Dedicated to Ernst Zündel - Prisoner of Conscience
The concepts expressed in this document are protected by the basic human right to freedom of speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court as applying to the Internet content on June 26, 1997.
|News Archive||Printer Version||March 26, 2007|
The struggle for freedom of speech continues in Germany and Europe
Sylvia Stolz, the courageous lawyer for Ernst Zundel, has now been charged by the German government with "denying the Holocaust."
The German government's efforts to repress freedom of speech, opinion, and conscience have reached new depths. In Germany, expressing any disagreement with any aspect of the officially-sanctioned Holocaust story is punishable by imprisonment. Last month Ernst Zundel, a non-violent 67 year old resident of Canada and the United States, was sentenced to five years in prison for simply expressing opinions that differ with the "official position" of prominent Jewish Holocaust promoters and the German government. Such imprisonment is of course a mockery of the principle of the "free speech" claimed by Europe and the United States.
The Associated Press reported:
In Germany, not only have authorities imprisoned thousands for expressing their opinions, they are also acting to deny the fundamental rights of the accused.
One of the founding principles of human rights in the West is that an accused person has the right to full legal defense. If a lawyer can be charged with a crime and imprisoned for simply defending his client, one more pillar of human rights has fallen. Defense attorneys have been charged with the crime of "Holocaust denial" by simply arguing that the opinions of their clients are based on evidence that shows their clients did not "defame" or "incite" but simply stated historical truth.
In Germany, defendants on trial for challenging aspects of the popular version of the Holocaust are not allowed to present evidence showing that their respective opinions are in fact truthful. Whether or not the Holocaust occurred as it is popularly presented, free speech advocates argue that denial of defendants and their lawyers the right to defend the factual basis of their client's assertions, suggests that their evidence is so convincing that authorities must suppress them.
The courageous woman lawyer, Sylvia Stolz, who defended Ernst Zundel, has now herself been charged with "Holocaust denial" for simply defending her client by attempting to show that her client's specific assertions were truthful and accurate.
Even in the heresy trials of the Inquisition, held up as the ultimate in oppression of human rights and freedom, attorneys did not face imprisonment for defending their heliocentric clients.
Such actions by Germany are meant not only to punish men such as Ernst Zundel for their heretical and blasphemous opinions, but to create a climate where defense attorneys themselves cannot defend their clients adequately. How will the accused find adequate defense attorneys if the lawyers themselves might face imprisonment for simply asserting their clients innocence?
Ernst Zundel is the most important political prisoner in the Western World. His imprisonment along with men such as Gemar Rudolf and thousands of others are testimony to the fact that free speech, thought and expression in parts of Europe is a lie. It also shows the moral hypocrisy and evil of a mass media that forever touts freedom of speech and expression, but does not rise up in moral outrage at this abject denial of the most basic of human rights, freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech only has meaning when unpopular ideas are allowed.
Popular opinions need no principles of free speech and expression.
If not, then the most repressive regimes in history could be said to allow free speech.
- David Duke