Fredrick Töben (1944-2020)

Dr Fredrick Töben (above, second left) at the Newmarket Hotel, Port Adelaide, South Australia with (left to right) the late Jock Spooner (H&D patron); a visiting Cuban friend; Peter Hartung (Töben’s Adelaide Institute colleague); and Dave Astin.

H&D greatly regret to report the death of Dr Fredrick Töben, the German-Australian revisionist historian. Dr Töben died yesterday three weeks after his 76th birthday, having been seriously ill for the past two or three months.

Fredrick Töben came to Australia from his German birthplace as a ten-year-old boy when his parents emigrated. He studied at Victoria College of Wellington, New Zealand; Melbourne University; and Stuttgart University.

In the late 1970s Töben lived in Rhodesia towards the end of that country’s struggle against Black Marxist revolutionaries. After a year teaching in Nigeria, he returned to Australia teaching at various institutions in the state of Victoria during the early 1980s.

Töben’s dismissal from his teaching post in 1985 led to a five-year legal battle. He eventually won damages against the State of Victoria and relocated to Adelaide, South Australia, where he formed the Truth Mission in 1994, becoming Adelaide Institute a year later.

This produced a series of ‘Holocaust’ revisionist publications, and led to Töben being targeted by Jewish and ‘anti-fascist’ organisations worldwide, while he became part of an international network of revisionists attending conferences sponsored by the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), and later The Barnes Review, serving on the latter’s Board of Contributing Editors until his death.

Dr Fredrick Töben (above right) with then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Tehran Conference in 2006.

In 1998 he was arrested in Germany under that country’s notorious laws restricting free research and discussion of historical topics, spending seven months in prison.

In October 2000 the Australian Human Rights Commission ordered Töben to remove parts of the Adelaide Institute’s website, triggering years of appeals and efforts to enforce the judgment.

Eventually in 2009 Töben was jailed for three months in Adelaide for contempt of court.

Three years earlier Töben had travelled to Iran to speak at the Tehran International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust, promoted by then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This event attracted worldwide publicity and intensified the targeting of Töben and other participants.

In October 2008 while in transit at London’s Heathrow Airport, Töben was seized from his plane and served with an international arrest warrant issued at the request of German authorities who wanted to jail him again for articles published on the Adelaide Institute website.

Dr Fredrick Töben with Lady Michèle Renouf in London, 2008, following the legal victory against a European Arrest Warrant

This was expected to be a rapid ‘rubber-stamping’ procedure, but soon after Töben was taken into custody, Dr David Duke telephoned Lady Michèle Renouf in London to alert her to the arrest. Lady Renouf mobilised a specialist legal team of solicitor Kevin Lowry-Mullins and barrister Ben Watson, resulting in a historic legal victory against the Federal Republic and their Crown Prosecution Service allies.

After a month in Wandsworth prison awaiting the London court’s decision, Töben was freed and returned to Australia.

Persecution by the usual suspects continued, and a legal action for court costs (related to a series of Australian cases) resulted in Töben being declared bankrupt and having his passport confiscated in 2012.

While there was a short period in 2018-2019 when there were serious disagreements between Dr Töben and H&D, these differences were resolved long before his death. We salute Dr Fredrick Töben’s memory as a valiant fighter for historical truth and justice.

Lady Renouf’s Dresden trial postponed

Lady Michèle Renouf’s trial in Dresden – due to begin on 15th May – has been postponed due to the impact of Covid-19.

The trial is now rescheduled to begin on 16th October 2020 – again in Dresden’s District Court (Amtsgericht).

Charges relate to Lady Renouf’s impromptu speech on 17th February 2018 at a commemoration of the 1945 British and American terror bombing of Dresden.

Lady Renouf’s attorney Wolfram Nahrath is continuing to build a detailed rebuttal of these charges with the help of witnesses from several countries. Further details will be released closer to the trial date, and will appear here and via related social media accounts.

The defence team thank all correspondents for their kind messages of support.

Remembering the 1945 Dresden Holocaust

H&D assistant editor Peter Rushton was among more than 2,000 marchers in Dresden yesterday who commemorated the 75th anniversary of the RAF and USAAF terror-bombing of the city on 13th-14th February 1945.

Lady Michèle Renouf with Thuringia NPD leader Thorsten Heise: the banner reads – “Where Justice becomes Injustice, Resistance becomes a Duty!”

The Gedenkmarsch was superbly organised by Maik Müller of Dresden NPD, and was supported not only by NPD branches from across Germany, but by many other parties and by supporters from other countries including Ireland, France, Sweden, Croatia, Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Belgium, the Netherlands and USA – even from as far away as Japan and Australia.

Despite efforts by the usual antifa rabble to block the march route, we were able to proceed through a residential area of Dresden (many locals observing from nearby flats) to a rally point next to the central train station, where speeches included a message from Wolfram Nahrath, attorney for persecuted patriots and defenders of truth and justice including the jailed authors Ursula Haverbeck (now 91) and Horst Mahler (now 84) and the British traditional Roman Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson.

As can be seen and heard in attached video links, the respectful and dignified conduct of the marchers contrasted with grotesque behaviour of ‘antifascist’ counter-demonstrators who failed in their objectives. The rentamob’s disrespectful cacophony was drowned out by solemn classical music accompanying the march.

The UK Sunday Times today could not resist publishing an attack on the demonstration, written by the paper’s foreign editor Peter Conradi, a well-known Jewish-Zionist historian. As has become the habit of establishment journalists, Mr Conradi seeks to minimise the Dresden death toll and accuses 21st century German patriots of exaggerating it.

A Dresden spokesman for AfD (the fast-growing patriotic-conservative party Alternative für Deutschland) had quoted a death toll of close to 100,000 – a figure which Conradi compares to the claims of “Holocaust-denying historians”, while himself insisting on a figure of 25,000.

The actual Dresden death toll remains difficult to assess precisely due to the large number of refugees from the East who had packed into the city at the time of the bombing. Yet one very recently released document from the postwar secret British propaganda agency IRD (Information Research Department) offers us some clues.

H&D reports this document for the first time today: click here to read: Propaganda and Dresden’s Holocaust – The Secret British File.

Propaganda and Dresden’s Holocaust: The Secret British File

On 13th-14th February 1945 more than 2,000 planes from the RAF and USAAF raided the historic city of Dresden, capital of the German state of Saxony. Recent commemorations of this terror-bombing’s 75th anniversary have led to renewed controversy over the total number killed, though it is acknowledged that almost all the victims were civilians including many refugees, women and children.

On 16th February the Sunday Times published an article by its foreign editor Peter Conradi accusing German patriots of exaggerating the Dresden death toll for political gain. Conradi singled out Tino Chrupalla, leader of the fast growing anti-immigration party AfD in Saxony, who had suggested a death toll of close to 100,000, which according to Conradi echoed the claims of “Holocaust-denying historians”.

Just who is engaged in Holocaust-denial here?

For clues to the answer we might turn to a secret document from the covert British propaganda agency IRD (Information Research Department), released to the National Archives just before Christmas 2019 and recently obtained by H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton.

We publish this secret file’s contents today for the first time, and will soon tell the full story of how the British secret state conspired to silence challenges to Second World War history.

A rare photo of British propaganda chief Norman Reddaway (1918-1999) seen here with his wife Jean.

This particular file begins with a broadcast on the ITV television network in 1970, coinciding with the Dresden bombing holocaust’s 25th anniversary. Norman Reddaway, who had been co-founder of IRD at the start of the Cold War, but by 1970 was a senior Foreign Office diplomat in overall charge of Britain’s propaganda efforts, wrote to IRD’s director Kenneth Crook about the programme.

Reddaway complained that by giving a death toll of 135,000 this ITV documentary “had quoted Dr Goebbels’ version of the number of casualties. He had not quoted any other estimate, which would of course have been much lower. The viewers were therefore left with an uncorrected impression that RAF bombing had resulted in three or four times the true number of casualties.”

In response Reddaway suggested that IRD should deploy its trusted arsenal of propaganda tactics: a planted question by a helpful MP in the House of Commons, or a letter to The Times in the name of some respectable stooge. However senior IRD official Colin MacLaren, whose experience of secret propaganda went back to the war years where he had been part of the Special Operations Executive and Political Warfare Executive, insisted that this 135,000 figure was probably not a German exaggeration.

MacLaren wrote: “I am somewhat surprised that Mr Reddaway should assume that Dr Goebbels’s estimate of the Dresden casualties was higher than others (presumably allied) estimates. Surely the converse is true? I do not recall that the German propaganda machine was even concerned at the time to exaggerate the effects of Allied attacks.”

It was later confirmed by another IRD officer, ‘Tommy’ Tucker, that the programme’s figure of 135,000 Dresden deaths came not from any German propagandist, nor even from the best-known historian of the raid David Irving, but from Andrew Wilson, defence correspondent of the left-liberal newspaper The Observer.

British propagandists in 1970 unsuccessfully sought to dispute historians’ estimates of the Dresden death toll during the 25th anniversary of the terror-bombing. Another 50 years later, deluded German leftists unsuccessfully tried to block a commemorative march remembering the victims on the 75th anniversary, but were swiftly dealt with by police (above).

Moreover it turns out that the historical adviser to ITV’s Dresden programme was Professor Asa Briggs, a very respectable and not at all ‘right-wing’ historian who had himself been on the wartime staff of Britain’s famous codebreaking operation at Bletchley Park. (This latter fact was so secret back in 1970 that it was not committed to paper even in IRD files, but in his old age Prof. Briggs gave details of his secret past.)

Nevertheless Tucker confirmed that if necessary IRD still had a “letters to the Press drill” that could be deployed, and that if a Labour MP’s signature was required they could easily recruit one (willing to put his name to any text IRD supplied) via Maurice Foley, a former IRD propagandist himself who had become an MP and served as a minister responsible for promoting immigration (!)

Eventually Reddaway agreed to drop his objections to this particular TV programme, but efforts to undermine challenges to orthodox Second World War history continued at the highest level of Britain’s secret state.

Keep reading Heritage & Destiny for further exclusive investigations of this remarkable topic, coming soon!

Efforts to minimise the holocaust of German civilians at Dresden continue: the only official mention of the human inferno is carved on this inconspicuous stone bench in the city centre, part of the entrance to public lavatories. At least German patriots ensured that flowers were laid here to mark this 75th anniversary (at the spot where thousands of the victims were cremated).

The latest Holocaustian testimony

The Stutthof concentration camp near Danzig

Today’s testimony in a Hamburg state court room might well be the last time that an accused ‘war criminal’ gives evidence about the functioning of supposedly homicidal gas chambers.

If so, it is consistent with Holocaustian tradition that this contradictory and by any reckoning unsatisfactory ‘evidence’ has been trumpeted today by the mainstream media with conclusive headlines such as the Guardian‘s ‘Ex-Nazi camp guard admits seeing people taken to gas chamber’.

Bruno Dey – now aged 93 but 17 when he served as a sentry in the Stutthof concentration camp near Danzig – stated in today’s testimony that from his watchtower he saw on one occasion 20 or 30 “people were led in, into the gas chamber, then the door was locked”. He then heard screams and banging, but added “I didn’t know that they were being gassed.”

How in that case, one might ask, did he know that it was a gas chamber – especially given that elsewhere in his evidence Mr Dey mentions that on another occasion he saw 10 or 15 people taken into the same building, who later walked out again?

But of course Mr Dey, like the rest of us, has been told for the past seventy-odd years that there were gas chambers in Stutthof and elsewhere. And he no doubt believes that his best chance of acquittal is to say – yes, I now realise there was a gas chamber, but I didn’t know at the time and I was only a 17-year-old guard…

Cross-examination will inevitably focus not on the question of whether Mr Dey indeed saw a homicidal gas chamber in operation, but on the extent of his share in collective guilt.

In the Introduction to his four volumes of Écrits Revisionnistes, first published in 1999, the late, great Professor Robert Faurisson wrote:
It is a good thing that the exterminationists have finally (or very nearly) come to abandon, in practice, the charge, based on “testimonies”, according to which there existed execution gas chambers at the camps of Ravensbrück, Oranienburg-Sachsenhausen, Mauthausen, Hartheim, Struthof-Natzweiler, Stutthof-Danzig, Bergen-Belsen…

It had indeed seemed in recent decades that orthodox historians had given up some of their wildest claims. Yet still it goes on. We will look in vain for any attempt by the Hamburg court to examine forensic or documentary evidence as to whether this ‘execution gas chamber’ at Stutthof (or any other) actually existed.

After all, the court has just heard a 93-year-old eyewitness. What further proof could be required?

One more brick in the Holocaustian edifice. Whether this amounts to history or justice is a question one dare not ask in Hamburg, nor across most of 21st century Europe, on pain of imprisonment. In a few weeks time, for example, Ursula Haverbeck will celebrate her 91st birthday in a Bielefeld prison, 150 miles south of the Hamburg courtroom. Her crime – to have asked the questions that the Hamburg court avoids.

A detailed book about Stutthof has been published by Jürgen Graf and Carlo Mattogno, but there is no possibility of the authors being allowed to give expert testimony in a German court.

Foreign Secretary dismissed London Holocaust memorial as “preposterous”

Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Carrington, who had won the Military Cross for his bravery during the Second World War, wrote of the original plans for a London Holocaust Memorial: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

Following extensive research at The National Archives, Heritage and Destiny can reveal that the original proposal for a London Holocaust Memorial was strongly opposed by three senior Cabinet ministers and by Britain’s leading diplomats. Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington wrote to colleagues: “The whole idea is preposterous”.

This original memorial was first mooted in the spring of 1979, and was a far more modest proposal than the gigantic project presently being discussed by the planning committee of Westminster City Council.

H&D‘s assistant editor Peter Rushton has submitted a detailed report to Westminster’s planning committee, revealing the full story behind the original memorial plans, and the reasons for senior ministers’ objections, which are even more valid in relation to the vast project now under consideration.

Leading proponent of the latest Holocaust memorial, Lord Pickles (ex-chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel) seen here with former Prime Minister Theresa May

The record also reveals that the Jewish community itself was deeply divided over these plans. Their original proponent Greville Janner (later ennobled as Lord Janner and disgraced in a series of ‘paedophile’ scandals) wrote secretly to Tory ministers attacking his fellow Jewish Labour MP Reg Freeson (a former editor of the ‘anti-fascist’ magazine Searchlight).

Earlier sketchy and inaccurate reports about the original London Holocaust Memorial have mentioned that Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington opposed the plans, but the true story – reflecting a consensus among Britain’s senior diplomats against the plans – can only now be told.

Click here to read H&D‘s report.

“The whole idea is preposterous”: the true story behind London’s Holocaust Memorial

The ‘Holocaust Memorial’ presently being considered by Westminster City Council is on a far vaster scale than anything contemplated in 1980 – but even then the proposals were dismissed as ‘preposterous’ by the British Foreign Secretary.

In April 1980 Michael Heseltine, Environment Secretary in Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government, wrote to his colleague Lord Carrington, Foreign Secretary, to consult him about plans that Heseltine had been discussing for the past year with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, “to erect a memorial to those of all faiths who died in the Nazi Holocaust.”

This triggered more than 18 months of strong opposition by Lord Carrington, some of his fellow ministers, and the most senior officials of the Foreign Office to the proposal for a London “Holocaust” Memorial, even though both the Board of Deputies and Heseltine regularly stressed its “modest” scale.

Understandably, Carrington felt that “any monuments in the area concerned should be of a British national character.” He added: “It is by no means self-evident that Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. In addition, a long time has passed since the events which the proposed Garden would seek to commemorate.”

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin – who consistently sought to use the ‘Holocaust’ as a diplomatic weapon against Britain – had been boss of the Irgun terror gang that butchered two British sergeants, causing international revulsion in 1947.

Reflecting wider Foreign Office concerns, Carrington also suggested that “some Arabs might see the monument as endorsing Mr Begin’s point that the fate of the European Jews in the ’30s and ’40s should influence British policy on the Arab/Israel question in the ’80s.”

This was a reference to then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, former leader of the anti-British terrorist group Irgun, who during the early 1980s persistently used the Holocaust as a diplomatic weapon against British, French and German governments.

Archival records show that Carrington was echoing the views of senior diplomats including the Foreign Office Political Director Julian Bullard (later British Ambassador to West Germany).

Julian Bullard, Political Director of the Foreign Office, was one of the most eloquent and well-informed opponents of the Holocaust Memorial project.

A memo by Bullard (whose father and several other relatives were also senior British diplomats) explained:

“I continue to see no particular reason why Crown land in London should be used for a memorial to events which did not take place on British territory or involve a large part of the British population. The lapse of time (now 35 years) prompts the question why, if a memorial in Britain was desirable, it was not organised at the time, when the memory was greener.
“I continue to suspect that at least some of the sponsors of the project are hoping that, if realised, it would strengthen the idea that Britain has some sort of special responsibility towards Israel on account of the events of 1933 to 1945, and that these events are or should be still a factor in British policy in the Middle East. A perhaps even more unworthy thought is that some of the sponsors may be deliberately throwing down a challenge to anti-semitic elements in this country.”

Bullard’s colleague Sir John Graham, then Deputy Under-Secretary for the Middle East, agreed:
“I fully share Mr Bullard’s doubts. Why should not the Jewish Community buy a site and erect a memorial if they wish? Would we permit a monument to Deir Yassin in a Royal Park? And yet our responsibility for that massacre was as close (or as distant) as for the massacre of the Jews by Hitler.”

In a later memorandum, Sir John (a baronet and career diplomat who later served as British Ambassador and Permanent Representative to NATO) repeated and amplified this argument:
“The possible followers of the precedent include the Armenians (Turkish massacres), the PLO (Deir Yassin), the supporters of Allende and so on. Of course it is a free country and people may erect monuments, subject to planning permission, but they ought to do it on their own land and at their own expense.”

Senior Foreign Office diplomat David Gladstone compiled a summary of the arguments against a London Holocaust Memorial

A summary of the argument against the memorial was drawn up by David Gladstone, head of the Foreign Office Western European Department. He wrote:
“Mr Begin and other members of his government refer frequently to the Holocaust to justify their current security policies and to demonstrate, in the absence of convincing rational argument, why Europe is necessarily disqualified from any role in peace efforts and is not entitled to challenge Israel’s own view of her security needs. The Israeli Ambassador in London has taken a similar line in two recent speeches here, in which he has also suggested more or less explicitly that the motives for our policy are purely commercial. A memorial in London on government land might prove an irresistible stick with which to go on beating HMG from time to time.”

An aide memoire drawn up for Carrington before a Downing Street meeting on the project read:
“Why a memorial to Holocaust after 35 years? Is real motive political? Concerned at use made of Holocaust by present Israeli government to justify unacceptable policies and pillory European peace efforts unjustifiably.”

Julian Bullard once again weighed in: “This incorporates my views, which have strengthened with the passage of time. It cannot be wise to contemplate authorising the proposed memorial at a time when Arab-Israeli problems, and Britain’s attitude to them, is constantly on the front pages. But the Secretary of State will want to be sure that his colleagues support him, given the likelihood of press stories.”

Arguments against the Memorial were “strongly endorsed” by the Permanent Under-Secretary himself – Sir Michael Palliser, Head of the Diplomatic Service.

Two of the senior ministers opposed to the Holocaust Memorial were Home Secretary William Whitelaw (above left) and Minister of Defence Francis Pym (above right), seen here attending the Thanksgiving Service after the Falklands War in 1982. Both Whitelaw and Pym had been awarded the Military Cross for their bravery under fire during the Second World War.

Carrington and his Foreign Office advisers received support from other senior figures. Francis Pym, Minister of Defence, wrote that a Holocaust memorial “would be rather a strange newcomer to a part of London where the existing memorials – whether one thinks of the Cenotaph itself or of the military leaders commemorated in Whitehall or around the Ministry of Defence Main Building – relate very much to the British national tradition and to our own victories and sorrows. Indeed I am afraid that I am still not entirely clear what is the object of the proposed memorial.”

Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister William Whitelaw agreed: “I have strong reservations about the erection in Whitehall of such a memorial. …I am also puzzled about the purpose of the memorial.”

It is worth pointing out that the three senior ministers with reservations or objections had all seen active service during the Second World War, and all three had been awarded the Military Cross, granted for “an act or acts of exemplary gallantry during active operations against the enemy on land.” Carrington spent a decade with the Grenadier Guards from 1939 to 1949, eventually with the rank of acting major, and was awarded the MC in March 1945 for his bravery while commanding a tank crossing the Rhine, capturing and holding a bridge at Nijmegen. Pym served in the 9th Lancers in North Africa and Italy, also to the rank of major, and was awarded the MC after being twice mentioned in despatches. Whitelaw was with the Scots Guards, and later the 6th Guards Tank Brigade, commanding tanks during the Battle of Normandy in the summer of 1944. His MC was awarded after the 26-year-old Whitelaw took over from his battalion’s second-in-command who had been killed in front of him.

The future Lord Carrington (centre) with his fellow Grenadier Guards

However on 12th November 1981 Prime Minister Thatcher – for largely political reasons – overrode these objections and a “modest” Holocaust memorial was eventually erected in Hyde Park, officially unveiled in June 1983.

The full story of this memorial, and the planning arguments involved – highly relevant to the present battle within Westminster City Council’s planning committee over whether to approve a far more grandiose memorial – is told in a detailed report submitted to Westminster City Council by H&D‘s Assistant Editor Peter Rushton.

Click here to read this detailed and fully documented report.

Chuka’s family secrets

Chuka Umunna – the great mixed-race hope of British liberalism

Chuka Umunna is keen to promote himself as ‘leader’ of the so-called Independent Group of MPs who have broken away from the Labour and Conservative parties. TIG (as it is presently known) is likely to become a properly registered political party later this year.

This much-promoted and lavishly-funded ‘centre party’ has two principal characteristics. Its ex-Labour members were prompted to leave Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party primarily because of the latter’s alleged “anti-semitism”; while it’s ex-Tory members quit Theresa May’s Conservative Party mainly because they oppose Brexit.

Umunna (MP for the South London constituency of Streatham) was once seen as a future Labour leader (in the Tony Blair tradition) and is still touted as a future Prime Minister.

His father was from the Nigerian Igbo tribal group, but his mother Patricia Milmo is an Anglo-Irish solicitor from a wealthy family. Chuka’s maternal grandfather, Sir Helenus Milmo was a judge who served in the British security and intelligence services during and after the Second World War, where thanks to his prowess as an interrogator he was known as ‘Buster’ Milmo.

Since Chuka is now so keen to smear critics of Israel as “anti-semites”, perhaps he could enlighten us about his grandfather’s views on Jewish terrorism against British soldiers and civilians during 1945 to 1948, and his MI5 colleagues’ experience of combatting this Zionist scourge?

Chuka Umunna’s grandfather Sir Helenus Milmo, who before becoming a postwar judge was a senior MI5 officer: he viewed the Nuremberg trials as a “grandiose performance”.

And since it is illegal in several European countries to criticise the Nuremberg trials of alleged war criminals, perhaps Chuka would care to comment on his grandfather’s view of the entire Nuremberg process?

H&D can reveal that on 11th August 1945 ‘Buster’ Milmo wrote to his immediate superior in the British security service MI5 about a short British list of alleged war criminals for potential trial at Nuremberg: “which names about ten candidates to occupy the stage at this grandiose performance”.

Milmo was not alone in taking a jaundiced or cynical view of the Nuremberg charade of “victors’ justice”. No less a figure than Lord Hankey – the main architect of the modern civil service who served as the first ever Cabinet Secretary from 1916 to 1938 told the House of Lords in 1949 that “Contrary to general belief, the history on which the Nuremberg judgments and findings were based is not accurate.”

Lord Hankey added: “There was something cynical and revolting in the spectacle of British, French and American judges sitting on the Bench with colleagues who, however impeccable as individuals, represented a country which before, during and since the trials has perpetrated half the political crimes in the calendar. And in spite of the specious arguments on page 38 of the Nuremberg Judgment, I do not see how anyone can deny that under a cloak of justice these trials were just the old, old story—one law for the victors and another for the vanquished. Vae victis!”

If Chuka Umunna hopes to refresh British politics and renew the UK’s relationship with Europe, he could start by quoting his own family’s heritage to repair the damage caused by what his grandfather called the “grandiose performance” of Nuremberg. And if he is serious about “anti-semitism”, Mr Umunna should be keen to differentiate between what Lord Hankey termed “specious arguments”, and serious efforts to assess historical truth.

Paul Fromm on Dresden – 1945-2019

74 years ago a terrible war crime was committed in the ancient city of Dresden.

In the video below, Canadian broadcaster and free speech activist Paul Fromm remembers the slaughter at Dresden, and comments on its significance for Europeans worldwide.

Does Alison Chabloz know what she’s doing? Or criminalising “Holocaust”-revisionism by the back door

Richard Edmonds reports

“Lord, what fools these mortals be.”  Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act 3, scene 2.

Vincent Reynouard at one of his many court hearings

Found “Guilty” at the Westminster Magistrates’ court last year and given a suspended prison sentence, folk-singer and satirist Alison Chabloz has decided to appeal her conviction and sentence to Southwark Crown court in central London. (Technically this is a full retrial of the case rather than an appeal on a point of law.)

As always in appealing to a higher court against the findings and sentencing of a lower court, there is the risk that, as in the case of Ms. Chabloz, the suspended prison sentence of some weeks’ duration (i.e. at “liberty” but subject to certain conditions), is regarded as too indulgent by the higher court which then hands down an actual prison sentence of months – months locked up in a concrete cell in close proximity with criminals and various other anti-social types. Taking the risk of appealing against the findings of a lower court is always a very personal matter. 

For legal reasons no comment is made here on the merits or demerits of the case itself. What is under examination here are the tactics and implications of taking the case to a higher level of the court system. 

Because, what is not a personal matter in the case of Ms. Chabloz, is what the consequences of her decision to appeal might be for the Revisionist movement here in Britain. That is the question. As the law stands, the findings of a Magistrates’ court are not regarded as setting any legal precedent. 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.

This is not some idle theory and speculation. Recently the brave French revisionist and refugee from French “Justice” currently residing in Britain, Vincent Reynouard, raised the whole question of the possible consequences of Ms. Chabloz‘ appeal. In an interview that he gave to the highly regarded nationalist and revisionist, French-language publication, RIVAROL (12. December 2018), Reynouard expressed his fears. Referring directly to the case of Alison Chabloz in Britain, Vincent Reynouard asked, “who says that her case may not create a legal precedent ?” Reynouard reminded the readers of RIVAROL how the judicial authorities in North America had employed legal pretexts to arrest Ernst Zundel and Germar Rudolf in order to extradite the pair of them back to their land of origin, where both were immediately jailed for many years. Reynouard stressed that the possibility cannot be excluded that he might get the same treatment. 

Question: Does Ms. Chabloz know what she is doing ?

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter