Secret police files reveal truth about ‘far right violence’
Even the so-called ‘conservative’ press has joined ‘anti-fascists’ in a festival of propaganda during the past week, alternately warning of ‘far-right violence’ and celebrating its apparent defeat.
But by a strange coincidence, an official inquiry into the operations of undercover police officers has simultaneously revealed some of the truth behind this hype. H&D has spent some time examining the records of this inquiry, including testimony given at a hearing in London on 24th July this year.
During 1990 and 1991, an undercover police officer codenamed HN 56 was deployed to infiltrate the British National Party (BNP). It would be a criminal offence to reveal the true name of HN 56, but while inside the BNP he used the pseudonym Alan Nicholson and was known as ‘Nick’.
This officer worked in coordination with the Security Service (MI5) as part of a top secret police unit known as the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS). The names and birth certificates of dead children were used to create fake identities for SDS officers, who were then infiltrated into ‘extremist’ organisations. This strategy was first adopted after riots outside the US Embassy in 1968, during the Vietnam War. MI5 and the police became aware that they lacked intelligence on new and violent far-left groups, so this infiltration strategy was developed.
According to journalistic and anti-fascist hype, the early 1990s was a time when ‘far-right’ violence against non-Whites was increasing, especially in London. Had ‘nazis’ been behind this ‘racist violence’, the obvious place to find evidence would have been inside the BNP.
HN 56 – given the fake identity of Alan ‘Nick’ Nicholson – was sent to join the Loughton branch of the BNP. A decision to point him in this direction was taken by his superiors in August 1989. After several months of training he began his mission in April 1990, hanging around for about six weeks at a pub in Loughton, regularly frequented by BNP members and sympathisers, before filling in an application form for BNP membership. Perhaps surprisingly, he was not given a fake passport in his cover name, though he was given a bank account in this name, a driving licence, and other fake documents.
The most telling section of his testimony to the inquiry was that he thought he had been chosen to infiltrate the ‘far right’ because he was physically tough and had a black belt in karate:
“I think there was a perception that if you are going to get a smack on the head, it was probably if you were on the right-wing rather than the left.”
Sir John Mitting, chairman of the inquiry, asked HN 56:
“So a perception that you were more likely, yourself, to become a victim of violence, if I can put it that way?”
“Yes.”
“If deployed into a right-wing group.”
“Yes, I think so.”
Later in his testimony, HN 56 adds: “Well, the thing about the British National Party was if they ever showed up anywhere there was always opposition, generally. It often would result in violence. …Disorder in the sense of – they would not be instigators. It would be on them, generally.”
He is then asked by the inquiry chairman:
“So you thought that you were going to find disorder in which members of the BNP would be set upon?”
And HN 56 replies: “Yes, for example when they held an annual meeting, you know, the venue would have been a closely guarded secret, only revealed maybe a couple of hours before to forestall any invasion by people who wanted to disrupt it.”
One regular concern when infiltrating the ‘far-right’ was that an agent might be uncovered by the anti-fascist organisation Searchlight, who might believe he was a ‘genuine’ BNP activist.
HN 56 testified to the inquiry: “Occasionally the [SDS] managers would quiz me on aspects of my proposed cover identity. The anti-fascist Searchlight organisation would investigate people who associated with extreme right-wing groups and while they were unlikely to warn any of the groups, there was always the possibility that an undercover officer or the unit could be unmasked by them. There were no organised civilian groups looking at the extreme left-wing in quite the same way.”
He added that at the time of his deployment he was expecting to spend four years as an undercover officer: “this made sense because of the preparation time required and the need to develop a credible legend.”
Rather naively, HN 56 told the enquiry that the rationale for his mission was that “the aim of the BNP was a reduction in immigration, being a voice for white people which they deemed had no voice, and ultimately white supremacy. I did not think these aims were subversive but they were criminal and likely to lead to public disorder. I obtained information about their aims from the BNP newspaper and within John Tyndall’s book [The Eleventh Hour].”
Throughout his entire infiltration mission, HN 56 only witnessed one violent incident, when a member of his BNP branch punched an ‘anti-fascist’ during a ‘Rights for Whites’ march in November 1990. This march was part of a campaign supporting the family of John Stoner, a local schoolboy who was stabbed and almost killed by a Bangladeshi gang in Bethnal Green, East London.
One of his problems was that whereas the type of left-wing parties and groups that SDS infiltrated “tended to have frequent and regular meetings and a well-defined group of members, the extreme right-wing was much less strictly organised and tended not to have regular meetings or a fixed membership beyond one or two active organisers.”
This observation probably reflects the state of East London BNP at that time, where a number of activists and organisers had only just been recruited to the BNP from the declining NF, and there was also a looser group of nationalists, some linked to football gangs and others to what later became Combat 18.
Perhaps due to a lack of intelligence among police and MI5 officers, HN 56 had been deployed to a branch that was declining – partly because the Epping Forest organiser had stepped down for family reasons – even while other branches nearby in East London were expanding. Among the few Epping Forest BNP activists who seems to have been befriended by HN 56 during his deployment was Rod Law, who was the subject of a detailed report submitted to Special Branch. Mr Law (who was of course entirely unaware of the fact that this apparent new recruit Nicholson was an undercover police officer) remained a dedicated nationalist and was elected as a BNP councillor for Loughton Alderton ward, Epping Forest, in 2006.
Despite the large amount of public money invested in his training and infiltration mission, it seems that HN 56 lost his nerve, leading to the premature end of his mission in early 1991.
He believed that he had been followed, once on foot and once in a vehicle, in late 1990 and thought that Dave Bruce, a senior BNP official, suspected him of being an infiltrator. There are some hints in HN 56’s testimony that he believed a BNP sympathiser within the police had given him away.
During his testimony to the enquiry last month, HN 56 was asked:
“Were you apprehensive about what the British National Party might do if they thought you were a police officer?”
He replied: “Very much so, yes.”
“What did you think they might do?”
“Beat the shit out of me.”
Even more absurdly, in his witness statement to the inquiry HN 56 said that he was concerned about his superiors having asked him to attend a BNP meeting in another area, because he thought this would seem suspicious for someone so new to the party and “I was concerned I could have been killed.”
Despite the failure of his undercover mission, HN 56 remained within London’s political police, then known as Special Branch, until his retirement in the late 2000s.
None of the Special Branch or MI5 documents released to the inquiry in association with HN 56’s testimony give any indication that the BNP was involved in organised violence. The documents identify a number of individuals well known to older H&D readers, including former Glasgow BNP organiser Eric Brand, who stepped down from this post for family reasons in 1990 during HN 56’s deployment. There is also a document recording BNP members’ visit to Belfast for the 12th July celebrations in 1990.
HN 56’s report from inside the BNP’s 1990 annual rally (held on 13th October 1990) refers to speeches by old comrades of ours including Steve Cartwright, Tony Lecomber (referred to in the report under his pseudonym Tony Wells), Steve Smith (now a senior activist with the British Democrats), and our late comrades Dave Bruce, John Peacock, Richard Edmonds, and John Tyndall.
It’s interesting to note that in this secret police report, most audience members at the BNP rally were described as “smartly dressed, apparently intelligent and relatively affluent. The notorious ‘skinhead’ element made up no more than 5% of those assembled.”
At this 1990 rally the advertised guest speaker Manfred Roeder had been banned from the UK by the Home Secretary (see our recent report on the tenth anniversary of Manfred’s death).
For some reason the name of the replacement guest speaker has been redacted from the report, although older H&D readers will remember that this was Karl Philipp, a German NPD activist and close associate of the historian David Irving. Mr Philipp’s speech focused on ‘Holocaust’ revisionism, and HN 56 summarises his argument as follows (note that these are the words of a secret police report, and that in this context they use normal and reasonable language to summarise revisionist arguments, whereas today in public documents the police would always adopt hysterical anti-fascist language about ‘Holocaust deniers’ and ‘hatred’):
“…The ‘bogey’ always thrown at nationalism and at nationalists, in attempts to stifle not only its growth but its acceptance as well, was the spectre of the Holocaust. Until this ‘bogey’ was laid to rest or put into its proper context (by accepting recent research by noted historians, such as David Irving and others, into the actual numbers and nationalities of those killed in the death camps, in particular Auschwitz), then this ‘bogey’ will always be used by those who see nationalism as a threat, to scare off people who would otherwise embrace the nationalist ideals.”
HN 56 said that the mood of the BNP was very optimistic, and that Richard Edmonds in particular had highlighted the excellent trend of local election results in East London.
Perhaps surprisingly, HN 56 gives a positive account of John Tyndall’s speech to the rally. He writes in his secret report that John Tyndall’s “speech, delivered professionally and in complete tune with those assembled, dealt firstly with the betrayal of this country, by successive governments, since the war. Indeed, he stated, the die was cast in 1939 when ‘cousin’ was set to fight ‘cousin’, instead of a mutual peace being agreed. …He further stated that the so-called ‘vanquished’ of the war, Germany and Japan, were now victorious because of their love of their countries and their adherence to the tenets of nationalism, while the so-called ‘victors’ were now enfeebled by the betrayal of their subsequent governments. …How is it, he went on, that the governments at the time of the Second World War allowed young men to die defending their country from foreign invasion only for successive governments since then to let the creeping invasion of ‘aliens’ take place and to nearly lose our country to them. He, too, closed his speech on the subject of the police. He said that Sir Peter Imbert [Metropolitan Police Commissioner] was no more than a ‘puppet’ dancing to the tune of the British Board of Deputies [the UK’s main Jewish organisation]. He said that Imbert, having recently been summoned to appear before the Board, later stated that he would ‘wipe racism off the streets’. By racism, Tyndall said, he means us – the BNP.”
HN 56 concluded that “the BNP must view this rally as a great success. The whole feeling of it was that of a celebration of recent successes of the party in book publicity and electoral support. Without doubt the two election results in Tower Hamlets have shown Party members that people are prepared to vote for them if they work hard to get the message across. The results have given them a sense of purpose in belonging to a Party which can attract the support of the public and consequently more members to its ranks.”
Later that year a separate source with access to higher level BNP discussions (well above anything HN 56 could have learned) reported that party strategists Dave Bruce, Richard Edmonds and John Morse had decided that the BNP would focus on the 1991 council elections in East London rather than wasting resources on any General Election that might be called by the new Prime Minister John Major, who had replaced Margaret Thatcher in November 1990. A similar high-level source reported to Special Branch on the BNP’s purchase of computer equipment to assist production of the newspaper British Nationalist.
HN 56 was clearly paranoid about the likelihood of his fellow officers having ‘blown his cover’ to the BNP, and about the likelihood of BNP activists inflicting violence on a police infiltrator even if we discovered one. East London was a very different place to East Belfast!
But he was correct to discern that the party was (justifiably) feeling optimistic about its electoral progress during the early 1990s.
After being on the political margins for most of the 1980s, in May 1990 the BNP polled 8.7% in Holy Trinity ward, Tower Hamlets, where its candidate was Steve Smith.
Steve then polled 8.4% in a Park ward by-election in July 1990, followed by his colleague Ken Walsh polling 12.1% in St Peter’s ward in September 1990.
The progress was obvious, and continued in the two years following the failure of HN 56’s infiltration mission.
Barry Osborne polled 20% in Millwall ward in October 1992, and a year later Derek Beackon won the same ward to become the BNP’s first elected councillor, a result which shocked the political establishment and the liberal media.
These years of progress are a sad contrast to the present-day marginalisation of racial nationalism.
Yet we should look back on those times not with sadness or resignation, but with optimism.
The rapid progress of racial nationalism in those years can be achieved again, provided that our movement can regain the will, determination, and intelligence to mobilise the undoubted potential for our cause that exists throughout our Disunited Kingdom.
We can learn many things from the belated testimony of HN 56 to last month’s inquiry. H&D will continue to scrutinise and report on official documents relating to our cause, as and when such documents become available to us.
95-year-old Ursula Haverbeck faces ANOTHER 16 month prison sentence
A court in Hamburg today confirmed another 16-month prison sentence against the 95-year-old German scholar and publisher Ursula Haverbeck, after several days of appeal hearings that began on 7th June.
(In the photo above, Ursula is discussing an earlier case with her lawyer, Wolfram Nahrath.)
Ursula’s ‘offence’ is to have raised questions about the orthodox version of 1940s German history (a history which she lived through, unlike the vast majority of today’s Germans). This latest sentence was increased from 10 to 16 months, due to Ursula’s courage in using the trial to repeat her questions and her interpretations of German history. The implication is that in true Stalinist fashion, today’s German courts expect a nonagenarian defendant to recant – but to her great credit, Ursula refused to play their game.
This month she appeared in court in Hamburg (a journey of more than 130 miles from her home) in relation to a conviction that dates back to 2015. Appeal hearings in the case were delayed several times, partly due to a backlog of cases during the pandemic. Additional hearings took place on 12th June and today (26th June).
Ursula has repeatedly been charged (and convicted) since 2004 for questioning the alleged extermination of six million Jews in purported homicidal “gas chambers”: an alleged mass murder presumed by orthodox historians to have been carried out on the orders of Adolf Hitler – even though these orthodox historians have never been able to produce the slightest evidence for such orders, nor establish how and where the murders took place.
German courts refuse even to discuss the evidence concerning this alleged “Holocaust”. They frequently impose jail sentences on dissident historians, scientists, and publishers.
The German-Canadian Ernst Zündel was deported to Germany in 2005 and arrested on arrival. He was held in Mannheim prison for exactly five years until his release in March 2010, having also been imprisoned from 2003-2005 in the USA and Canada awaiting deportation.
The scientist and historian Germar Rudolf was extradited from the USA to Germany in 2005 and imprisoned until 2009. Many other countries including France, Austria, and Russia also criminalise historical revisionism, but the Federal Republic (today’s occupied Germany) has some of the most severe punishments.
Ursula Haverbeck herself served a jail sentence in Bielefeld from 2018-20, and is due to serve a further jail sentence confirmed by a Berlin court in 2022, as well as this latest 16-month sentence imposed today. The main difficulty in enforcing these two sentences seems to be that few prisons (or even prison hospitals) have appropriate facilities to accommodate a 95-year-old prisoner.
Among the last survivors of the wartime generation, Ursula Haverbeck has ensured – by her remarkable tenacity, intelligence, and courage – that the pursuit of historical truth continues, in defiance of politically-directed courts and enemy-occupied governments.
The mainstream German news report above (even though made by establishment broadcasters) cannot disguise the disgraceful state of German justice, which now seeks to impose a further 16 month jail sentence on this brave nonagenarian patriotic lady.
The version above has English subtitles, and the version below has Spanish subtitles.
French candidate suspended after his vile anti-Faurisson tweet is mistaken for ‘anti-semitism’!
The hysteria of Holocaustianity – otherwise known as ‘Shoah business’ – has claimed a new victim: and this time, with rich irony, it’s an ‘anti-fascist’ who has fallen victim to ‘friendly fire’.
Joseph Martin, a parliamentary candidate for Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) in the current elections for the French National Assembly, was suspended by his party yesterday after a confected scandal over a supposedly satirical tweet.
Martin – who was born in Spain as José Martinez Lopez, but came to France as a child – was standing for the RN in an area of Brittany.
The communist newspaper Libération complained about a tweet that Martin posted in October 2018 that (when read out of contact) appeared to mock ‘Holocaust’ victims.
In fact Martin had intended his tweet (posted more than five and a half years ago and hurriedly deleted yesterday) as a vile ‘satirical’ attack on the revisionist scholar Robert Faurisson, who had just died at the instant of returning home from a conference in London organised by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton.
With their typical urgent insistence on genuflecting to the Jewish lobby, Marine Le Pen’s party has censured and expelled an ‘anti-fascist’ – when they thought they were censuring and expelling an ‘anti-semite’!
No doubt somewhere, the spirit of Robert Faurisson is enjoying this absurd spectacle.
The latest state repression against Vincent Reynouard
The heroic revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard, who as regular readers of H&D and the Real History blog will know, was imprisoned in Edinburgh from November 2022 until his deportation to France in February 2024, is facing further efforts by the Parisian courts to silence him.
Vincent’s ‘crime’ is to have raised serious questions about the orthodox history of the Second World War, in particular the alleged homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, and (in his most recent work) the legend of Oradour-sur-Glâne, where the Waffen-SS is accused of having killed 643 civilians.
In an article at his blog, Vincent has described the latest stages of the French state’s repressive efforts against him. Here is an English translation of his article (click here for a German translation).
On April 17 at the Paris High Court (tribunal de grand instance), I appeared before a sentencing enforcement judge (JAP). Why had he summoned me? Because France has begun an “extension of surrender” process against me. This means that after having obtained my extradition from Scotland, the French courts will ask the Scottish authorities for their consent so that two sentences and one further court order issued against me in France between 2017 and 2021, while I was in England, can be made enforceable.
A desire to silence me as quickly as possible
Reduced expectations
Article 695-18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes clear:
When the public prosecutor who issued the European arrest warrant has obtained the surrender of the person sought, the person cannot be prosecuted, convicted or detained with a view to serving a custodial sentence for any act whatsoever, prior to the extradition and other than that which motivated this process.
However, the French authorities obtained my extradition specifically over seven videos that I published on the internet between September 2019 and April 2020. They did not invoke the two sentences and the additional French court order, because although, taken together, they inflict on me fifteen months of incarceration, taken separately, each one sentences me to less than a year in prison, which makes an extradition request impossible.
Consequently, when, on February 2nd 2024, I was handed over, handcuffed, to the French authorities, an investigating judge indicted me and placed me under judicial supervision for the seven videos mentioned in the arrest warrant.
I am accused of “public denial, minimisation or relativisation of a war crime”, “publicly disputing the existence of a crime against humanity committed during the Second World War” and “public incitement to hatred or violence due to [racial or religious] origin…”. As preventive detention does not exist – or not yet – for these so-called “publishing” offences, that same evening, I walked free from the court.
I still won’t shut up
For my opponents, this was a great disappointment, because some had already assumed I would be incarcerated. When, on October 12, 2023, the Scottish justice in the first hearing authorised my extradition, the president of the National Association of the Families of the Martyrs of Oradour-sur-Glane, Benoît Sadry, proclaimed : “We can rejoice that he is coming back to be imprisoned!“
Others probably thought that after fifteen months in prison in Scotland, an extradition and an immediate indictment involving judicial supervision, I would henceforth keep silent, wishing to avoid making my case worse.
They were wrong. The very evening of my arrival in France, I gave a video interview to Jérôme Bourbon and Florian Rouanet. Then came those carried out by Égalité & Réconciliation and Nereus Osa. The apotheosis was my participation in the show Deep Geopolitics, presented by Mike Borowski, in the company of Alain Soral and Alexandre Juving-Brunet.
There are also weekly conferences, organised throughout France. I have already traveled to Nantes, Chartres, Quimper, Rouen, Montauban, Perpignan, Le-Puy-en-Velay and Lyon. Other meetings are planned, from Vannes to Strasbourg and from Dunkirk to Savoie.
Finally, I write articles published in the columns of Rivarol, on my blog with its Newsletter as well as on my GAB page.
Using the most extraordinary exceptions to the Penal Code
In June 2023, the director of the Jean Jaurès Foundation’s Political Radicalism Monitoring Centre, Jean-Yves Camus, declared: “faced with an ideologue like Reynouard, unfortunately, imprisonment is the only way to silence his propaganda.” Since February 2, 2024, my opponents have followed this advice.
Hence this “extension” approach initiated against me. It is based on article 695-18 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As we have seen, this prevents France using the two judgments and court order (issued against me while I was in exile in Britain) as grounds for throwing me into prison.
But it also provides for exceptions. The French authorities cannot enforce these court decisions, except “when the judicial authority of the executing Member State, which surrendered the person, expressly consents”. Paris will therefore ask Edinburgh for its consent.
In my presence and in front of my lawyer, the sentencing enforcement judge admitted that this was a fairly unusual step, and that in relation to any UK court, it was a first for publishing offences.
He also underlined that the actions criminalised in the two sentences and in the court order were “old ”: these involve three publications (two videos and a book I believe) dating from 2014, 2017 and 2019, i.e. actions going back five, seven and ten years.
Let’s press on!
But no matter: my adversaries absolutely aim to gag me; after having moved heaven and earth to obtain my extradition, they will do everything to proceed against me as quickly as possible.
The “extension of surrender” provides for a hearing to be held in Edinburgh. At the end of the debates, the Scottish court will rule on whether or not to authorise France to make the three legal decisions taken against me enforceable.
My lawyer assumed that, given bureaucratic tardiness, the case would not be decided for another year. But the judge said France hoped for a Paris hearing within a week, and a hearing in Edinburgh before the summer. Yes, really, they aim to incarcerate me as quickly as possible…
Looking for a brave Scottish lawyer
We are already preparing for the hearing in Scotland. A Scottish lawyer will be contacted.
A lawyer exhausted by the revisionist fight
I will dismiss the one who defended me when I was imprisoned in Edinburgh, because I gained the distinct impression that over the months he became timid.
In November 2022, he was enthusiastic about defending me. He warmly assured me: “If we condemn revisionism and throw people in prison for this reason, then we can also restore slavery. Human rights are indivisible.”
But later he confided to me: “I received calls from many newspapers, including Israeli ones. I defend you on the basis of Law; I refuse to be your spokesperson. I want to die peacefully, in my bed.”
As the weeks went by, I noticed that together with his colleague, he adopted a minimal defense. In particular, he did not want me to speak in front of the judges. During the hearings, I was there, sitting like a fool. My destiny was at stake, but the judges ignored me and my lawyer refused to allow me to speak.
I still hear the prosecutor claiming that my videos conveyed “frightening levels of anti-Semitism”. However, my colleague had transmitted to the Defence a file which included everything I had said on the Jewish problem since 2018. It demonstrated beyond any possible dispute that I was “Judeo-indifferent”, not by strategy but by conviction.
It was time for my lawyer to produce it. He did nothing, simply responding that my videos should be judged in their entirety, not on a few extracts presented out of context. He was right.
However, instead of analysing them and quoting passages to emphasise that they developed rational arguments, without any “hatred”, he opted to engage in legal debate over whether the nature of my comments was “offensive” or “grossly offensive”. Unsurprisingly, the prosecutor called them “grossly offensive.”
Defend full freedom of expression
To give my lawyer the opportunity to respond, I sent him the judgment in Handyside v. United Kingdom (December 7th, 1976). The European Court of Human Rights declared:
Freedom of expression […] is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”.
I had also brought to the attention of my lawyer the preface to Robert Faurisson’s Mémoire en Défense. Written by the Jewish author Noam Chomsky, who emphasised:
even if Faurisson were to be a rabid anti-Semite and fanatic pro-Nazi […] this would have no bearing whatsoever on the legitimacy of the defence of his civil rights. On the contrary, it would make it all the more imperative to defend them since, once again, it has been a truism for years, indeed centuries, that it is precisely in the case of horrendous ideas that the right of free expression must be most vigorously defended; it is easy enough to defend free expression for those who require no such defence.
Arguments on legal technicalities are of no use in a trial for revisionism
I hoped that my lawyer would produce this material to assert my right to present, calmly and rationally, my historical and political theses, without their character being judged as “offensive” or “grossly offensive”, but even when he asserted that the use of the law sanctioning “grossly offensive” remarks was being abused in the present case, he failed to back this by citing the Handyside judgment and Noam Chomsky’s preface.
Responding to the prosecutor’s allegations, he responded timidly: “I consider that my client’s comments could be seen as offensive without being grossly so.”
At that moment, I knew that the game was lost, because instead of fighting on the ground of reason and invoking the very clear opinions expressed by people above all suspicion, the Defence had been drawn onto the ground of a subjective choice between “offensive” or “grossly offensive”? It was talking about the sex of angels… The not-so-courageous judges would quite naturally claim that my publications were “grossly offensive”.
The consequences of an uncompromising fight for the truth
Today, I am convinced that my lawyer received calls and messages that, rightly or wrongly, intimidated him. I don’t blame him, because by asserting my National Socialism, I am largely responsible for it. Of course, I explain that National Socialism is not Hitlerism: Hitlerism is one manifestation of it at a given time, in a given country, to resolve given problems. It involved numerous contingencies, such as euthanasia of the mentally-handicapped, experiments on human guinea pigs, radical anti-Judaism or the opening of concentration camps.
You can be a National Socialist without wanting to imitate everything that was done under the Third Reich. But very few people listen to my explanations. For the vast majority, a “Nazi” is a madman who wants to massacre Jews, “sub-races” and the mentally-handicapped, while he locks up opponents in concentration camps and fanaticises the young, destroys culture and reduces women to the rank of progenitors. Therefore, the simple fact of saying to a lawyer: “Are you defending a Nazi?” is often enough to intimidate him.
Hold Scottish justice accountable for its responsibilities
So I hope to find a Scottish defence counsel who will show more courage. We will inform him of the hysterical repression raging in France.
Our goal is for him to hold his country’s justice system accountable by saying: “Violating British tradition which requires offering the right of asylum to politically persecuted people, you have handed over a French citizen whose only ‘crime’ is to express historical and political opinions that displease the powerful. Are you going to commit another ignominy by authorising France to incarcerate him, following court decisions rendered in the name of a repressive law which does not exist here?”
Will we find a lawyer brave enough to adopt this strategy? And if so, will the judges back down from committing a new ignominy? Hopes are slim, even illusory. But no matter: even without hope of victory, we must fight and denounce the scandal.
Faced with the importance of the issue, I will not remain silent
Should we deduce from this that before the summer or at the start of the next school year, I will return to prison? No, because if Scotland accedes to the wishes of the French authorities, then I will oppose the two judgments and will lodge an appeal (in cassation) against the judgment. The first two cases will start from scratch and the third will be examined after several months.
During these several months, I intend to give as many conferences as possible and write as many articles as possible. I have dedicated my life to revisionism: blows and threats will neither keep me silent nor force me to recant.
Some will criticise my stubbornness. “You have already sacrificed your family in a fight that does not interest the French. People worry about the future which is played out in the present, not the past.” It is true that according to a recent survey, the French are above all concerned about crime, inflation, the environment, social inequalities and the economic situation of the country.
But if, truly, the past were irrelevant, then the authorities would leave me alone. However, as we have seen, they are struggling to silence me as quickly as possible.
This is all the more revealing since I have no support in the major media, no complicity in the academic world or any appreciable financial assistance: for thirty years, I have published my works myself and I have earned my living as a private tutor. The repression that is launched against me as a revisionist historian of the Second World War demonstrates that this period weighs on the present, and therefore on the future.
To those who doubt this, I would remind you that a brochure published by the Education Ministry warns:
the Shoah does not belong to the past. From 1945, the resurgence of liberated nations after the most absolute dehumanization that the world has ever had to endure, gave rise to new institutions.
Among these institutions is the United Nations. On September 26, 2018, their Secretary General, António Guterres, proclaimed: “The origins of the United Nations themselves are rooted in the need to learn the lessons of the Holocaust.”
Youth, first target of the guardians of Memory
Engraving the Shoah in the soul of humanity
Hence the propaganda targeting young people. At a time when the last of the wartime deportees are dying, some pass on the “Memory” to young people so that they can internalise it and pass it on in their turn. Addressing young Belgians heading to Auschwitz, the director of the War Heritage Museum, Michel Jaupart, declared:
Today, you will encounter history, and become memory-bearers […] You will be able to relate this journey to your parents, to your friends, and later to your children.
Elsewhere, a young Frenchman who became one of these “memory-bearers” confirms that he understood his mission:
Talking about the Shoah, in class and outside, raises our awareness. No one remains indifferent when I tell what I learn, and I intend to continue to bear witness, so that later my future children will in turn become ambassadors of this memory.
The journalist who reports these remarks concludes: “Holocaust survivors need not worry: young people are taking over“. This is the objective of the authorities: to perpetuate the memory from generation to generation.
In 2006, commemorating the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, Israeli President Moshe Katsav stated:
Now that the stain of the Holocaust is etched into the soul of mankind forever, Yad Vashem is the faithful guardian of the path of memory for the Jewish people and all of humanity, for all time.
Technology to perpetuate memory
In order to achieve this objective, “Memory” is disseminated everywhere, partly thanks to new technologies. In Eure, a history professor announces:
We want a plaque for Jewish deportees from Eure to be placed in 2025 in Évreux. Next year, we would like to do podcasts, and we have the idea of creating a route around the city using QR codes.
The use of new technologies will make it possible to create “memory 2.0”. The Shoah Memorial explains this as follows:.
The Shoah Memorial, a participant in the field of education, wishes to initiate a debate on the issues of transmission 2.0
Writers, actors, influencers, historians, YouTubers, today have a vital role to play as transmitters of memory and spokespersons […]
By mobilizing influencer ambassadors of the young generation, through a unique 100% digital “infotainment” format, the Shoah Memorial confirms its ambition dynamically to move the lines, so as better to raise awareness among young and adolescent audiences.
Already, survivors have been filmed and reproduced in the form of holograms: not only can they repeat their testimony endlessly, but artificial intelligence coupled with voice recognition software allows people to ask questions and have them answered by these virtual people. Former deportees who have been dead for ages will therefore be able to continue transmitting “Memory”.
Memory: a propaganda weapon in the service of globalism
A teaching that is in no way neutral
But the authorities’ objective goes beyond the transmission of memories of the past. It is also — and above all — political: the authorities seek first and foremost to combat anti-Judaism. The author of an article entitled “Teaching the Shoah in a civic education approach” concludes:
This teaching, even very incomplete, of the Shoah within the framework of the civic education course […] goes beyond the issues of memory, the empowerment of future generations in the face of any new avatar of anti-Semitism being the main objective.
It is so obvious that the young recruits are aware of it. After hearing the testimony of Ginette Kolinka and visiting Auschwitz, a student from the Saint-Avold high school, Lother, declared:
She always encourages students to be the guardians of this memory which must never disappear. This is why we are committed to this project so that this memory never disappears and that Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism never take over .
Anti-Judaism is not the only target, however. The brochure Memory and history of the Shoah at school explains:
vigilance against the possible return of barbarism cannot be reduced to this corpus of knowledge and patiently built critical consciousness, which we call culture; we must also think differently about ‘otherness’, and understand cultural diversity as the very essence of humanity. An education open to the world, to outsiders and ‘otherness’ is one of the best defences against prejudice and racism.
Engaging young people under the banner of anti-racism
The final objective is therefore to use “Memory” to encourage anti-racism. The evidence abounds.
For the years 2023-2026, the “National Plan to combat racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination linked to origin” established by the DILCRAH (France’s Interministerial Delegation to Combat Racism, Anti-Semitism and Anti-LGBT Hate) provides for fifteen “flagship measures”. The first is the following:
Organise a historical or memorial visit linked to racism, anti-Semitism or anti-Gypsyism for each student during their schooling .
Beyond, therefore, the fight against anti-Judaism, “Memory” serves to recruit young people under the banner of anti-racism.
In this context, Auschwitz and Oradour are equally important. At the end of August 2020, after a revisionist inscription was painted on the Oradour Memory Center, the head of CRIF (the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions), Francis Kalifat, reacted by announcing:
There is no difference between a Holocaust denier and a denier of Oradour-sur-Glâne or a denier of another genocide. These are the same people who fuel Holocaust denial and who are entering this field today, which is a new development […] These same deniers are now attacking the very memory that constitutes the identity of France.
Train good anti-fascist democrats
Six years earlier, participating in the commemorations of the seventieth anniversary of the Oradour-sur-Glâne tragedy, Manuel Valls (then French Prime Minister) had declared:
Oradour represents a Europe that was to be destroyed to the finish, it is humanity that was to be murdered to the finish. And in this tomb of ruins that we have just visited, in this silence, the walls do not speak. They shout ! […] And behind these cries, those of the six hundred and forty-two victims, rise other cries, those of the millions of dead in the camps .
And Valls added:
Oradour is also a warning to keep fighting and never let ideologies of death flourish. We know it well, […] they have not disappeared […] Fanaticism, radicalism always have their leaders, their doctrines sowing the seeds of terror, to have no consideration for human life or civilian populations – and it is up to us, democracy, it is up to France to concede nothing, to leave no breach and to act with the greatest determination. Here and everywhere in Europe, in the entire world.
It is clear: from Oradour to Auschwitz, memories merge to give rise to anti-fascism and, beyond that, anti-racism. All this in the name of democracy. The authorities do not hide it. France’s Official Bulletin of National Education explains:
As part of its historical dimension, the teaching of the Shoah has a civic purpose and responds to a moral obligation. It is not just a question of transmitting memory and knowledge: we must give all students the elements of culture and reflection enabling them to reject all forms of racism and discrimination and to understand that, contravening the Declaration of human and citizen rights, they make democracy impossible.
Memory is therefore a tool intended to format young people in order to transform them into good democrats.
Building a morality of non-discrimination
Therefore, we will not be surprised to hear Amel, 16 years old, a young “memory-bearer”, declare on his return from Auschwitz:
It enriched me in terms of general culture, and also in a human sense, because it makes us understand the present; it’s the same as all other forms of racism, such as homophobia.
For its part, the Canopé network offers teachers educational materials to maintain “Memory” in order to fight against discrimination. They presents it as follows:
Implementing a memory project within your class or your school, building a collective memory, opening dialogue and getting students to reflect on republican values contributes preventing and fighting against discrimination.
Among the documents offered is a work entitled: Lessons of the Shoah. Its author, Gérard Rabinovitch, writes:
The purpose of this work is to attempt to outline – supported by facts exhumed, explored, recorded – how the Shoah, in its indelible lesson, calls for thoughtful perspective, alert syntheses, ethical warnings. It is not just a question of “duty to remember”, it is a question of taking stock of the fact that “Nazism constituted for the West a historical milestone and a transformative episode to which contemporary societies remain dependent”, as highlighted by the jurist and psychoanalyst Pierre Legendre.
The terrors of the 20th century, this “permanent liquidation machine” as the writer Imre Kertész calls it, mobilise historians as vigilantes of the facts; call upon political philosophy to rethink its founding questions. What is a good life? What is a good society? What is good collective action? They call for a non-soothing anthropology, demystified by evidence, and lucid by necessity.
We see that the Memory of the Shoah serves to build a morality, that of non-discrimination.
Hence the “gas chamber” placed at the centre of History. In a work intended to combat Marine Le Pen, we read:
as they indelibly mark the memory and consciousness of all humanity […] the gas chambers are at the centre of the History of the Second World War and at the centre of History.
In other words: the “gas chamber” is a heritage that all of humanity must embrace in the present, because it contributes to shaping consciences.
A repression which requires, on the other hand, mutual assistance
In such a context, the revisionists are quite naturally ranked among the main enemies to be fought. Gérard Rabinovitch writes:
Teaching the history of the Shoah, restoring the entirety of its facts, against the falsifiers, the deniers or the rhetorical boasts, is to do an educational work as well as a civic one.
But against revisionism, teaching remains insufficient; judicial repression must complete it. Under the title “Denying the Holocaust is a racist crime”, the vice-president of the Advisory Center for Jewish and Israeli Relations (CIJA), Richard Marceau, and his collaborator Emmanuelle Amar state:
Denying the Shoah is an indicator, yes, of hatred of the Jew. But it is also a troubling marker of radicalisation, for which society as a whole will one day inevitably pay the price. What begins with the Jews never ends with the Jews.
Hence the need, they conclude, to criminalise revisionism in order to protect all of society.
In Europe, this criminalisation is well advanced: many countries have adopted so-called anti-revisionist laws. The UK is among the exceptions. But by accepting my extradition, she sent a clear message: the island will not become a refuge for hunted revisionists. The relentless persecution endured by free researchers demonstrates the capital importance of the past.
I am living proof: compared to the means available to the guardians of “Memory”, I am destitute. Faced by their vocal pronouncements, I can only whisper. But this whisper is still too much. My opponents want to silence me as quickly as possible. If, truly, the past had no importance and if the official story offered all the guarantees of solidity, then such relentlessness would not exist.
Our adversaries fear revisionism because it endangers their weapons of political propaganda. By dedicating my life to the revisionist fight, I have certainly sacrificed a lot, including my family, but I fight for all the children of France and Europe, so that we stop instilling in them a false memory from which arises a morality favouring the poison of globalism. Thank you to those who support me in this mission.
Political establishment joins forces to promote ‘Holocaust’ cult
This week political leaders from across the party spectrum joined forces in Westminster to demand obeisance to the only religion that now has any significance for the international elite: the cult of Holocaustianity.
As regular readers will know, recent Tory governments (in response to insistent demands by the Zionist lobby) have been determined to build a vast ‘Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre’ in Victoria Tower Gardens, a park adjacent to the Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey.
This month a parliamentary report on the project said that its costs (originally estimated at £50 million) could rise to more than £150 million.
Undaunted, Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron addressed a cross-party gathering this week and insisted: “We will get it built, and when we get it built, it will be a lasting memorial, not just vital because of what it commemorates, but vital because of what it educates.”
Will this grandiose project truly be dedicated to “education”? Will it promote serious research into the ‘Holocaust’ – research and questioning that is already illegal in many European countries?
Or will it further entrench the approach implied by the recent judgment of Scotland’s highest court when extraditing dissident scholar Vincent Reynouard to France? The judge in the Reynouard case ruled that raising difficult questions about the ‘Holocaust’ and related subjects could be deemed “grossly offensive” under Scottish (and by extension one can assume also English) law.
All this is a long way from the approach of a previous Conservative Foreign Secretary, Lord Carrington, who in response to earlier demands from British Jews for a much smaller Holocaust memorial wrote: “The whole idea is preposterous.”
Carrington’s senior advisers at the Foreign Office summarised the arguments in an aide memoire drawn up for his meeting to discuss the proposed memorial with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher:
“Why a memorial to Holocaust after 35 years? Is real motive political? Concerned at use made of Holocaust by present Israeli government to justify unacceptable policies and pillory European peace efforts unjustifiably.”
One might think that in the light of current events, such objections are even more valid in 2024 than they were in the early 1980s.
H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton researched this entire subject in considerable detail and presented a report to the Westminster City Council planning enquiry into the present proposals.
This enquiry decided against the ‘Memorial’, and a court judgment later ruled against the Government.
Adding yet further expense to the project, subsequent Tory governments have pressed ahead and forced through a change in the law, overriding both the courts and Westminster City Council.
No one can be in any doubt as to who rules Britain in 2024. The vast ‘Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre’ deliberately dominates the scene alongside some of Britain’s most historic buildings. Only one people and their self-serving version of history now matters – and it’s not the British people.
London publisher defies the censors
Just weeks after Scotland’s most senior judge threatened the backdoor criminalisation of ‘Holocaust’ revisionism, a new UK-based publishing venture has defied the international forces of censorship and fraud.
The Academic Research Media Review Education Group (ARMREG) was created at the end of last year and has already published the Holocaust Encyclopaedia, mainly written by the German scientist Germar Rudolf.
Now ARMREG has issued an updated edition of Arthur Butz’s revisionist classic The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, first published in 1975.
Prof. Butz is now 90 years old and earlier this year he was awarded the Robert Faurisson International Prize.
His book was central to a wave of revisionism during the late 1970s, challenging the orthodox tale that six million Jews had been murdered in unique and apparently inexplicable homicidal gas chambers, on the presumed orders of Adolf Hitler.
Together with his near-contemporary Prof. Robert Faurisson, Arthur Butz laid the intellectual foundations for a later generation of revisionists whose leading lights include Germar Rudolf and Vincent Reynouard.
In many European countries, the work of these revisionists is criminalised. Today the 95-year-old German publisher and educator Ursula Haverbeck faces further imprisonment for daring to express some of the questions raised by Butz, Faurisson, and Judge Wilhelm Stäglich.
What Faurisson termed the “great intellectual adventure” of revisionism continues. The Real History blog will discuss the ARMREG publishing enterprise again soon, and their work will be featured in the July edition of H&D.
Readers can be assured that we shall never surrender to the wealth and influence of the Holocaustian lobby, no matter what repression is attempted by the courts and by tame politicians.
Real history took another step forward this month when our assistant editor Peter Rushton published a groundbreaking investigation of Mossad’s 1961 plot to kidnap the Belgian national socialist leader and war hero Léon Degrelle.
Click here to read Peter’s report, which also raises further questions about IRA commander Martin McGuinness and his relationship with the British intelligence services, and for the first time identifies a Mossad veteran who was part of the plot to kidnap Degrelle. This conspirator is still living in the USA and is a friend of Hillary Clinton.
Codename CROOK – how a leading “anti-nazi” spied for Moscow
A new article on the Real History blog describes how one of the earliest “Holocaust” propagandists was a corrupt congressman – Sam Dickstein – who acted as a paid agent of the Soviet intelligence service NKVD (later KGB).
(H&D readers will have seen a passing reference to Dickstein’s espionage as part of a book review in Issue 118 of the magazine.)
Dickstein also sold his congressional influence as chairman of the House Immigration Committee to obtain US permanent residence visas, in return for a $1,000 bribe in each case.
During the 1930s and 1940s he was a prominent lobbyist for Jewish causes, both “anti-Nazi” and anti-British, including support for propaganda operations run by the terrorist Irgun’s representative in the USA.
At a time when “anti-fascist” lobbyists are again trying to abuse immigration laws, both to allow floods of non-European migrants and to deny European patriots – notably our European correspondent Isabel Peralta – the right to travel, it seemed the right time to tell the strange history of Soviet spy and Zionist criminal, Congressman Sam Dickstein.
Click here for the full story.
The great historian David Irving is seriously ill
Readers will have heard rumours for some months that the great historian David Irving is seriously ill. This morning a statement from his family confirmed the sad news that Mr Irving now requires 24-hour nursing care and is no longer able to continue the work that has transformed our understanding of 20th century history.
David Irving, who will be 86 next month, published his first book The Destruction of Dresden in 1963. In this and many subsequent works – based on the groundbreaking study of archival documents as well as interviews with central participants in the events of the Second World War, and access to private letters and diaries – he earned both the wrath of ‘official’ propagandists and the gratitude of readers worldwide.
In this essay from 2022 our assistant editor Peter Rushton showed how the MI6-linked propaganda agency IRD worked with the Churchill family in efforts to discredit David Irving’s work during the late 1960s and 1970s. They employed the same agent who more than three decades earlier had concocted a campaign of lies against Adolf Hitler during the future Führer‘s election campaigns!
David Irving’s family are appealing for help from his many readers worldwide, so as to ensure that he is able to live with the dignity he deserves at this difficult time of his life, and that his life’s work is preserved for future generations.
Please click here for details of how you can help this great historian and his family.
Vincent Reynouard faces extradition with courage and confidence in the future of revisionism
The French revisionist scholar Vincent Reynouard, who has been held in Edinburgh prison since his arrest in November 2022, will be extradited to France next week after it became clear that there was no further avenue of appeal. (The photo above shows the late Richard Edmonds presenting Vincent with the Robert Faurisson International Prize 2020.)
As we reported a few days ago, Scotland’s most senior judge rejected Vincent’s appeal after a hearing at Edinburgh’s High Court of Justiciary. Although Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom, the UK Supreme Court in London has no jurisdiction in his case.
Vincent Reynouard issued a statement at his blog yesterday. (English translation below)
The news of my upcoming extradition having spread, correspondents wrote to me to tell me that I must be disappointed and undoubtedly demoralised. I thank them and reassure them: I am neither.
When, on the evening of January 26th, a fellow inmate informed me that Scottish television had announced the High Court’s decision, I was making a watercolour for the widow of the revisionist Carlos Porter. After asking my informant a few questions, I quietly got back to work.
Disappointment and demoralisation are consequences of our personal desires. Now, personally, I don’t want anything. I fulfil my mission by spreading revisionism. When I physically die, I will be rewarded for it.
For their part, do my contemporaries deserve the truth? If so, then I will see my work bear fruit. Otherwise, the seeds sown will germinate after my death, or perhaps never. I can’t do anything about it; It’s God’s business, not mine.
Here in Edinburgh Prison, my life has not changed one bit. In the calm of my cell, I write, I read, I draw and I meditate. Far from appearing as a fearsome spectre, the upcoming extradition presents itself as a simple door opening onto the future, a continuation which, if the ordeals are experienced positively, will prove enriching. Hence my serenity.
Last thing: according to the BBC, the High Court magistrates stressed that in the current context, all my videos were “grossly offensive” to all citizens of a modern society. Proof of the importance of World War II revisionism: it leaves no one indifferent. I had noted this for a long time. For revisionism, it is a great victory. So why would I be disappointed or demoralized?
Thank you to you who support me.
Vincent Reynouard
Both at H&D and at our assistant editor’s Real History Blog, we shall continue to report on Vincent’s case, and on the broader revisionist struggle. It appears that the UK is to be the new frontline for attempts to criminalise revisionism. If so, our enemies should be warned that there will be no surrender.
Backdoor criminalisation of revisionism confirmed by Scotland’s most senior judge
This afternoon in Edinburgh the President of the Court of Session, Lord Carloway, rejected the appeal against extradition to France of Vincent Reynouard, the exiled scholar whom Parisian courts seek to jail for his research questioning orthodox history of the ‘Holocaust’ and the ‘massacre at Oradour’.
Regular readers of H&D and the Real History blog will be familiar with the background to the case. Vincent was arrested in the Scottish fishing village of Anstruther in November 2023 and has been held in Edinburgh jail for the past fourteen months, despite not being charged (let alone convicted) of any crime under UK law.
France is one of many European countries which criminalise any historical and scientific research questioning the orthodox version of the ‘Holocaust’: the alleged murder of six million Jews in presumed homicidal gas chambers during the Second World War. But Parliament has deliberately avoided passing any such law in the UK. Instead, UK courts – including now Lord Carloway, Scotland’s most senior judge – are engaged in a cowardly criminalisation of revisionism via abuse of other laws such as the Communications Act, and via abuse of the extradition process.
This conveniently avoids any parliamentary debate on the merits of the revisionist case. Though the historicity of the ‘Holocaust’ was not a legal point at issue during the trial, and though he has not indicated any competence of his own on historical matters, Lord Carloway assumes the right to declaim on “the patent falsehood” of Vincent’s work. Lord Carloway makes statements about the Auschwitz death toll and about the notorious ‘confession’ of camp commandant Rudolf Höss, though no expert witness testimony was adduced at any stage of Vincent’s extradition process about these matters.
Lord Carloway does not himself claim personal expertise in 20th century history and does not indicate that he has carried out even a single hour of documentary research on such topics. Notably he relies on the Höss ‘confession’. In what other case would Lord Carloway be happy for a Scottish court to rely on a ‘confession’ obtained by torture and blackmail, or on submissions concerning the scene of the crime that were provided by the Kremlin’s military and intelligence services?
The version of history laid down by the Nuremberg trial – instituted by the victors of the Second World War, and largely based on ‘evidence’ by a Kremlin-controlled ‘commission’ – is protected in France by the ‘Gayssot Law’ enacted in 1990, appropriately enough on the initiative of a French Communist MP allied to a millionaire Jewish socialist.
This ‘Gayssot Law’ was designed to criminalise the work of the pioneering revisionist scholar Professor Robert Faurisson, who though born in Shepperton, West London, to a Scottish mother and French father, lived and taught in France throughout his adult life, latterly as Professor of French Literature at the University of Lyon.
From the mid-1970s until the day before his death in 2018, Professor Faurisson wrote and published detailed research into the alleged ‘gas chambers’, summarising his conclusions in a famous sentence:
“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the State of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”
It is a curious coincidence that the Court of Session judgment rejecting Vincent Reynouard’s appeal was delivered one day after Professor Faurisson’s birthday, and a few hours before what has in recent years become a worldwide festival of historical ‘remembrance’ – Holocaust Memorial Day. In 1995 Faurisson directly addressed “Auschwitz: the facts and the legend” in an essay now available online at the Robert Faurisson website.
Vincent Reynouard spoke at the conference in October 2018 – organised by H&D in Shepperton, the Professor’s birthplace – at which Robert Faurisson gave his final speech, a day before his death. Vincent (who was awarded the Robert Faurisson International Prize in 2020) is today’s leading representative of the Faurissonian tradition of scholarly re-examination of the ‘Holocaust”s evidential basis, while the courts (both in Paris and now sadly in Edinburgh) have abandoned scrutiny of evidence and now prefer to genuflect in submission to ‘Holocaustianity’.
Most of the Western world has moved away from organised religion, but ‘Holocaust’ memorialisation has become a pseudo-religion, with Auschwitz-Birkenau as its Calvary and anti-revisionist legislation as the new blasphemy laws.
Though the UK has no such laws, Lord Carloway affirms in his judgment that Vincent’s online publications are extraditable offences because they can be deemed “grossly offensive” under s.127 of the Communications Act 2007. This is an updating for the internet age of a law originally designed to criminalise obscene telephone calls.
In this instance, the law has been stretched to cover offending “members of the Jewish and other communities whose members perished at Auschwitz and Birkenau. The same applies to those living with the memory of Oradour. It is not necessary to be a member of the relevant communities to be grossly offended by such statements; any reasonable person would be.”
Lord Carloway makes the dire implications clear: “Although it is not an offence to hold these views and, in certain contexts, to express them, it is a breach of section 127 of the 2007 Act to communicate them to the public on the internet.”
By Lord Carloway’s implication, online revisionism is to be deemed criminal in the UK, even when expressed in scholarly terms, and even without a specific parliamentary statute.
This is a blatant attack on fundamental human rights: an attack on the basic principles not only of UK law but of European civilisation’s accepted intellectual standards.
We shall report soon on the next stage in the fight for Vincent Reynouard’s freedom and the fight for real history.
