German patriots campaign: “Free political dissidents”

On a cold, wet and windy Saturday (16th March 2019) the spirits of German nationalists and campaigners for Truth in History were high as they held a successful public rally in the centre of the historic German city of Brandenburg. Richard Edmonds reports.

Ursula Haverbeck in discussion with her lawyer Wolfram Nahrath during court proceedings in November 2016

On a cold, wet and windy Saturday (16th. March 2019) the spirits of German nationalists and campaigners for Truth in History were high as they held a successful public rally in the centre of the historic German city of Brandenburg. Richard Edmonds reports. Standing in the public square amongst crowds of shoppers, with the trams rattling past and with a hundred Lefties positioned just across the street, some forty strong Nationalists campaigned for the release of German patriots jailed for questioning the so-called “Holocaust”. From the nationalist ranks, speaker after speaker denounced the injustice of jailing men and women for the “crime” of asking questions. The high point of our demonstration came when one of the young women supporters read out the message written by the brave Ursula Haverbeck. Frau Ursula Haverbeck recently “celebrated” her ninetieth birthday in her prison cell in Bielefeld jail. Last year Frau Haverbeck was sentenced to multiple years of imprisonment. Her “offence” ? She had asked, Did the “Holocaust” really take place ? The success of our demonstration was confirmed when the local regional television in its evening news programme reported on our “Free political dissidents” campaign. The TV station showed a still photo (above) of our activity together with the broadcast of a two minute rant made by the City mayor (“Christian-Democrat”) happily standing amongst the antifa counter-protesters.

The veteran British Nationalist, Richard Edmonds, took part in the demonstration. Herewith the translation of his contribution:

Richard Edmonds addresses last weekend’s demonstration in Brandenburg

Dear German friends, my name is Richard Edmonds. I am British.

A few years back a group of us travelled to Brandenburg-Havel in order to show solidity with you at the rally that was held in support of Horst Mahler. Mahler had been locked up in the Brandenburg jail for disputing the so-called “Holocaust”. It is appalling that years later this man who lives for the Truth and who campaigns for the Honour of Germany should be still locked up in prison. The man is 83 years of age, he is suffering from Diabetes, as a result of which both feet have had to be amputated; and still he is not released.

When we were previously here, one of the speakers on behalf of Mahler was the very brave Ursula Haverbeck. Now the ninety year-old Frau Haverbeck is herself in jail in the Bielefeld prison. We all know that the Heroine Ursula Haverbeck has campaigned untiringly for years for the Truth and for the Honour of Germany.

And so have many others. For example, the lady-lawyer, Frau Sylvia Stolz was also jailed for years in the German Federal Republic, because she too campaigned for Justice and Honour. Frau Stolz was the Defence-lawyer for the German-Canadian, Ernst Zundel, who in the year 2003 was accused in the German courts of “Holocaust”-denial. Zundel’s trial became notorious: the judge in the case, Dr. Ulrich Meinerzhagen, found himself obliged in open court to announce that, and I quote: ”It is completely irrelevant whether the Holocaust took place or not. Denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offence and that is all that matters in this court.” As a result of her energetic defence of her client, Ernst Zundel, Frau Stolz was condemned to several years of imprisonment. Zundel himself was jailed for five years at the Mannheim prison. The pair of them are Heroic patriots.

(left to right) Günter Deckert, Sylvia Stolz, and Lady Michèle Renouf following the release of Frau Stolz from a prison sentence

The former senior-school teacher, Gunter Deckert, was condemned to years of imprisonment because he too campaigned and campaigns for the Honour of Germany. The case of Gunter Deckert reveals exactly what is at stake here: in its commentary to Deckert’s case, the major German newspaper, the Frankfuther Allegemeine Zeitung wrote, and I quote:

“Were Deckert’s view (interpretation, understanding, grasp = ‘Auffassung’ in the origin) of the Holocaust to be correct, then it would follow that the German Federal Republic would be based on a lie. Every speech made by the President of the Republic, every commemorative minute’s silence, every history book, would be based on a lie. In so far as Deckert denies the murder of the Jews, he challenges the legitimacy of the German Federal Republic.” Frankfurther Allgemeine Zeitung of August 1994.

Dear Friends, I would like to say here that you are not alone. World-wide you have admirers for your campaign for the historical Truth. For example, the British historian, David Irving, had to stand trial in Vienna for what Irving had said earlier about the Auschwitz camp. Irving was condemned by the Austrian court to three years’ imprisonment. Last year in London, the world-famous French historian, Professor Robert Faurisson gave an hour-long talk before a large and enthusiastic audience over his epoch-making research into the “Holocaust”.

As a guest here in Germany, I cannot do more than quote the former judge of the German Constitutional court, Judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem: “I would not make Holocaust-denial a criminal offence,”: Judge Hoffmann-Riem, as quoted in the Tagesspiegel of the 10th. July 2008.

Finally, friends, as a foreigner here I can only say that one bows the head before such German Heriones and Heroes who have had to suffer for years because of their love for their Fatherland.

Farage party leader quits over ‘racism’ – despite being married to a Jamaican!

Catherine Blaiklock, who resigned today as nominal leader of Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party

The latest weird development in post-UKIP politics involves Catherine Blaiklock, a former UKIP economic spokesman who is the official registered leader of the ‘Brexit Party’.

It has been widely assumed that this party was created as a vehicle for Nigel Farage’s return to frontline politics, following Mr Farage’s resignation from UKIP and on the assumption that he might need a party of his own to contest European Parliamentary elections in the event of Brexit being postponed or cancelled.

In common with UKIP and its various splinter groups, Farage has always insisted that former BNP activists and other ‘racists’ would always be excluded from his movement.

Assisting this ‘anti-racist’ agenda, it was helpful that Ms Blaiklock was herself married to a black Jamaican, and had previously been married to a Nepalese Sherpa!

Mark Collett speaking at the 2017 John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in Preston

Yet today Ms Blaiklock has been forced to resign for ‘racism’. Her crime seems to have been to retweet messages by former BNP activist Mark Collett, who was a speaker at H&D‘s John Tyndall Memorial Meeting in 2017.

What will be the next fake outrage? Have we really reached the stage where it is unacceptable for anyone in mainstream politics to address racial issues? If so then mainstream politicians are in for a few surprises.

Immigration surges after Brexit referendum

Many of those who voted in 2016’s referendum for the UK to leave the European Union believed that this would lead to a rapid reduction in immigration. A continuing debate ensued for example in the pages of H&D between keen Brexit campaigners (who broadly believed that leaving the EU would be a major blow against the multiracialist establishment) and more sceptical racial nationalists, some of whom feared that Brexit would actually worsen our country’s racial problems.

This week official statistics confirmed the sceptics’ worst fears. It is now apparent that almost from the moment of the 2016 referendum, net immigration from EU countries began to fall. In fact there is net emigration from the UK to the Central and Eastern European nations known as the EU8: i.e. Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

However there has been a sharp rise in net immigration from outside the EU, not only increasing numbers of university students (especially from China) but other immigrants from Africa and Asia. Prime Minister Theresa May’s office actually boasted that this increase in immigration was a positive sign!

Conservative-dominated governments for the past nine years have consistently stated their aim to reduce annual net immigration to below 100,000. If achieved, that would take us back to the start of the Blair / ‘New Labour’ era in 1997, when net immigration was 50,000.

Don’t forget that even then, there would be tens of thousands more people arriving in the UK than leaving, and these immigrants would be constantly adding to our existing non-British population.

Shockingly, none of those Conservative-led governments since 2010 has got anywhere near even their modest 100,000 immigrant target. The most recent figures for the year ending June 2018 show net immigration of 273,000.

And of these an increasing proportion are non-Europeans. In that same 12 month period, the number of non-EU citizens who are in the UK on a long term basis rose by 248,000, whereas the same figure for EU citizens was 74,000.

A very large number of the new arrivals are from India.

The UK faces an ever more dangerous demographic time bomb, and this crisis has been worsened by the Brexit process (so far).

Social conservative split rocks Irish republicanism

Peadar Toibin, formerly of Sinn Fein, now leader of a new socially conservative party

The Republic of Ireland has no electorally credible racial nationalist, or even eurosceptic nationalist party. In 2014 the big story here was Sinn Féin’s success in gaining three MEPs with 19.5% of the vote. This year Ireland’s European parliamentary representation will increase from 11 to 13 MEPs, so Sinn Féin (political arm of the terrorist IRA) will almost certainly retain these three seats.

However Sinn Féin is now being challenged by social conservatives, who take a leftwing stance on economics and remain committed to taking Ulster into the Irish Republic, but are disgusted by their leaders’ new liberal policies on issues such as abortion.

Co Tyrone councillor Rosemarie Shields is among the new party’s recruits from SDLP

At the start of 2019 a Sinn Féin member of the Irish Parliament, Peadar Toibin defected to set up a new conservative nationalist party called Aontú (which means ‘Unity’ or ‘Consent’). Some see this party as a desperate last stand by a dying Catholic establishment, but it has already attracted a few defections from either side of the Irish border.

Mr Toibin is a business consultant and graduate of University College Dublin, and had been a Sinn Fein activist since his student days. He says that about one-third of the new party’s supporters come from Fianna Fail, Ireland’s second-largest party and successor to the tradition of the country’s first independent leader Eamon de Valera. North of the border recruits have also come from Sinn Fein’s declining rival the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), including a councillor in County Tyrone.

The latest defector to Aontú is Sinn Fein councillor for Central Craigavon, Fergal Lennon, who told the media: “My former party has lost contact with the grassroots and no longer represents the best interest of the electorate, choosing instead to put media sound bites in place of real action.”

Craigavon councillor Fergal Lennon is the latest defector from Sinn Fein to the new party

Arguably the roots of this split date back to the late 1960s when the Provisional IRA was formed. This rejected the old-fashioned Marxism of the ‘Official IRA’: instead of waiting and building towards a proletarian revolution, the Provisionals were determined to escalate a brutal terrorist war against the hated Brits.

Yet on the other hand these same Provisionals increasingly identified themselves with Third World ‘liberation movements’, and eventually with the entire gamut of trendy delusions ranging from feminism, through abortion rights, gay marriage, multiracialism and no doubt now ‘transgender’ rights.

For many years Sinn Fein / IRA disguised these leftist/liberal affiliations from their American donors, since most of the latter were old-fashioned nationalists with a romantic attachment to traditional Irish culture, and in most cases devout Roman Catholics.

Now the chickens have come home to roost. Emboldened by a decade of scandals that have undermined church authority, militant left/liberal secularists have openly taken control of Sinn Fein’s agenda.

The new Aontú party is an effort to reconnect Irish republicanism with its traditional roots: it will be interesting to see whether Sinn Fein’s hegemony (that has been consolidated over the past half century) will now be challenged.

There is also a new party called Irexit campaigning for Ireland to leave the European Union, but it’s not yet clear whether this will be officially registered in time to contest this year’s elections. In Ireland (unlike the UK) at least 300 registered members are required before a party is officially recognised to appear on ballot papers.

Ending the “reign of egoism”: Tolkien and Le Pen’s granddaughter

Dr Joseph Pearce, now a Roman Catholic scholar in the USA but probably better known to most H&D readers for his days as a young NF activist and Bulldog editor in the 1980s, has just published a preview of the forthcoming film Tolkien.

Not without reason, Dr Pearce speculates that the new film will amount to “Wormtongue’s revenge”, and will seek to impose homosexual/bisexual themes that have nothing to do with Tolkien’s life and work.

H&D is not a religious journal and we do not concern ourselves with questions of personal morality or the private lives of individuals.

However it is interesting to read Dr Pearce’s article in the context of last year’s speech by Marion Maréchal Le Pen (granddaughter of French National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen) to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an event where H&D used to be represented before the usual suspects ensured that our editor Mark Cotterill was excluded from the USA!

Marion Maréchal (as she now likes to be known to avoid confusion with her aunt Marine Le Pen), presented a challenge to Anglo-American conservative assumptions, which for at least the past couple of centuries have tended to be based on individualism.

Denouncing what she termed the “reign of egoism”, she pointed out:

“Today, even children have now become merchandise. We hear now in the public debate, we have the right to order a child from a catalog, we have the right to rent a woman’s womb, we have the right to deprive a child of a mother or father. No you don’t! A child is not a ‘right’. Is this the freedom that we want? No. We don’t want this atomized world of individuals without gender, without fathers, without mothers, and without nation.”

Analysing this CPAC speech for The American Conservative, Rod Dreher suggested that the contrast between Marion Maréchal’s speech and individualist philosophy normally encountered in such circles emphasised “how very, very Protestant most American conservatism is”, and that “even American Catholics are a lot more Protestant in how they think politically than they realize”. He also linked to an earlier commentary on the same speech by Michael Brendan Dougherty for National Review.

One doesn’t have to be a Catholic – or even a Christian – to get their point, nor does one have to be a racial nationalist. These ideas would be familiar academically to anyone who has read the works of Max Weber or R.H. Tawney (the latter was an Anglo-Catholic socialist).

Tolkien of course was a lifelong Catholic, and one of the underlying themes of The Lord of the Rings is the rejection of selfish power-seeking in favour of traditional community values – the values of the Shire as opposed to the values of Mordor.

H&D readers will justifiably fear that such values will either be absent or treated with postmodern contempt in the forthcoming Tolkien film.

Veteran journalist admits immigration ‘taboo’

John Sergeant

John Sergeant – one of Britain’s best known political journalists – has admitted that immigration was for decades treated as a ‘taboo’ subject by the journalistic establishment.

Sergeant worked for the BBC for thirty years, latterly as chief political correspondent from 1992 to 2000, and was political editor of their rival ITN from 2000 to 2002.

Writing in the Radio Times, he acknowledged:

“In my years [at] the BBC and ITV, I was fully aware of the immigration taboo. There is an old journalistic rule that says ‘if in doubt, leave it out’ and, looking back, we were guilty of not encouraging more serious debate on this subject.”

Sergeant added:

“At least we could try to reduce personal attacks on the integrity of those who put forward the case for a proper system of immigration control. It is not racist to talk openly about this subject.

“It is yet another difficult issue that we have to grapple with. And if we fail to do so, this country and our democracy will suffer for many years to come. But as with all serious political issues, brushing it under the carpet is also dangerous and it leads to widespread misunderstandings that we fail to address at our peril.”

Chabloz succeeds in criminalising ‘Holocaust denial’

‘Sophie Johnson’ and Alison Chabloz – Hope not Hate informants – celebrating the criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’ this week.

Yesterday in Southwark Crown Court, Alison Chabloz was again found guilty of posting “grossly offensive” YouTube videos, in contravention of the Communications Act 2003. This reaffirmed the verdict of District Judge John Zani, sitting last May in Marylebone Magistrates Court, who had found Chabloz guilty on three charges of “sending grossly offensive communications via a public communications network”.

This week Judge Christopher Hehir, sitting alongside magistrate Mena Rego (a Kenyan Asian immigrant and Roman Catholic school governor), reimposed exactly the same sentence as Judge Zani had passed last year: a 20-week suspended prison sentence, plus 180 hours of unpaid “community service”, plus a 12 month ban from social media.

So for Ms Chabloz, the outcome of her “appeal” (actually a full retrial of the facts, rather than an appeal on points of law), was unchanged. She (or rather her donors) will probably face a heavy costs bill for having pursued an unsuccessful retrial – especially after the prosecution instructed a QC for this retrial – but otherwise exactly the same verdict and sentence.

For UK historical revisionists and political activists, however, this week’s Crown Court judgment is far more serious.

That’s because the earlier court judgment could not set a precedent: it applied only to Ms Chabloz’s particular case. Richard Edmonds warned in an article for the Heritage & Destiny website published on January 2nd – ‘Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door’. Mr Edmonds’ warning has been fully vindicated this week.

He wrote:
“This is not the case with the findings of a Crown Court. It is not impossible that should in February Ms. Chabloz lose her appeal at Southwark Crown Court, then her case, involving as it does elements of the so-called ‘Holocaust’, could be used as a legal precedent to launch criminal prosecutions against Historical revisionists by the back-door, so to speak, in the absence of any formal laws in Britain banning ‘Holocaust’-denial.”

Lady Michèle Renouf, Richard Edmonds and Dr James Thring commemorating the Dresden Holocaust.

Mr Edmonds (and H&D) were severely criticised for these observations. Ms Chabloz’s right-hand-woman – a Hungarian lady who uses the name ‘Sophie Johnson’ – sent Mr Edmonds an impertinent email calling him a “dotard” who had produced “stupid burblings” and “ugly bile”.

Yet the outcome this week has been precisely as Mr Edmonds warned.

Within hours of the verdict Zionist lobbyist Gideon Falter, a law graduate who founded the Campaign Against Antisemitism which began the case against Ms Chabloz, issued a triumphant statement:
“The decision sets a new precedent in British law. The case effectively delivered a landmark precedent verdict on incitement on social media and on whether the law considers Holocaust denial to be “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal when used as a means by which to hound Jews.”

For more than thirty years, Jewish lobby groups have been frustrated that the UK has stood apart from a general European trend towards criminalising ‘Holocaust’ revisionism, which they like to term ‘Holocaust denial’. In one form or another, most European countries outlaw the expression or publication of views which dare to question the established historical orthodoxy: that six million Jews were killed, mostly in homicidal gas chambers and mostly in concentration camps, during the Second World War, on the orders of Adolf Hitler and other senior figures in Germany’s National Socialist government.

Professor Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter were targetted by London’s Jewish lobbyists in 1991.

In November 1991 for example – as revealed last month by H&D – a British government document prepared for then Prime Minister John Major in advance of a confidential meeting with leaders of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, stated that Anglo-Jewish leaders were wishing to prevent a visit to London by leading revisionists Prof. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter. The document added:
“they are concerned that the UK may become the focal point for holocaust revisionism because of its being outlawed in other European countries and because the American revisionist organisation, The Institute of Historical Review, is facing financial problems.”

Fred Leuchter was duly arrested and deported from the UK, but there was no legal means of excluding Prof. Faurisson (a dual French-British citizen), and despite continual lobbying there has never been any anti-revisionist law in this country.

In 2008 there was an attempt to ban revisionism via the backdoor method of the European Arrest Warrant system. German authorities issued an EAW leading to the arrest of Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Toben, who was seized from a plane while in transit at London’s Heathrow airport and locked up in Brixton prison awaiting extradition to Germany, where he would have faced imprisonment for ‘crimes’ that are not illegal in this country.

After the last-minute mobilisation of a legal team by Lady Michèle Renouf (acting on timely information from Dr David Duke) the authorities’ attempt to extradite Dr Toben was blocked. This meant it was impossible for European courts to extradite Bishop Richard Williamson or other historical revisionists living in Britain, such as the French author Vincent Reynouard.

Solicitor Kevin Lowry-Mullins outside the City of London Magistrates’ Court during the successful action to overturn a European Arrest Warrant against Dr Fredrick Toben in 2008.

During parliamentary discussion of the European Arrest Warrant system, several well-informed members of the House of Lords had criticised European laws restricting free historical research. Israeli-funded lobbies realised it would be difficult to pass a UK version of such laws through Parliament, and that even making the attempt might cause unwelcome scrutiny of the entire Holocaust story.

Time for Plan B.

In the UK, law can be made either through Parliamentary statute or through case-law precedent. In most cases of Holocaust revisionism, it is difficult to obtain a conviction using the race laws, since they demand evidence either that the words concerned were intended to stir up racial hatred, or that in all the relevant circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up.

Sometimes an element of ‘Holocaust denial’ can be bundled in with a wider set of charges against a ‘racist’ publication, as was the case in 1998 when Nick Griffin and Paul Ballard were convicted at Harrow Crown Court for editing and publishing a magazine called The Rune. But in most cases this avenue would have little chance.

Jewish activists looked instead at the Communications Act, which is the latest version of a law dating back before the Second World War, and originally intended to criminalise “grossly offensive” telephone calls. There is a technical legal question as to whether this law even applies to the internet (and in particular to YouTube), but assuming prosecutors could succeed with that technical argument, all they needed was a form of historical revisionism that could plausibly be portrayed as “grossly offensive”.

Enter Alison Chabloz, a cruise-ship singer with no background in revisionism, or any other form of historical research. (Her political activism had previously been limited to the fringes of Corbynite Labour, and even there she could hardly be described as active or at all significant.)

A couple of Chabloz’s anti-Zionist songs were posted on YouTube in 2016, attracting complaints from the Campaign Against Antisemitism, a charity funded by Jews who believed their community’s leadership was too ‘soft’ on their enemies. CAA pursued a private prosecution, but at this early stage it seemed possible that the case could be won. Brave lawyers agreed to take on Chabloz’s defence, despite the pittance paid by legal aid and the bad publicity they would attract.

During 2017 and 2018 Chabloz repeatedly damaged her own defence, for example by uploading an additional song (while on bail) which was both non-revisionist, or even anti-revisionist, in singing about soap, lampshades and other long-discredited aspects of the Holocaust myth; and more blatantly “grossly offensive” within the meaning of the Communications Act, since the words suggested that one should wish that Jewish children had indeed been turned into soap, lampshades, etc.

As her trial proceeded early in 2018, Chabloz launched an extraordinary tirade against her own sole defence witness Peter Rushton. After she received a light sentence at Marylebone Magistrates, she decided to escalate the case at a higher legal level. The only thing this was likely to achieve was to establish a precedent that (in certain circumstances) criminalises Holocaust denial in the UK.

And so it has turned out, much to the delight of Gidon Falter and his backers. There was even a veteran of the 43 Group on hand in the public gallery to mark the occasion. (This was a Jewish criminal gang who specialised in violent attacks on British nationalist meetings in the late 1940s.)

Notorious Jewish gangster Jack Spot was among the Jewish thugs who attacked lawful British natonalist events in the 1930s and 1940s. A veteran of the ’43 Group’ gang was present to celebrate the Zionist victory in Southwark Crown Court this week.

So where do we now stand.

The good news is that this week’s judgment is not a blanket ban on Holocaust denial. Judge Hehir and his colleague write:
“it is important to bear in mind, as Mr Davies [Chabloz’s barrister Adrian Davies] understandably stresses, that there is no crime of Holocaust denial in this jurisdiction. Material which consists of or includes Holocaust denial can only found liability under section 127 [of the Communications Act] if it is grossly offensive. No type of speech, Holocaust denial included, can be characterised as grossly offensive per se: the question of whether particular speech is grossly offensive is always fact-specific.”

Later in the judgment, it is confirmed that:
“we emphasise that anti-Semitism is not a crime, just as Holocaust denial is not. Nor can the fact that somebody is a Holocaust denier or an anti-Semite prove that anything she writes or sings is grossly offensive. However her anti-Semitism and her attitude to the Holocaust are in our judgment highly relevant to her state of mind so far as her musical compositions are concerned.”

Jewish activist Deborah Lipstadt and her legal team celebrate after their partial legal victory over British historian David Irving in 2001

Here we move to the bad news. Where this week’s judgment does break new ground is in the bald statement:
“no tribunal of fact is required to proceed on the basis of absurdity or fiction. The Holocaust – by which we mean the systematic extermination of millions of people, predominantly though not exclusively Jews, by the forces of Nazi Germany and their collaborators, between 1941 and 1945 – happened. World War II is surely the best documented and most extensively studied period of modern history, and the Holocaust is one of the best documented aspects of that conflict, if not the best. A mass of evidence, of various kinds, attests to it. Moreover the Holocaust has been the subject of extensive judicial enquiry, from the Nuremberg Trials onwards, in a number of jurisdictions.”

This week’s judgment quotes the ruling in a civil rather than criminal judgment from 2001 (a libel case between British historian David Irving and his American critic Deborah Lipstadt) to the effect that:
“no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.”

Judge Hehir and his colleague for the first time enshrine this conclusion in a criminal judgment:
“We therefore take judicial notice of the fact that the Holocaust occurred. We agree with Mr Mulholland QC for the prosecution that the undoubted historical fact of the Holocaust represents part of the context in which these songs must be judged.”

The judgment will be closely analysed by lawyers in the coming weeks, and we should bear in mind that (so far) the precedent is ‘persuasive’ rather than ‘binding’. If the case proceeds further then on certain points of law a ‘binding’ precedent could be set, which would of course be even worse news!

However at first sight it seems that revisionists – even in the UK – have now been placed in one respect in an equivalent position to their German colleagues. Just as the German courts refuse even to consider revisionist arguments, a British criminal court now (for the first time) regards the “historical fact of the Holocaust” as “undoubted” – or as the German courts put it, “manifestly obvious”.

It has always been the case that revisionists (just like racial nationalists) have had to take care that their words would not be seen as likely to “incite racial hatred”.

But now the criminal bar has been substantially lowered. Revisionism no longer needs to incite hatred to be prosecutable, it can merely be “grossly offensive” – and it is accepted that anything deemed grossly offensive to Jews should be deemed by the law as grossly offensive to the general public.

The effect of the Chabloz case has therefore been to shift the goalposts considerably to the benefit of organised Jewry and International Zionism, and much to the detriment of free historical research. The only reason why any aspect of this case this has become a ‘persuasive’ legal precedent, endangering both native Britons and fugitive European revisionists, is that Ms Chabloz’s vanity (or worse) caused her to escalate the case above the level of Magistrates’ Court where it would otherwise have remained. Richard Edmonds (and the anonymous author of an article circulated in 2017 by Agence Bocage) are fully vindicated by this week’s developments.

Alison Chabloz and her chief crony ‘Sophie Johnson’, motivated by spite or perhaps something worse, acted as informants for the ‘antifascist’ organisation Hope not Hate, disrupting the final meeting addressed by the late Prof Robert Faurisson in his Shepperton birthplace last October. That disgusting betrayal already put them beyond the pale.

This week’s disaster is arguably even worse. Alison Chabloz has succeeded in criminalising revisionism (at least in certain circumstances). Those (including at one time ourselves at H&D) who have afforded her financial and other assistance should examine their consciences.

Robert Faurisson International Prize awarded to Ursula Haverbeck

On Friday 25th January 2019 in the historic city of Vichy, a lunch attended by sixty guests from around Europe commemorated the 90th birthday of the great scholar and brave champion of historical exactitude, Professor Robert Faurisson. That day would have been his 90th birthday.

Professor Faurisson died on 21st October last year, immediately after returning to Vichy from a conference in his birthplace of Shepperton, West London, hosted by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton, Lady Michèle Renouf, and Western Spring.

At the Vichy luncheon, Italian tenor and veteran of the Gaza flotilla Joe Fallisi (who organised the event), together with Professor Faurisson’s right-hand man Guillaume Nichols and Lady Renouf, awarded the inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize to the great German lady Ursula Haverbeck, heroine of the campaign for truth and justice.

Joe Fallisi and Lady Michèle Renouf (who together with Guillaume Nichols were the adjudicators for the 1st Robert Faurisson International Prize) present the award to Ursula Haverbeck’s Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath.

Frau Haverbeck, though 90 years old, is presently incarcerated in the German city of Bielefeld, serving a prison sentence of more than three years for the ‘crime’ of politely questioning historical orthodoxy.

For this reason, she was unable to travel to Vichy to collect the award in person, but was represented by her Berlin attorney Wolfram Nahrath.

Speakers at the luncheon included Jerôme Bourbon, editor of the journal Rivarol. We shall later publish an edited video of the Vichy event: exiled French revisionist Vincent Reynouard has already published his video report (click here to view – in French).

January 27th – an important anniversary in a Looking-Glass World

Throughout the Western world, anyone who switches on a radio or television today will be reminded incessantly that January 27th is an important memorial day.

But perhaps we should view today’s memorials in the context of Lewis Carroll, the great author whose birthday falls on this day. Alongside his most famous novels, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, Lewis Carroll is famous for his contributions to the genre of ‘literary nonsense’ in such poems as Jabberwocky and The Hunting of the Snark.

In Through the Looking-Glass, Alice meets Humpty-Dumpty.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master— that’s all.”

On January 27th, we can all reflect on who is master in today’s world, and who therefore dictates the content and meaning of ‘history’.

Some H&D readers will be familiar with procedures in European courtrooms that imitate the behaviour of the Queen of Hearts in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland:

“Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first–verdict afterward.”
“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!”
“Hold your tongue!” said the Queen, turning purple.
“I won’t!” said Alice.
“Off with her head!” the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.
“Who cares for you?” said Alice. (She had grown to her full size by this time.) “You’re nothing but a pack of cards!”

Through the 27th January Looking-Glass, Britons are required to pay a memorial tribute of unquestioning support for the State of Israel, and are required to forget that the Zionist project involved a brutal Jewish terrorist war against us.

Hence it is all the more important to remember Forgotten British Heroes who were for decades denied even the most basic memorial, as explained in the speech and film below at the FBHC event in 2017 remembering murdered Sergeants Clifford Martin and Mervyn Paice.

In the true spirit of source-critical historical enquiry, this film includes unique archive testimony which Lady Renouf secured by interviewing surviving British veterans of the Palestine campaign. (It was on January 27th 2001 that Lady Renouf had an advertisement published in the Times and Daily Telegraph which first prompted these veterans to reveal their previously unrecorded eye-witness testimony to her.)



Revealed: How Britain’s leading Jews lobbied Prime Minister to block Faurisson and Leuchter

Execution technology expert Fred Leuchter, who was arrested and deported from London in November 1991

Intense lobbying at the highest level of British politics was behind the official disruption of a revisionist meeting in November 1991, hosted at Chelsea Old Town Hall by the British historian David Irving with speakers including the late Prof. Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter.

The extent of this high-level lobbying can now be revealed after H&D accessed newly released documents from then Prime Minister John Major’s Downing Street files.

Prime Minister John Major with his Israeli counterpart Yitzhak Rabin during a 1995 visit to Jerusalem

During the summer of 1991 staff from the Board of Deputies of British Jews made informal contact with Major’s private secretary William Chapman to arrange a personal meeting with the Prime Minister, who had succeeded Margaret Thatcher at the end of 1990. This was followed by a letter on 5th September 1991 from the Board’s president, Judge Israel Finestein, requesting a meeting at which:
“there are a number of major issues which are of concern to the community and which we would like to raise with you, so that you and your colleagues in Government can be acquainted with the feelings of the Jewish community on these topics. The matters which I have in mind include, but are not confined to, such questions as the distribution of anti-Semitic literature in this country; the attitude of the authorities towards holocaust revisionist ‘historians’ (including those who seek to enter the United Kingdom from other countries in order to publicise their odious views)…”

At previous such meetings, Jewish leaders had prioritised matters affecting Israel and the treatment of Jews in the Soviet bloc: now, for the first time in the postwar records of such meetings, “anti-semitism” within the UK was the top priority, alongside historical revisionism. A meeting was arranged for November 19th at Downing Street.

This was in the context of British historian David Irving’s increasingly outspoken revisionism – Irving had published and contributed a foreword to a British edition of The Leuchter Report in 1989, based on research carried out at the alleged extermination camp complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau by American execution technology expert Fred Leuchter.

The revisionist critique of orthodox ‘Holocaust’ history had been gaining ground since the 1970s, largely thanks to the pioneering scholarship of the French expert in documentary analysis, Prof. Robert Faurisson, and the American Professor of electrical engineering Arthur Butz. During the 1980s revisionism attracted enormous publicity thanks to the work of the Institute for Historical Review in the USA, and especially due to the efforts of German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel, who faced multiple criminal trials in Canada and was eventually deported to Germany – spending a total of seven years in Canadian and German jails for the ‘crime’ of questioning historical orthodoxy.

Professor Faurisson in Paris for one of his many court appearances

Prof. Faurisson later summarised part of the revisionist case:
“…It is accurate to say that the Germans employed Zyklon (made from a base of hydrocyanic acid and in use since 1922) to safeguard the health, by disinfection, of large numbers of civilians, troops, prisoners, and internees. But they never used Zyklon in order to kill anyone, let alone put to death throngs of human beings at once; because of the draconian precautions for the use of hydrogen cyanide gas, the gassing of inmates as it is alleged to have been done at Auschwitz and other camps would, besides, have been fundamentally impossible.”
[see the obituary of Prof. Robert Faurisson in the current Jan-Feb 2019 edition of H&D]

In 1990 France had enacted a special law (known as the ‘Gayssot law’) designed to criminalise Faurisson’s work. The following year, a Downing Street document prepared for Prime Minister Major before his meeting with Jewish leaders conveyed the views of the Board of Deputies and the Conservative Friends of Israel:
“they are concerned that the UK may become the focal point for holocaust revisionism because of its being outlawed in other European countries and because the American revisionist organisation, The Institute of Historical Review, is facing financial problems.”

It was in this context that the Board of Deputies (backed by senior backbencher Sir John Wheeler, who chaired the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee) asked Major’s Home Secretary Kenneth Baker to use his powers to exclude Leuchter and Faurisson from coming to Britain as guests of Irving, who intended to put on a series of revisionist meetings.

The Downing Street files record:
“In the event, Faurisson could not be excluded because he holds dual French and British citizenship, and as a British citizen he has an unimpeded right in law to visit the United Kingdom. However, the Home Secretary decided that Leuchter should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that his presence here would not be conducive to the public good.”

The same considerations applied when Robert Faurisson made later visits to London – including 1998 when he addressed a meeting in Croydon organised by Paul Ballard before testifying for the defence at the trial of Mr Ballard and Nick Griffin; 2008 when he spoke at a meeting organised by Lady Michèle Renouf following the historic legal victory over the German government in a failed extradition case against Dr Fredrick Töben; and last year when he spoke at a meeting hosted by H&D in his native town of Shepperton the day before his death.

Kenneth Baker, the Home Secretary who ordered Fred Leuchter’s exclusion from the UK, seen here at a Tory Party conference with John Major’s predecessor Margaret Thatcher.

Even so, Downing Street officials were evidently concerned that the Board of Deputies intended to push for wider banning actions. They briefed the Prime Minister on what line to take in response:
“The Home Secretary may personally direct that an individual be excluded from the United Kingdom if his presence is deemed not to be conducive to the public good. This power is used very sparingly and only after the arguments in support of free speech have been very carefully weighed against those on the undesirability of giving a platform to objectionable views and the risk of public disorder. In the recent case of Leuchter the Home Secretary felt it would cause grievous offence both to the Jewish and non-Jewish community if he was admitted to the UK and, therefore, decided that he should be excluded.
“There is a particular policy objection to using the exclusion powers merely to suppress the voicing in the United Kingdom of views that are offensive, but not unlawful. There are a number of occasions on which the Home Secretary is asked by various pressure groups to ban the visit of a foreigner because it is felt that one or another section of society will be offended by his visit. It would be very undesirable if the Home Secretary were put in the position of repeatedly having to defend a decision either to exclude or not to exclude particular individuals on the basis of their views alone. There are good grounds, therefore, for confining the use of the exclusion powers to those circumstances where clear objective factors can be adduced in support of exclusion, such as risks to public order or a previous criminal background which makes an individual’s presence in the United Kingdom undesirable.”

The contradiction in Downing Street’s position is evident: while accepting it would be “very undesirable” to exclude people from the UK merely for expressing “offensive, but not unlawful” views, these same officials were happy to recommend the exclusion of Leuchter and (had it not been for his dual French-British citizenship) Faurisson as well. Neither of these gentlemen could be credibly presented as a threat to public order.

Judith Chaplin, head of the PM’s political office, minuted that the Jewish leaders were “not a group to be upset”

Perhaps part of the answer lies in a brief handwritten note buried in the midst of the newly released file. The head of the Prime Minister’s political office, Judith Chaplin, asked for her views on the forthcoming meeting with Jewish leaders, minuted: “my input would merely be: not a group to be upset because of party links.”

On January 19th five officials of the Board of Deputies led by Judge Finestein duly met with Prime Minister Major. According to official minutes now released to the National Archives: “Judge Finestein made it clear that the Board regarded the meeting as private; the members present would not talk to the Press afterwards.
“Judge Finestein expressed appreciation of the Government’s decision to keep Fred Leuchter out of the country. The board was of course concerned about the activities of M. Le Pen. Whenever Le Pen visited a foreign country, as in Madrid recently, he stirred up fascism in his wake. He hoped that the Government would encourage other European Governments to take a common line.”

Robert Faurisson speaking at the Chelsea meeting raided by London police on 15th November 1991.

Just four days before this Downing Street meeting, Metropolitan Police officers had raided a meeting at Chelsea Old Town Hall, chaired by David Irving, with speakers including Robert Faurisson and Fred Leuchter. The packed audience included BNP leader John Tyndall and his right-hand man Richard Edmonds, as well as H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Leuchter was ordered to leave the stage a few minutes into his speech, and was hauled off to a nearby police station where he was held overnight without charge, then deported on a flight back to the USA the following day.

A few weeks after this Chelsea meeting, French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen visited London where he addressed a dinner at the Charing Cross Hotel hosted by a conservative group called Western Goals, whose officials included the late Jonathan Bowden.

Some documents from police and security agencies are redacted from the published version of the government files. In relation to Jewish leaders’ concern over ‘anti-semitism’ in the UK the Prime Minister’s office was informed that:
“The Metropolitan Police Special Branch assess the threat to Jewish interests as low. We continue to monitor the position. Extreme right-wing organisations are not thought to pose a significant threat at this time because their attention and activities are focused more on localised racial issues and their long-term opposition to coloured immigration into the UK.”

Judge Israel Finestein, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews when they lobbied Prime Minister John Major in 1991

Special Branch listed what they described as the “main anti-semitic organisations” in the UK, but aside from the BNP, National Front and League of St George most of those listed were (to H&D‘s knowledge) little more than one-man bands or non-existent organisations invented as fronts for the distribution of certain literature.

The file highlights the successful prosecution of Lady Birdwood earlier that year, and an ongoing case against Colin Jordan, Britain’s best-known national socialist.

In addition to their specific concerns about revisionism, the Board of Deputies were lobbying at this time for further strengthening of Britain’s race laws, and had revived their call for a ‘group defamation’ law.

The next edition of H&D will contain a detailed analysis of this lobbying effort, exposing the continuing campaign by this powerful lobby group further to restrict Britons’ traditional liberties.

Neville Nagler

Unsurprisingly, part of the 1991 delegation to Downing Street was Neville Nagler, chief executive of the Board of Deputies, who in his earlier career as a Home Office civil servant had been partly responsible for the drafting of Britain’s developing race laws. Nagler was a prime example of the so-called ‘revolving door’ syndrome, where a politician or civil servant steps down from his role in government, only to re-enter the same public buildings as a lobbyist for special interest groups!

UPDATE: Fred Leuchter adds –

Fred Leuchter (right) with Robert Faurisson

I would like to comment on my stay in London that evening. I was removed by a very friendly police department (all wishing to shake the hand of a man who makes execution equipment) and was treated well by the station Superintendent whom personally conveyed my wife to the Chelsea station. I was allowed to remain in the lobby with my wife until the shift changed at Midnite.

The second shift Superintendent did not know what to do with me, but did not want me cluttering up his lobby. Thereafter, I was thrown into a cell with a psychopath who was in for assault, but who happened to like me. I was then removed to a cell with a petty thief for fear that I would be injured in the cell with the former.

At 2 AM I was removed by two of Her Majesty’s Immigration Officers who interrogated me under a hot bright light. It looked a scene from a B Movie. I was returned to my cell and returned for the “Third Degree” two more times. I requested to speak to the US Consul or Ambassador but was refused. Her Majesty’s Idiots taped everything.

At 6 AM I was again removed from my cell by a third Bureaucrat who advised me that he did not particularly like me but that my rights had been violated by the earlier interrogations and being held incommunicado. He told me that their plans were to deport me to France (after 18 days) who would deport me to Belgium (after 18 days) who would deport me to Germany (after 18 days) who would finally deport me the USA (after 18 days). Apparently International Law allowed me to be held for 18 days for investigation.

The new Her Majesty’s agent was really upset when he heard the tapes of my interrogation and felt that British Law was being violated by Her Majesty’s earlier Buffoons, and he intended to right this wrong. I was taken into custody by two British Policemen who put me on an Airplane (at Her Majesty’s expense) and sent home. To say the least, it was a very interesting evening.

Chelsea Old Town Hall, venue for the meeting in November 1991 interrupted by the Metropolitan Police who arrested Fred Leuchter



Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter