here, -
67:10 - 67:15in the same book, at another place.
-
67:15 - 67:19The precondition for the acceptance
of the self-evidence of a matter -
67:19 - 67:24is the unchallenged nature
of the matter under consideration. -
67:24 - 67:29So, only something unchallenged
can be self-evident. -
67:29 - 67:33It must hold universal acceptance
in science. -
67:33 - 67:36Thereby one understands
why some scientists -
67:36 - 67:41are classified as pseudoscientists.
-
67:41 - 67:47Because then one can ignore them,
and self-evidence is not challenged. -
67:47 - 67:51Is, however, the correctness of a matter
-
67:51 - 67:54argued in the literature,
-
67:54 - 68:05then the matter is not
thereby self-evident -
68:05 - 68:10in that much is written, expounded
and set forth about it; -
68:10 - 68:16the deliberation on a matter
in no way relates to its self-evidence. -
68:16 - 68:24Motions to hear evidence
regarding the Holocaust -
68:24 - 68:31were, in my experience, rejected
because the Holocaust is self-evident. -
68:31 - 68:41I have ever and again in every case made
the request to discuss the self-evidence. -
68:41 - 68:47These requests were rejected
on the grounds -
68:47 - 68:51that the Holocaust is self-evident.
-
68:51 - 68:54I cannot put it another way.
-
68:54 - 68:58A discussion of the self-evidence
of the Holocaust -
68:58 - 69:02is superfluous because the Holocaust
is self-evident. -
69:02 - 69:08So, goes the reasoning in a nutshell,
it is a circular argument. -
69:08 - 69:16And I have then often also read
the additional reason, -
69:16 - 69:22that it will be seen as misuse of the law
-
69:22 - 69:24to make such a request,
-
69:24 - 69:30because, as was the case at my trial,
it means inducing the court -
69:30 - 69:35to tackle the subject.
-
69:35 - 69:42So, it is written, it means considering
the revisionist theories, -
69:42 - 69:46but that is just the basis
of the accusation. -
69:46 - 69:49So, it will be seen as misuse of the law
-
69:49 - 69:55to let the court get into a discussion
about the charge. -
69:55 - 69:59There's much to say,
but as short as possible... -
70:05 - 70:09The Bavarian lawyer's disciplinary court
had to consider -
70:09 - 70:14if I should be excluded
from the legal profession. -
70:14 - 70:18And also there I made requests
-
70:18 - 70:23in relation to self-evidence,
-
70:23 - 70:26and they were rejected on the grounds
-
70:26 - 70:32that the disciplinary court had no doubt
that the Holocaust is self-evident, -
70:32 - 70:43in view of the known available written,
pictorial and sound material. -
70:43 - 70:51Then I asked, that is,
I and my defender, -
70:51 - 70:59the court to say on which material
it based its opinion. -
71:04 - 71:14This question was dismissed on the grounds
-
71:14 - 71:17that the Holocaust,
or the crimes of violence -
71:17 - 71:23by the National Socialists on the Jews,
is self-evident. -
71:23 - 71:27So, it was no answer.
-
71:27 - 71:32On which material the court
based its opinion, no answer, -
71:32 - 71:35other than a very vague one, to wit,
-
71:35 - 71:42passing it all off to, quote:
newspapers, television and radio material, -
71:42 - 71:49reference works and history books.
End quote. -
71:49 - 71:55So, in other words, if one wants to know
why one has been convicted, -
71:55 - 72:00then one should read it in the newspapers,
-
72:00 - 72:07it's not stated in the court decision
and verdict, -
72:07 - 72:12but to be read
in the tabloids, apparently! -
72:14 - 72:18So, there's an essential point here.
-
72:18 - 72:21The newspapers,
what's in the newspapers, then? -
72:24 - 72:32A French historian by the name
of Jacques Beynac, -
72:32 - 72:40was quoted in the Swiss newspaper,
Le Nouveau Quotidien de Lausanne, -
72:40 - 72:45in September 1996.
-
72:45 - 72:53He said, "When it comes to the existence
of Nazi gas chambers, -
72:53 - 72:57one can only point to
the absence of documents, -
72:57 - 73:02physical traces and
other material evidence." -
73:02 - 73:05One can only point to
the absence of documents, -
73:05 - 73:12physical traces and
other material evidence. -
73:12 - 73:16This opinion of a French historian,
-
73:16 - 73:20who specializes in the history
of the Holocaust, -
73:20 - 73:29does this not show that the "obviousness"
could and should be questioned in court? -
73:29 - 73:36Another historian, Ernst Nolte,
-
73:36 - 73:44wrote in his book, The Causal Nexus,
quote: -
73:44 - 73:49"The witness testimonies are,
for the most part, based on hearsay, -
73:49 - 73:52and assumptions.
-
73:52 - 73:57The few eye-witness testimonies we have,
are in part contradictory, -
73:57 - 74:05and raise questions
regarding their credibility." -
74:05 - 74:11The historian Hans Mommsen was quoted
in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, saying, -
74:11 - 74:18"The Holocaust was not, not,
ordered by Hitler." -
74:18 - 74:24Again statements showing that questions
-
74:24 - 74:27regarding the "obviousness"
of the Holocaust are valid. -
74:27 - 74:35The last statement I would like to read
is from Fritjof Meyer. -
74:35 - 74:39In the journal Osteuropa
in an article entitled, -
74:39 - 74:47The number of Auschwitz Victims:
New insights from new-found archives, -
74:47 - 74:50he wrote the following
with regard to the crime-scene. -
74:50 - 74:53He is editor at Der Spiegel,
by the way... -
74:53 - 74:59And in May 2002 this journal
came out in which he states -
74:59 - 75:07that the genocide did not happen within
Auschwitz concentration camp, -
75:07 - 75:24but, quote: Probably, in two farmhouses
outside of the camp. -
75:24 - 75:28So, the genocide did not happen
inside the camp, -
75:28 - 75:32but probably in two farmhouses
outside of the camp. -
75:32 - 75:41Again this shows the need for discussion
of the "obviousness" of the Holocaust. -
75:46 - 75:54Here the Federal Constitutional Court,
I'll leave some of it out, -
75:54 - 75:57but this is very important, I feel,
-
75:57 - 76:09states its position regarding
the criminality of Holocaust denial. -
76:09 - 76:11It comes clean with regard
to freedom of speech, -
76:11 - 76:15but since it is
a specific freedom of speech, -
76:15 - 76:17it is a special law.
-
76:17 - 76:25A special law is unconstitutional
because a specific opinion is forbidden. -
76:25 - 76:32It was determined by the supreme court
in a relatively new decision, in 2009, -
76:32 - 76:37that it was a special law.
-
76:37 - 76:40That it's been officially determined
to be a special law -
76:40 - 76:42is an advance.
-
76:42 - 76:46It just remains
to declare it unconstitutional -
76:46 - 76:52and abolished it,
the offence of Holocaust denial. -
76:52 - 77:04However, I will not spare you
their reasons for not doing so, -
77:04 - 77:08the justifications given
by the supreme court. -
77:18 - 77:20In the so-called Wunsiedel decision,
-
77:20 - 77:25the Federal Constitutional Court declared
that the Federal Republic of Germany -
77:25 - 77:31is by way of exception allowed to keep
special statutes such as paragraph 130. -
77:31 - 77:35That is, in fact, criminalize
a particular opinion -
77:35 - 77:39with implied prohibition of defence
and prohibition of evidence. -
77:39 - 77:43Germany is by exception allowed
to keep this special statute -
77:43 - 77:50because of, quote:
The unique historical identity -
77:50 - 77:52of the Federal Republic of Germany,
-
77:52 - 77:55in contrast to National Socialism.
-
77:55 - 77:58In other words, they are allowed to do it,
-
77:58 - 78:01because it's
the Federal Republic of Germany. -
78:01 - 78:05This is naturally
a very pretty formulation. -
78:05 - 78:10A clear case of arbitrary despotism.
-
78:10 - 78:15The second explanation given
which is not stated so boldly, -
78:15 - 78:23but which is given
in another part of this decision. -
78:23 - 78:32It's not exactly defined, but it talks
about singular breaches. -
78:32 - 78:38One might conclude from it, that
in the case of a singular type of breach -
78:38 - 78:47the hearing of evidence is
superfluous and punishable. -
78:47 - 78:51The hearing of evidence is
superfluous and punishable -
78:51 - 78:55when it is a unique crime.
-
78:55 - 78:59Do you find any logic in that?
-
78:59 - 79:03So, that is in the end the two pillars
-
79:03 - 79:07on which the punishability
of Holocaust denial is based. -
79:07 - 79:12The legal philosophy or legal grounds
-
79:12 - 79:19for justifying the punishability
of Holocaust denial -
79:19 - 79:23is the historical identity
of the Federal Republic of Germany -
79:23 - 79:27and the uniqueness of the crime.
-
79:27 - 79:33Because of that no presentation
of one's case is required. -
79:33 - 79:36Revisions and constitutional complaint
are regularly rejected -
79:36 - 79:40as being obviously ungrounded.
-
79:40 - 79:46This has the effect of making reasons
for the decision unnecessary. -
79:46 - 79:50If something is obviously without grounds
there can be no grounds for it. -
79:50 - 79:52That's practical!
-
79:52 - 79:56So, no answer there either.
-
79:56 - 80:00What can one say,
one does not get an answer. -
80:05 - 80:09I heard myself
during the trial of Ernst Zündel -
80:09 - 80:13the following said by judge Meinerzhagen.
-
80:13 - 80:18If it were just I who told you,
probably no one would believe me. -
80:18 - 80:20Naturally, it's not
in the court transcript. -
80:20 - 80:24But Die Tageszeitung, the so-called TAZ,
-
80:24 - 80:30rendered the service of reporting it.
-
80:35 - 80:39I quote from Die Tageszeitung, the TAZ,
from 9 February 2007, -
80:39 - 80:41reporting on the trial
against Ernst Zündel: -
80:45 - 80:51In the end, the court tersely refused
all petitions -
80:51 - 80:56on grounds which came as a shock to
some anti-Fascist members of the public, -
80:56 - 81:05that it was completely irrelevant
whether the Holocaust took place or not, -
81:05 - 81:20its denial was illegal in Germany
and that was all that concerned the court. -
81:20 - 81:24To conclude,
I left some things out, of course ... -
81:24 - 81:33... to conclude, or rather
in preparation for my conclusion, -
81:33 - 81:42let's consider how one can change things.
-
81:42 - 81:48I see all over the place,
one reads on the Internet, in newspapers, -
81:48 - 81:55that many distance themselves
from the Nazis. -
81:55 - 81:59There are people, for example,
-
81:59 - 82:04who know fully what happens
[in cases like we're discussiing], -
82:04 - 82:09but who nonetheless say,
"I am, however, no Nazi." -
82:09 - 82:16And they distance themselves from others
who might be described as Nazis. -
82:16 - 82:21They say, "Don't call me a Nazi.
I'm not one. I'm not one of them, -
82:21 - 82:21those Nazis."
They say, "Don't call me a Nazi.
I'm not one. I'm not one of them, -
82:21 - 82:24those Nazis."
-
82:24 - 82:32They mean only they would unjustly be
described as evil Nazis; -
82:32 - 82:37the others would justly
be described as evil Nazis. -
82:37 - 82:39It's been like that for me.
-
82:39 - 82:43I was first called a Nazi many years ago
-
82:43 - 82:47on an information stand
against experiments on animals. -
82:47 - 82:54"You must be Nazis,
Hitler was also a vegetarian." -
82:54 - 83:03At that I began to ask myself
what Nazis actually are, -
83:03 - 83:11because with my picture of Nazis,
I could not attune myself -
83:11 - 83:18to the idea that I should be a Nazi,
as a defender of animal rights. -
83:18 - 83:23The next time I was described as a Nazi
was in relation to philosophy. -
83:23 - 83:29When one studies Plato,
when one speaks about Plato, -
83:29 - 83:33Plato is considered the forerunner
of the National Socialists, -
83:33 - 83:37a forerunner of Hitler,
someone who prepared the way, -
83:37 - 83:44because he was, for example,
a severe critic of democracy, -
83:44 - 83:50he rejected the democratic system.
-
83:50 - 84:00This is one of the reasons
why one condemns Plato, in part. -
84:00 - 84:03Or one asserts, I've also read,
-
84:03 - 84:06that he said something
quite different about democracy. -
84:06 - 84:11That's not true,
but just to mention it. -
84:11 - 84:18One tries to alter the image.
-
84:18 - 84:23When one doesn't want to attack Plato,
one says he said something different, -
84:23 - 84:26although it stands unambiguously
in his book The Republic. -
84:26 - 84:34It is not to be denied that he was
a severe critic of democracy. -
84:34 - 84:42Anyway, these were the first times
that I was called a Nazi, -
84:42 - 84:49and I got really interested
in what a Nazi is. -
84:49 - 84:51One must build a picture for oneself.
-
84:51 - 84:57One must get to know people
who are described as Nazis, -
84:57 - 85:00and people who consider themselves Nazis.
-
85:00 - 85:02Both, they're not the same.
-
85:02 - 85:07But it is interesting to get to know both,
then one get a picture for oneself. -
85:07 - 85:09One should do.
-
85:09 - 85:10That is crucial.
-
85:10 - 85:14That one doesn't engage in this exclusion.
-
85:14 - 85:19Well, one asks, who then is not a Nazi.
-
85:19 - 85:22Because anyone who says
anything meaningful, -
85:22 - 85:26or does anything useful,
anything healing, -
85:26 - 85:30he must sooner or later expect
to be called a Nazi. -
85:30 - 85:34(Applause)
-
85:40 - 85:45Which means he should not be listened to.
-
85:45 - 85:49Suddenly, he is labelled a Nazi,
-
85:49 - 85:54and from then on one is not to listen
to him any more, -
85:54 - 86:01because one could be corrupted,
one could be ... um, well, what ... -
86:01 - 86:05I cannot understand
what people are afraid of. -
86:05 - 86:10Probably they are much less worried
by those called Nazis, -
86:10 - 86:14than they are worried
of being ostracized -
86:14 - 86:17if they have anything to do with a Nazi.
-
86:17 - 86:21It's not the Nazis being dangerous,
-
86:21 - 86:26but the consequences when one carries on
with someone who is considered a Nazi. -
86:30 - 86:34It's nothing to do with what is true
and what is untrue, -
86:34 - 86:36what is useful or harmful;
-
86:36 - 86:39it's just about who has said it.
-
86:39 - 86:44And when it's someone considered a Nazi
who says something, -
86:44 - 86:46then it must be false.
-
86:46 - 86:48One doesn't want to be concerned with it,
-
86:48 - 86:50it is in any case false,
-
86:50 - 86:53it is worse than false, it is repulsive,
-
86:53 - 86:55by nature.
-
86:55 - 87:00Now, a very important point
in relation to this. -
87:00 - 87:10Recently, the opinions of groups
purporting to maintain an ideal standard -
87:10 - 87:14are increasing on the Internet.
-
87:14 - 87:19They distance themselves from Nazis
and right-wing extremists, -
87:19 - 87:21they say they want
nothing to do with them. -
87:21 - 87:27A few months ago, I read of
a call to demonstration -
87:27 - 87:29against the ESM,
[European Stability Mechanism] -
87:29 - 87:34first only against the ESM and then
against the ESM and right-wing extremism. -
87:41 - 87:46For me, when someone distances himself,
-
87:46 - 87:53it shows that he does not understand
what is going on. -
87:53 - 87:56(Applause)
-
88:01 - 88:07And such a group I would not join,
because I would lose perspective, -
88:07 - 88:13not because they might not want me, but
because I would lose my own perspective. -
88:17 - 88:21When one wants to avoid
being called a Nazi, -
88:21 - 88:24and there are many such people,
-
88:24 - 88:30most people want to avoid
being called a Nazi, -
88:30 - 88:32what does that involve?
-
88:32 - 88:43It involves, results in, holding aside
important issues. -
88:43 - 88:46When one addresses serious issues,
-
88:46 - 88:52when one gets to the heart of the matter,
-
88:52 - 88:57then the danger of being called a Nazi
arises very quickly. -
88:57 - 89:09But, holding aside important issues,
one is ineffective, totally ineffective. -
89:09 - 89:25One works for what already exists,
but not at all for something different. -
89:25 - 89:31I really will end soon.
-
89:31 - 89:36I would like to consider shortly
who is decidedly called a Nazi. -
89:36 - 89:40This is a very interesting matter to me.
-
89:41 - 89:47Naturally, as a denier of the Holocaust,
-
89:47 - 89:51or as one who takes
the national standpoint, -
89:51 - 89:53one is very quickly called a Nazi.
-
89:53 - 89:58When one simply takes to the interests
of one's people, -
89:58 - 90:00then ... "Nazi."
-
90:00 - 90:03(Applause)
-
90:09 - 90:18When one speaks of interest slavery
... "Nazi." -
90:18 - 90:20(Applause)
-
90:24 - 90:27There's another word which is
very closely connected with it: -
90:27 - 90:30anti-semite.
-
90:30 - 90:35It is almost identical,
anti-semite and Nazi, -
90:35 - 90:44in the propaganda, so to speak,
of the opponents, the Nazi opponents. -
90:44 - 90:50Who, for example, connects
the following terms with the Jews, -
90:50 - 90:55is called a right-wing
or left-wing anti-semite, -
90:55 - 90:58and sometimes punished.
-
90:58 - 91:01The following terms, for example:
-
91:01 - 91:05international finance,
-
91:05 - 91:08US East Coast,
-
91:08 - 91:10interest slavery,
-
91:10 - 91:13capitalism,
-
91:13 - 91:15financial crisis,
-
91:15 - 91:17globalization,
-
91:17 - 91:19democratization,
-
91:19 - 91:22Highgrade Freemason,
-
91:22 - 91:24EU,
-
91:24 - 91:26UN,
-
91:26 - 91:29or New World Order.
-
91:29 - 91:34Whoever, for example, connects
these terms with the Jews, -
91:34 - 91:40will be considered a right-wing
or left-wing anti-semite and punished. -
91:40 - 91:43(Applause)
-
91:43 - 91:53Equally, whoever opines
the currency markets, the stock exchanges, -
91:53 - 92:01the democratic parties, the media
are in Jewish hands. -
92:01 - 92:03For example, lawyer, Horst Mahler,
-
92:03 - 92:10was sentenced in 1999
to over 10 years in jail -
92:10 - 92:14for Holocaust denial
and anti-semitic remarks -
92:14 - 92:17and was arrested in the courtroom.
-
92:17 - 92:20That is taken into custody immediately
after sentencing, -
92:20 - 92:22just like me.
-
92:22 - 92:31After the sentence was given,
I was arrested. -
92:37 - 92:42I return to my beginning sentence,
which is also my closing sentence, -
92:42 - 92:45"To think what is true,
to sense what is beautiful, -
92:45 - 92:48and to want what is good."
-
92:48 - 92:54This implies recognizing
and denoting lies, -
92:54 - 93:01this implies recognizing
and denoting inhumanity, -
93:01 - 93:10this implies recognizing
and denoting injustice. -
93:10 - 93:14Belonging with this
-
93:14 - 93:21are the qualities that are
of particular importance today: -
93:23 - 93:27the consciousness of immortality,
-
93:27 - 93:32steadfastness and incorruptibility.
-
93:34 - 93:39With these qualities we might be able
to create a world -
93:39 - 93:42for the children who are with us today,
-
93:42 - 93:48a world in which one can speak the truth
without being punished. -
93:48 - 93:51(Applause)
- Title:
- Despite UN comment: Speech prohibition - Evidence prohibition - Defence prohibition: Sylvia Stolz, AZK (Anti-Censorship Coalition), Chur, Switzerland 24.11.12
- Description:
-
Human Rights Committee
102nd session
Geneva, 11-29 July 2011
General comment No. 34
Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expressionLaws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events. Restrictions on the right of freedom of opinion should never be imposed and, with regard to freedom of expression, they should not go beyond what is permitted in paragraph 3 or required under article 20. ( Paragraph 49, CCPR/C/GC/34 )
- Video Language:
- German
- Duration:
- 01:40:40