Role Model on Trial – May 2020

“Michèle, your fearless and direct utterances in Dresden, unfortunately forbidden to all Germans, blew open the window of truth in one blast.”
said Gerard Menuhin, son of legendary violinist and conductor Yehudi Menuhin, in February 2018

On 15th May 2020 an Australian-born Briton goes on trial in Dresden for “incitement” – not for terrorism or threats, but because of a 10-minute speech given to 300 mourners at a commemoration of the Allied terror bombing of Dresden in 1945.

The charges have been brought under Germany’s draconian Volksverhetzung law – Para 130 of the criminal code, against Lady Michèle Renouf, former wife of New Zealand banking tycoon Sir Francis (‘Frank the Bank’) Renouf who was honoured with the Verdienstkreuz by the then West German government. In 1990 the engaged couple travelled to Bonn for the award of Sir Frank’s medal, and as his fiancée Lady Renouf was given a Verdienstkreuz lapel ribbon. This honour related to Sir Frank’s pioneering role in persuading the German federal government to relax its conservative policies and invest its financial surplus on world markets. (For similar reasons he was knighted by Queen Elizabeth II.)

In February 2018 Lady Renouf attended a public commemoration in central Dresden, marking the anniversary of the 1945 terror bombing by the Royal Air Force and the USAAF. Responding to an anti-British comment by someone in the crowd, Lady Renouf was invited to give a brief spontaneous speech in which she acknowledged Britain’s shame for its deliberate wartime policy of targeting civilians.

During this speech she referred to the following facts:

a) Many influential Britons at the time condemned Churchill’s barbaric terror bombing policy and the associated demand for unconditional surrender – such people included Lord Hankey (formerly Sir Maurice Hankey, founder of the modern civil service); the Rt Rev George Bell, Bishop of Chichester; Labour MP and future minister Richard Stokes; and government scientist and future bestselling novelist C.P. Snow.

b) The terror bombing of Dresden was a literal Holocaust in which tens of thousands of civilians were burned alive. We shall never know the atrocity’s exact death toll, because the city was packed with refugees – uncounted and undocumented – fleeing from the advancing Soviet Red Army.

c) The wider relevance of the Dresden war crime – Renouf emphasised – is that so-called ‘moral bombing’ of Dresden by the Second World War allies has effectively acted as a precedent for postwar crimes against civilians including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which in turn has prompted unprecedented floods of refugees into Western Europe.

d) The Allied justification for this targeting of civilians was that Britain and America were at war with Germany, yet this factor is ignored when discussing what has become known as the ‘Holocaust’, an unchallengeable dogma taking the place of history.

e) The simple fact that Jewish civilians were interned in camps is today regarded as a ‘war crime’ and part of ‘genocide’, regardless of what did or did not happen in the camps themselves, a topic which Lady Renouf did not address, knowing that it is illegal in Germany to debate such matters. It is odd to condemn internment itself as criminal, bearing in mind that both Britain and America interned enemy aliens. It is scarcely surprising that European Jews were placed in this “enemy alien” category, given the actions of the self-styled leaders of World Jewry who had as early as 1933 declared economic war on Germany. Moreover the future founders of Israel such as Chaim Weizmann were actively engaged in a campaign of covert warfare, some of it contrary to international law, in collaboration with Britain’s Special Operations Executive. In itself it was not unreasonable for the German authorities to intern large numbers of European Jews as potential collaborators in this covert war.

It is for making these points in her brief impromptu February 2018 speech that Lady Renouf was arrested and now faces trial in Dresden on 15th May 2020 for offences which carry a maximum prison sentence of five years.

Her trial will focus press and public attention on the extraordinary German laws that deny normal historical debate and rational argument. These and similar laws in many other European countries (though not so far in the UK) were condemned more than a decade ago by a coalition of eminent historians and other academics writing under the label ‘Appel de Blois’: these critics included the late Eric Hobsbawm; Jewish journalist and author Geoffrey Alderman; Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg; and the Oxford professor Timothy Garton Ash.

Lady Renouf’s own background is not as an historian, scientist, lawyer or politician. So how did someone whose lifelong career since early childhood was as a model and advertising actress come to be on trial in Germany charged with having expressed forbidden opinions and having uttered forbidden historical facts?

Born in 1946, Michèle Mainwaring was directed mainly to classical ballet studies from the age of 3 to 23, eventually for a licentiateship at the Royal Academy of Dancing in London. Her earlier four years of undergraduate art studies at the National Art School were partly financed by her parallel modelling career (beginning at age 7) and prizes in beauty contests, including winning Radio 2HD’s Miss Beach Girl, Miss Newcastle & Hunter Valley, and Miss Zhivago. (The latter title, twenty years later was to bemuse Dr Zhivago’s co-star Omar Sharif, when he and Lady Renouf enjoyed gaming at London’s Ritz Hotel casino.)

Having graduated with a Diploma in Art (Education) in 1968, she lectured in Fine Arts and introduced Media Studies at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia.

At age 14 Michèle Mainwaring was performing as Gretel in Hansel and Gretel at the Sydney Conservatorium when the world-famous former Ballets Russes dancer and choreographer Kiril Vassilkovsky came backstage seeking to recruit her “ethereal quality” for the role as Clara in his production of The Nutcracker. However her mother would not allow her to leave school to joint the company!

The young Michèle performed as Radio 2HD’s Shirley Temple, singing and tap dancing for the station’s famous children’s radio presenter Twink Storey as an infant performer and symbol of innocence in the postwar years. While the actual Shirley Temple became a US Ambassador, Lady Renouf in later life was to have a rather different involvement with diplomacy and politics – considered by some to have an ‘ambassadorial’ role as a champion for the rights of historical revisionism without exceptionalism!

The future Lady Renouf came to England in the late 1960s shortly before her marriage to the late Daniel Griaznoff, descendent of a Russian noble family. During the 1970s and 1980s she used her marital title of Countess Griaznoff in association with many charitable activities and became well-known in London society. Prolific romantic novelist and socialite Barbara Cartland delighted in entertaining Count and Countess Griaznoff at her country home. Actors Edward Fox and his wife Joanna David generously contributed their celebrated artistry to charity soirees and balls hosted by the Griaznoffs at their Hampstead home.

Meanwhile from age 15 Lady Renouf had been recruited into an international career as an advertising actress in television commercials alongside her modelling career. This led to magazine and television advertisements worldwide for products and companies as diverse as Deutsche Post, Tchibo coffee, British Airways, Cable & Wireless, Nissan cars, Lenthéric perfume, and hundreds more. On screen she appeared with such legends as the Muppets and Dick Emery. In 1973 (for example) she appeared as a ‘Bond girl’ in the BBC’s arts documentary show Omnibus episode on The British Hero.

In the mid-1990s Lady Renouf become a member of the fundraising advisory board for the reconstruction of Shakespeare’s Globe on Bankside, chairing the principal fundraising event. As a professional designer of garden mazes and knot gardens, she had also designed an Elizabethan knot garden and labyrinth for the Globe approved by the project’s head Sam Wanamaker, intended as part of the re-education of the general public in the coded poetic messages of flowers, familiar to a Tudor mindset but now lost: her knot garden project was featured in a major article for the Sunday Times.

In this invited role Lady Renouf mobilised a range of contacts among London’s diplomatic corps (built up as a longstanding member of the Ladies’ Committee of the European-Atlantic Group) to assist in the Shakespeare’s Globe project, including Adm. William Crowe, US Ambassador and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who became a family friend; and Australian High Commissioner Neal Blewett. After completing raising funds for the construction of the Wardrobe of Robes room, behind the Globe’s stage (marked today by a bronze plaque) – Lady Renouf’s private tribute to her mother, who was a designer of ballet costumes – she also invited another family friend Buzz Aldrin, second man on the Moon, to include his contribution to a time capsule buried beneath the reconstructed theatre.

Oddly the first steps towards Lady Renouf’s involvement with “political” questions came as the result of a Jewish member of her Shakespeare’s Globe committee insisting on the entire menu at a fundraising dinner being kosher. Merely the appearance of a non-kosher item on the menu sent this woman into a rant about “tyranny” and “anti-semitism”.

Understandably Lady Renouf was puzzled by this inexplicable reaction, and this led her into further investigations of the taboo subject of “anti-semitism”. She carried out extensive research into the composer Richard Wagner’s attitude to the Jewish question, and in 1997 published the monograph Richard Wagner’s Art-work of the Future and Judaism: Inspirational or Conspiratorial. The central thesis of this monograph was that “anti-semitism” is a misnomer because it implies a racial critique of Jews, whereas one ought to focus on a cultural critique of Judaism. Her thesis attracted the attention of professors from Heidelberg University, who invited Lady Renouf to participate in a conference on Wagner at the German American Institute, Heidelberg. She was regularly honoured by invitations from the late Wolfgang and Gudrun Wagner to their private supper intervals at the Bayreuth Festival, where for a decade she sat at the right-hand of the composer’s grandson. Lady Renouf’s monograph was sold at the Festspielhaus book kiosk.

Soon afterwards the notable Wagner scholar Rudolph Sabor (1914-2013) cast Lady Renouf to star in his play about the composer’s life that was due to be staged at the New End Theatre, Hampstead, which had been booked for a three-week run. Mr Sabor (a Berlin-born Jewish musicologist) came under pressure from Lady Young (wife of Thatcher-era cabinet minister Lord Young) who withdrew her and others’ funding from the production, forcing its cancellation, after Mr Sabor refused to replace Lady Renouf.

At the end of the 1990s Lady Renouf visited Palestine with her high society chum the Bey of Haifa, Jeannot Khayat, who informed her for the first time about the outrageous “absentee law” whereby Palestinian homes can be confiscated by the Israeli state if their owners leave the country even for a holiday.

Early in the 2000s she met and recorded interviews with British veterans of the war against Zionist terrorism in Palestine, 1945-48. These included unique interviews by the late Phillip Knightley with British Army veteran and author Eric Lowe – now archived at St Antony’s College, Oxford. Some of these landmark interviews (in cooperation with anti-Zionist Neturei Karta rabbis, Palestinian diplomats, and commentators including Israel Shamir and Gilad Atzmon) appeared in Lady Renouf’s first documentary film projects, Palestine Scrapbook and Israel in Flagrante: Caught in Acts of Twistspeak, screened at the House of Lords and House of Commons, under the auspices of Dr James Thring and Lord Stoddart.

In 2000 Lady Renouf attended the London trial of a libel case brought by the British historian David Irving against the Jewish-American author Deborah Lipstadt: this was the first she had heard of debates around the “Holocaust”, but she later became aware of a worldwide campaign of persecution against historical sceptics, notably the jailing of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Wolfgang Fröhlich, Gerd Honsik, Monika and Alfred Schaefer, and Ursula Haverbeck – including their lawyers Horst Mahler and Sylvia Stolz. In 2006 she attended David Irving’s trial in Austria, where he was sentenced to three years imprisonment, eventually being released after one year thanks to an appeal filed by celebrated Viennese attorney Dr Herbert Schaller. (In the recent film Denial, an actress plays the part of Lady Renouf, seated on the court bench as the sole observer on Irving’s side of the court throughout the hearings.)

Lady Renouf with the late Prof. Robert Faurisson

During the summer of 2001 Lady Renouf arranged a meeting between Irving and Prince Fahd bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, eldest son of the present King Salman. Prince Fahd was owner of many racehorses including the 1991 Derby winner Generous, who was celebrated in a hillside maze garden designed by Lady Renouf, a friend of the Prince and Princess, at their Harewood estate in Surrey where Queen Elizabeth II had planted a tree. In a telephone call from Riyadh following their meeting, Prince Fahd confirmed his intention to purchase the entire property including Irving’s flat in Duke Street, Mayfair, and turn it into a “Real History Institute”, but he died suddenly a day later aged only 46.

One consequence of Lady Renouf’s defence of Irving was that a cabal of opponents engineered her expulsion from the Reform Club in 2003, following an earlier unsuccessful attempt to expel her in 2002 (when she was defended by eminent pollster Sir Bob Worcester). Lady Renouf had invited Irving to an event at the Reform Club (alongside family friend Count Nikolai Tolstoy) in the week of the Lipstadt trial verdict.

Since 2006 Lady Renouf’s Telling Films has produced many DVDs on the stifling of historical debate and the persecution of revisionist historians, scientists, authors, publishers, and latterly even their lawyers. These documentaries include Jailing Opinions, focused on the prosecutions of Irving in Vienna (Austria), Ernst Zündel in Toronto (Canada), and Robert Faurisson in Paris (France), and later documentary films such as Dresden Holocaust 1945 – An Apology to Germany is Due; Out and Unbowed, about Ernst Zündel’s trials and imprisonment; Mourning the Victims, Naming the Culprits about the British torture centre at Bad Nenndorf (Germany); and many others.

In 2006 Lady Renouf attended and spoke at the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, hosted in Tehran at the instigation of Iran’s then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The topic of her conference address was “Psychology of Holocaustianity” – an echo of her postgraduate studies in Psychology of Religion a few years earlier at London University’s Heythrop College. Veteran revisionist scholar and literary document analyst Professor Robert Faurisson said that he gave Lady Renouf’s speech “20 out of 20”!

Nominated by Prof. Faurisson, Lady Renouf was elected to serve on a five-member international fact-finding committee created at the end of the Tehran conference to advance research and support informed historical debate.

Between 2006 and 2020 Lady Renouf has been interviewed in many television and radio debates and discussions with (for example) Dr David Duke, Prof. Norman Finkelstein; former CIA officer Dr George Lambrakis; Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom; the Rev. Stephen Sizer; and Dmitry Shimelfarb, former adviser and press spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In 2005 she was honoured with the George Orwell Award by the Canadian Free Speech League, and has spoken at conferences in Canada, the USA and Mexico. Several of these speeches, films and interviews have focused on Lady Renouf’s campaign to raise awareness about the first, pre-Israel Jewish Homeland option in Birobidjan – the Jewish Autonomous Region created in 1928 in the former Soviet Union and still flourishing to this day in Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

When the Australian revisionist Dr Fredrick Töben was arrested at London’s Heathrow Airport in October 2008 and subjected to a European Arrest Warrant seeking his extradition to face criminal opinion charges in Germany, Lady Renouf mobilised a defence team that successfully opposed the warrant as invalid, forcing the German authorities to back down and accept his release. The Töben case proved an important precedent in relation to the traditional Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson, who was convicted in Germany for answers he gave to a Swedish television crew in November 2008, but who as a consequence of the success in Töben’s case, could not be subjected to a European Arrest Warrant. On Bishop Williamson’s return to London in 2009 he was met at the airport by Lady Renouf, who gave interviews to BBC Radio 4 and the World Service later that day, in which she debated the issues involved with Deborah Lipstadt and the late Greville Janner of the World Jewish Congress.

Now those same German authorities are seeking revenge in a wholly unwarranted prosecution of a British citizen for a perfectly normal and reasonable (though unplanned and unprepared) speech in Dresden two years ago, a speech intended as a humble acknowledgment of British guilt and contrition for a terrible crime against German civilians committed 75 years ago.

By this politically-motivated prosecution, the moribund Merkel government’s servants in the German state apparatus dishonour their own dead, and discredit themselves before the world’s media.

Lady Renouf’s former husband Sir Frank Renouf was a prisoner-of-war in Germany for four years following his capture after parachuting into Greece on 26th April 1941. His time in an officers’ prisoner-of-war camp in Bavaria was well spent learning German from a friendly guard with the aid of Schiller’s poetry, building a tennis court, enjoying Red Cross food parcels, and conducting a correspondence course with Worcester College, Oxford, where he was admitted for a postwar degree. His German connections were strengthened after the war as a friend of British Prime Minister Edward Heath and eminent figures in European banking including the British Lord Kindersley (a director of the Bank of England) and the German Hermann Abs (a director of Deutsche Bank). The Renoufs’ matrimonial home at 37 Eaton Square, Belgravia, had during the 1930s been the home of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who immediately before the Second World War rented out this same property as the home of German Ambassador Joachim von Ribbentrop – the first prisoner executed by the Allies at Nuremberg in 1946.

It remains to be seen whether 21st century Germany will be as hospitable to Lady Renouf as wartime Germany was to her former husband!

  • Friends and international observers will be welcome to attend the trial. Twitter and blog accounts carrying regular updates on the Renouf case will be online soon; check https://twitter.com/ModelTrial for details.

Ursula Haverbeck’s 91st Birthday – Richard Edmonds speaks at Bielefeld demo and at NF Ceremony 24 hours later

Ursula Haverbeck, nominated the Grande Dame of German Revisionism by the late Prof. Robert Faurisson, “celebrated” her 91st birthday in prison. Yes, you read that correctly: Frau Ursula Haverbeck is ninety one years of age and she finds herself incarcerated in a prison cell, charged and found “guilty” of questioning the allegation of the so-called “Holocaust”, the allegation that the Germans during the Second World war murdered millions of Jews in homicidal gas-chambers. For expressing her non-violent opinions on aspects of the history of the Second World War which she herself lived through as a teenager, the current ruling establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany, in its viciousness, has locked this 91-year-old up in a prison cell in an attempt to silence her.

On Saturday, the 9th November, the very day of Ursula Haverbeck’s 91st birthday, hundreds of German nationalists, patriots and friends, well-wishers and admirers of the Grande Dame of German Historical Revisionism marched through the centre of the north German town of Bielefeld where Ursula is imprisoned. With great gusto we paraded with flags flying and with banners held high proclaiming Ursula Haverbeck to be a Heroine for Germany and demanding Truth and Justice for Germany. The authorities gave us permission to hold a public rally right in the centre of Bielefeld. There was of course a large contingent of Police present. And there were of course large numbers of demented Lefties shouting their usual obscenities. However our loud-speaker system drowned out all that Sound and Fury signifying nothing (Shakespeare’s Macbeth). Our rally lasted the best part of two hours; right in the centre of town; the traffic was stopped; the trams ceased running; and we held our rally without any interruption. Here is the speech that I gave on this historic occasion:

Richard Edmonds addresses the Bielefeld demonstration in support of Ursula Haverbeck, Saturday 9th November 2019

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

“I have travelled here to Bielefeld to show solidarity with the very brave patriot, Ursula Haverbeck, whom I have known for many years. She is a wonderfully brave campaigner for the honour of Germany and now this fine woman must “celebrate” her 91st birthday in prison. Shocking. Ursula Haverbeck, an educated and cultivated woman, has posed questions regarding the topic of the “Holocaust”; she has posed the most serious questions, forensic, scientific, objective questions. And for this, she finds herself on her 91st birthday in jail here in Bielefeld.

“Yes. I know, we are in the Federal Republic. In order to make the situation clear, I will refer to the trial that took place in Mannheim in 2003, the trial brought against the German-Canadian, Ernst Zündel, yet another individual charged with “Holocaust”-denial. At Zündel’s trial, the presiding judge, Dr. Ulrich Meinerzhagen, found himself obliged to state in the open court, and I quote him: ‘It is completely irrelevant whether the “Holocaust” took place or not. It is the act of denial of the “Holocaust” which is a crime. And that is all that matters in this court.’ : Presiding Judge Dr. Meinerzhagen.

“Here with absolute modesty can I (R.Edmonds) state that in Great Britain and in the United States of America, we have complete Freedom of Speech on the subject of the “Holocaust”; this means that every type of question may be posed on this topic; and everyone has the right to publish answers which are based on forensic, scientific, objective facts.

Dr Herbert Schaller with his client Ernst Zündel on the day of the latter’s release from Mannheim prison in 2010.

“As a guest here in Germany, I can only quote the former, now retired, judge sitting on the supreme court in Germany, the Constitutional Court, Judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem:

‘I would not make the questioning of the Holocaust a criminal offence.’ Judge Hoffmann-Riem, July 2008 (Der Tagesspiegel, 10. July 2008)

“Finally, dear friends. I would like to quote the famous German hero, Ulrich von Huten, who five hundred years ago, said: ‘Germany is there, where strong hearts are beating.’ Thank you.”

Finally let me make this comment: one does have to wonder if a change is now taking place in the Federal Republic of Germany, set up as it was by the western Allies at the end of the Second World War, the twin in fact of the Communist regime set up in Easten Germany by the forces of the Soviet Union. How else might one explain the readiness of the authorities to give permission for this “Birthday celebration” right in the centre of the town where Ursula Haverbeck is held prisoner in the local jail? The activity must have cost the town a great deal of money; vast numbers of Police were employed, and the centre of the town was effectively shut down for the afternoon: what with several hundred Nationalists and possibly as many as two thousand Lefties plus large numbers of Police officers, the result was that no trams were running through the town, no cars or delivery vehicles, access to the main-line railway station was barred for a time, little business could have been conducted that day; all this was predictable, but permission was given, in spite of counter-pressure from the usual suspects, permission was given for the go-ahead. A historic week-end. A privilege to be there.

H&D note: 24 hours after the Bielefeld demonstration, Richard was back in London addressing the National Front’s memorial day rally (see video below) – though due to ‘kettling’ by police in Bielefeld, he had to catch a later Eurostar and missed the march to the Cenotaph. A remarkable weekend, and a fitting tribute to the true Europe for Europeans that racial nationalists seek to build post-Brexit.

Ursula Haverbeck interviewed by Richard Edmonds and Lady Michèle Renouf

Secret tapes show politicians once dared to speak about race

President Richard Nixon (above left) in conversation at the White House with Prof. Daniel Patrick Moynihan

In July this year the US National Archives released a previously secret tape recording of then President Richard Nixon and future President Ronald Reagan speaking frankly about racial differences.

Today two American scholars writing in The Atlantic reveal that these forbidden views were not held only Reagan and Nixon, a man who of course has long been demonised by the political establishment, but by an ultra-respectable academic.

The President was conversing in October 1971 with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Harvard professor who had previously been an adviser to Nixon but was more closely associated with the Democratic Party. Indeed despite his bipartisanship, Moynihan was for decades an icon of America’s liberal intelligentsia.

Yet on this White House tape and in an earlier memorandum, Prof. Moynihan explicitly recognised racial realities. Commenting on an article on race and IQ by Richard Herrnstein published earlier that year, Moynihan wrote: “Herrnstein is, of course, very much worth reading. The findings of intelligence testing, which he summarizes, have profound implications for social policy. …Psychologists now think they know something of the ranking of the major races. Asians first; Caucasians second; Africans third.”

Prof Richard Herrnstein was co-author of The Bell Curve, a book that pointed out the differences between black and white IQ.

Moynihan agreed with the President that in implementing federal programmes to promote black education, he had to bear in mind their fundamental weaknesses – that because of their IQ blacks would basically be at a disadvantage “when you get to some of the more, shall we say, some of the more profound, rigid disciplines”.

His memo to Nixon concluded with pragmatic advice that no doubt influences even those few politicians today honest enough to address racial realities: “Finally, may I plead that you say nothing about this subject, nor let anyone around you do so. There is no possibility of your concern being depicted for what it is, a desire to respond to knowledge in a responsible and prudent manner.”

Moynihan died in 2003, but he would not be surprised that 21st century journalists and scholars are using these newly revealed tapes not to challenge their own liberal multiracialist dogmas, but to demonise Moynihan himself.

Faurisson Lives! The Inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize

Imprisoned German author and campaigner for historical justice Ursula Haverbeck – who remains behind bars in the German city of Bielefeld as she approaches her 91st birthday on November 8th – was awarded the inaugural Robert Faurisson International Prize at a ceremony in Vichy, France earlier this year.

Heritage and Destiny is proud to have organised what turned out to be Robert Faurisson’s final speech on the day before his death – and we now present the online version of this film tribute produced by Lady Michèle Renouf of Telling Films.

Click here to view Chapters 1 & 2 of this video.

German lawyer arrested again: faces 18 months in jail

(left to right) Günter Deckert, Sylvia Stolz, and Lady Michèle Renouf following the release of Frau Stolz from a prison sentence in April 2011: today she was again imprisoned.

German lawyer Sylvia Stolz was arrested again today for what George Orwell would have called ‘thought crimes’ – in the supposedly ‘democratic’ Federal Republic.

Her ‘offence’ is to have given a speech in Switzerland in 2012 where she spoke about her earlier conviction in 2008 for offences against Germany’s notorious ‘Paragraph 130’ law that forbids discussion of or research into forbidden historical topics.

Sylvia Stolz was imprisoned from 2008 to 2011. For her speech in Switzerland she was convicted again in February 2015 and sentenced to 20 months imprisonment, later reduced on appeal to 18 months.

It is this 18 month sentence that she must now serve following today’s arrest.

Less than two weeks ago the host of the Swiss conference where Sylvia Stolz gave her ‘offending’ speech – religious broadcaster and author Ivo Sasek – was represented at an alternative media conference in the Bundestag (Germany’s federal parliament in Berlin) held by the civic nationalist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).

Despite the climate of fear engendered by ‘liberal dictatorships’ across Europe (seen at its worst in Germany), voters in this week’s European elections are set to defy political elites.

Not only AfD but a host of anti-establishment parties are set to win seats in the European Parliament. Voters in the UK went to the polls today, but because most countries do not vote until Sunday, there will be no counting until Sunday night and Monday morning.

This website will bring up to date coverage and analysis of results as they are declared. The present May-June edition of H&D contains a detailed analysis of the many different populist or nationalist parties standing in different European countries; the July-August edition will have reports on the results and on the widening division between Europeans and their rulers.

Nationalists banned from Facebook

The following is a statement by long-standing nationalist activist Richard Edmonds, taken from from the National Front web-site:

Richard Edmonds – a Directorate member of the National Front, a party now banned from Facebook

The private company that manages the social-media site Facebook, has just announced that the National Front and its chairman, Tony Martin, together with a number of other nationalist spokespersons and nationalist organisations, BNP, etc. have been banned from the social-media platform.

The pretext given by Facebook is that the Nationalists named and their organisations have spread “hatred”, and have proclaimed “a violent and hateful mission.” This is all lies. It has always been a criminal offence to incite violence and for the last forty years, ever since the Race Act, it has been a criminal offence to promote racial hatred. If any of the individuals named were guilty of either offence then they would have been charged by the judicial authorities, which is not the case. And if any of the nationalist organisations, NF, BNP, etc, had been found to promote violence then they would have been closed down as was National Action, But none of the organisations named by Facebook have been closed down by the Authorities.

Tony Martin (right) – the NF Chairman now banned from Facebook – at a recent event with former chairman Andrew Brons (centre) and present deputy chairman Jordan Pont (left),

This action by the private company which owns and manages Facebook, and which has a near monopoly of the social-media, represents a tyranny answerable to nobody. The older ones of us can remember a time when we were told that Britain fought two world wars to guarantee Freedom of Speech. Not any more.

But friends, take heart. This banning is a form of back-handed compliment. Clearly it is recognised that Nationalists and only Nationalists are the true and only opposition to Mass-immigration and to the multi-criminal nightmare-society being forced onto us.

H&D comments:

Apart from the NF and BNP, Facebook have also banned (yet again) former BNP leader Nick Griffin, and his former young friend Paul Golding (now leader of the tiny Britain First group), and Paul’s former girlfriend/deputy leader Jayda Fransen; Paul Ray, a founder member of the a nut-group called Knights Templar International; former fundraiser for the BNP and Britain First Jim Dowson; Jack Renshaw, a former BNP Youth leader, who was linked to the proscribed NS Youth organisation National Action (although how young Jack can get onto Facebook to chat to his young friends from solitary confinement in HMP Belmarsh is not known!) and last but surely not least former BNP member and EDL leader Steven Yaxley-Lennon (AKA Tommy Robinson).

Nick Griffin modelling Knight Templar merchandise – both Griffin and the Knights Templar have now been banned from Facebook, whose policies mirror Griffin’s own attempts to silence racial nationalists more than a decade ago.

All very sad – right? But why on earth should this come as a shock to nationalists? Facebook is well and truly part (and a big part at that) of the liberal, multi-racial liberal establishment, who are our enemies, they are against everything we stand for and hold dear, so why would they give us a platform on THEIR social-media?

Although most nationalists will probably not agree with us now, these bans may be a good thing – in the long term anyway – if they get our young (and not so young) would-be activists away from their bedrooms and their computers, laptops and smart phones, where they spend so much time on social-media, talking to people who all agree with them anyway, and back onto the streets to do some real political work. Work rebuilding the former nationalist strongholds on the council estates of Burnley, Blackburn, Stoke, Sandwell, Essex and many others, which Griffin and co destroyed ten years ago.

One last interesting point regarding Facebook’s statement of the bans on British nationalists – and I quote:
“Individuals and organisations who spread hate, or attack or call for the exclusion of others on the basis of who they are, have no place on Facebook. Under our dangerous individuals and organisations policy, we ban those who proclaim a violent or hateful mission or are engaged in acts of hate or violence. The individuals and organisations we have banned today violate this policy, and they will no longer be allowed a presence on Facebook or Instagram. Posts and other content which expresses praise or support for these figures and groups will also be banned. Our work against organised hate is ongoing and we will continue to review individuals, organisations, pages, groups and content against our community standards.”

If this is the case, then why has Facebook not banned the pages of Sinn Fein – the political wing of the terrorist IRA? Or the Irish Republican Socialist Party – the political wing of the terrorist INLA who murdered Tory MP Airey Neave amongst many others; the 32 County Sovereignty Movement – the political wing of the terrorist group Real IRA – and dozens of other Irish Republican/Marxist hate groups?

Members of the Real IRA – whose political front the 32 County Sovereignty Movement is not banned from Facebook

Why indeed, we may well ask. These are real hate groups – groups who hate everything British and English. Groups who hate with a passion our Ulster-Scots cousins and have carried out a murderous campaign against them and us since the late 1960s. These are hate groups who still carry out real acts of violence (as was seen in Londonderry yesterday).

Yet just like with the many hateful Wahhabi Muslim / Jihadist pages that Facebook lets continue without any problem, they refuse to ban any of these Irish Republican terror groups. It makes you think, don’t it.

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.

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).

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