Carlos Porter on Nuremberg (PDF ONLY)
Ernst Zündel (extensive bio)
Copyright (c) 1998 - Ingrid A. Rimland
As I have said for some time, my mail - both e-mail and hard print - is pouring onto my hard disk in such volume that I can no longer manage except to read the first paragraph or so - sometimes only the first sentence. Therefore, a lot of crucially important information passes me by.
Some of such information comes from Australia where the Adelaide Institute <http://www.adam.com.au/fredadin/ >is under siege by the Holocaust Enforcers - specifically a Human Rights type outfit that calls itself the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC).
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has brought a charge against one Olga Scully of the Adelaide Institute - a charge that seems to be very similar to the charges brought against Canada's Ernst Zundel. Somebody's ". . . feelings have been hurt!" Oy vey!
Below you get a glimpse of how Australian Revisionists deal with this Jewish assault on what we call "thought crimes". Here's from the November 1998 Adelaide newsletter, compiled by Dr. Fredrick Toben:
Mrs Olga Scully advises that at a recent hearing in Launceston, Commissioner, Mr A Cavanough, QC, accepted her witness list, this despite Mr Jones claiming in writing that her witness statements are not "relevant to any issue in the proceedings". Mr Jones goes so far as to suggest, for example, that criticism of The Talmud is "totally erroneous, misleading and false". It is worrisome that there is basically nothing Mrs Scully can do to get the substantive issue aired before the Commission. It must be remembered that in order to make out his case, Mr Jones has to demonstrate that Mrs Scully's actions have caused him grief and pain, that she is motivated by hatred.
On 16 November 1998 Mrs Olga Scully, Tasmanian Associate of Adelaide Institute, faces a hearing before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. During the telephone directions hearing of 17 September 1998, the following transpired:
Olga Scully: Now, seeing we're here talking very largely about historical events and matters of concrete evidence rather than just merely hurt feelings, truth therefore would be a defence, wouldn't it?
Commissioner Cavanough: Well, Mrs Scully, we'll leave these difficult debates until the hearing when we have the benefit of a proper consideration of the thing in person with the legal authorities and everything else that may have been decided.
Olga Scully: So at this stage we don't know whether truth is a defence or not?
Commissioner Cavanough: No, that's a fair comment, I think we don't.
Olga Scully All right.
Commissioner Cavanough: I see. It might not be. You know, it's a very difficult piece of legislation to understand.
Olga Scully: All right.
Commissioner Cavanough: In any event, we had this discussion in Launceston three weeks ago and that transcript and -
Olga Scully: That was fairly brief. I mean, if I'm in a case where I swore at some sodomite and called him a dreadful name, I could see that then he could claim that his personal feelings were being hurt because I was addressing him personally, but here we are talking about matters of history which is a totally different thing. So I'd like to know whether or not first of all, whether it's all right for the other side to tell lies, which are hurtful, and I'd like to know whether or not we can use truth as a defence. I think, it's a very, very basic kind of thing because we know that a lot of lies are being told and accepted as teaching material in schools, so we've got the funny situation where we know that it's all right to tell lies but somehow we don't know whether it's all right to tell the truth or not.
Commissioner Cavanough: Well, anyway, what you've said has been heard but the directions are as I've indicated, Mrs Scully.
Olga Scully: Hmm, hmm.
(Earlier during the hearing Mrs Scully had asked the commissioner about procedural matters. He explained how Counsel, Mr Rothman, would open the case for Complainant, Mr Jeremy Jones. Counsel would then introduce his witnesses. )
Commissioner Cavanough: Presumably, Mr Rothman, you will in effect ask them to adopt their witness statements?
Counsel Rothman: I will, yes, and swear to the truth of.
Commissioner Cavanough: Swear to the truth of them. In other words, they will become sworn evidence in that way.
Olga Scully: Right.
Commissioner Cavanough: And as each one comes along, you'll be able to question them on that evidence which, in effect, will be what's in front of you in their witness statements.
Olga Scully: Right.
Commissioner Cavanough: And then once you finished doing that for the first witness, Mr Rothman will be able to ask questions in re-examination which is, as I say, just to tidy up, clean up anything that may have arisen in cross-examination.
Olga Scully: Right.
Dr. Fredrick Toben comments:
It is a legal scandal that truth is no defence before the HREOC. What is the media doing in this case? Will it remain silent and therefore dig its own grave and bury the cherished ideal of freedom of speech?
This state of affairs raises a moral issue. If Mrs Scully appears before the HREOC, then she is participating in immoral proceedings. Any principled person who leads a moral life cannot suddenly throw away moral constraints - of truth-telling - and participate in proceedings with others who do not care about the truth of a matter.
As Professor Arthur Butz put it so clearly at the August Symposium (see November 1998 newsletter, No. 82) :
"Effect or likely effect is considered crucial in only the second case but it is strangely dealt with. One formulation is: "Cause hate". Now "cause" is a difficult concept even outside the sphere of social affairs but I want to be practical here and avoid insolvable epistemological problems.
My complaint is that the charge of causing hatred is not tested empirically. If the charge is that it "causes hatred", then readers of the offending literature who became haters should be produced.
If the charge is that it is "likely to cause hatred", then past readers of comparable literature who became haters should be produced.
However such considerations are considered impertinent. ***There is no empirical test.*** (emphasis added)
I have been observing the course of controversy surrounding Holocaust revisionism for a quarter century, and I have yet to see the development of any of the hate alleged.
Thus this sort of regulation is really in category 3. Logically you could never prove yourself innocent, and you will be guilty if the court decides it wants you to be.
This concept of "causing hatred", unsupported by evidence from experience, is also applied in the USA, but outside the legal or courtroom context."
Dr. Toben concludes:
"The fact that Mrs Scully's witnesses appear to be unable to help her in her defence speaks for itself. The framers, and now the executors, of the Racial Hatred Act have perverted the course of truth-seeking, if not justice itself."
And then he points out something very, very interesting:
"Take a look at the first page of the meeting's official transcript. The title: The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has been reduced to The Executive Council Of Australia!
Mr Armstrong, informed me that this was a mistake made by the transcribing agency. I ask: If they can't get the title right, what else isn't right within the transcript?
This apparent mistake is reminiscent of what is going on in Germany. There, the Jewish Claim Conference Against Germany is called by the media The Conference for short.
The parallel is striking, and although Mr Armstrong, the legal officer of HREOC, blamed the commercial firm for this mistake, it must be noted that any transcription service work still requires the approval of HREOC especially because the Commission claims copyright on the transcript.
Hence we can conclude that had the word Australian appeared on the document, we could have accepted that as a slip. But the fact that Jewry is left out and the adjective Australian is replaced by the noun Australia, gives rise for concern.
We can conclude that leaving out the word Jewry in the official title was not a mistake. The parallel happenings in Germany and other countries needs emphasising.
We have a new ball-game! Anyone care to comment on this? I am ready to listen and to learn something new. Anyone for a game with the HREOC and the ECAJ? Mrs Olga Scully is certainly considering her options whether to participate in immoral proceedings - where truth is no defence.
A hearing has been set down for 16 November 1998 and Mrs Scully is, at the time of writing this report, looking forward to having her day in court.
Thought for the Day:
'The earth belongs to the living, not to the dead."