Germany, Britain, Canada, Australia - Suppression of Multiple Freedoms, Including Intellectual Freedom

ꕤ Horst Mahler former German lawyer + activist b. Silesia 1936 2009 - at 73yrs old sentenced to 11 years ie, for old man:  amounts to DEATH SENTENCE Political Prisoner: German judge pronounced Horst Mahler: "not able to be re-educated" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Mahler Horst Mahler -- 2000, joined National Democratic Party of Germany -- (Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, NPD) -- 2001 German govt began process attempting to ban NPD -- Mahler acted as attorney for party -- govt uses of Volksverhetzung (incitement) accusations v. party -- petitions court to seize Mahler's computer assets -- Mahler successfully defeated effort -- Mahler later left party (2003) Horst Mahler -- charges re 9-11 statements -  Volksverhetzung (incitement)  -- for claiming 9-11 "concocted conspiracy" & not al-Qaeda -- 2004 'Holocaust denial' under  Volksverhetzung (incitement) -- this is in connection to his role in VRBHV -- Society for the Rehabilitation of Those Persecuted -- for Refutation of the Holocaust (VRBHV) -- 2006, passport revoked to prevent Teheran conference -- 2007, Volksverhetzung (incitement) -- re Vanity Fair interview with Michel Friedman (CDU) -- Friedman, former VP of the 'Central Council of Jews' in Germany -- Friedman brought charges against Mahler alleging:     1 -- Hitler salute; &     2 -- shout of "Heil Hitler, Herr Friedman!" -- Mahler told Friedman that:  "the systematic extermination of Jews in Auschwitz is a lie" -- 2006:  9-mth sentence -- 2007:  6-mth sentence without parole for Hitler salute -- when reporting to prison for a 9-mth term THE PREVIOUS YEAR -- 2009, Feb:  6-YEARS prison, no reduction or bail -- 2009, Mar:  5-YEARS ADDITIONAL prison 'holocaust denial' & 'banalisation' -- thus, a total of 11-YEARS prison to a 73 year old -- effectively, DEATH SENTENCE Horst Mahler -- was defended by Sylvia Stolz -- Stolz repeatedly convicted & imprisoned Sylvia Stolz lawyer political prisoner: repeatedly imprisoned by Germany / Merkel for thought crime Feb 2015: imprisoned for 20 months by a court in Munich for a speech she delivered in 2012 Stolz  3.5 years imprisonment  + prof. exclusion (5 yrs) --> for defending client in court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Stolz Stolz *referred to as Mahler's wife on other site. *not sure if this is correct or not. Article re British Bishop Richard Williamson ... mentions Germans Bishop Williamson wins appeal against conviction in Germany Posted on February 23, 2012 "... Indeed in March 2009 the German lawyer Horst Mahler received the maximum five year prison sentence for such offences, as did the German-Canadian artist and publisher Ernst Zündel in 2007 after being expelled from Canada under an unconstitutional “national security certificate”.  German lawyer Sylvia Stoltz was sentenced to three and a half years in prison in 2008, and banned from practising her profession." A criminal investigation of Bishop Williamson was launched by the German authorities within weeks of the broadcast, and in October 2009 he was fined €12,000 under the German system of “order of punishment”, which initially involves no trial but is sometimes accepted by defendants in straightforward cases, such as traffic offences and the like. The Bishop’s initial lawyer Matthias Lossmann had been appointed via the SSPX, and pursued a defeatist strategy which led to his client being convicted following a trial in Regensburg in April 2010, though the fine was reduced to €10,000. A first appeal was heard in July 2011, again in Regensburg, by which time Bishop Williamson had taken on new lawyers – first Wolfram Nahrath, and later Prof. Edgar Weiler, who represented him at the appeal hearing which I attended. The outcome of this appeal was to reduce the fine again to €6,500, but the legal arguments introduced by Prof. Weiler have now resulted in the complete throwing out of the charges. A reading of the documents suggests that Prof. Weiler was successful in challenging the very basis of the charges – namely the essential question of at what point Bishop Williamson had committed an offence.  Was it illegal simply to make these statements in Germany, even behind closed doors, to the Swedish journalist?  Surely this was not a “publication”. Were the prosecutors arguing that Bishop Williamson had intended the comments to be broadcast in Germany, bearing in mind that he was speaking to a Swedish journalist for a Swedish programme?  Or that he had not done enough to prevent that publication?  If so, in what sense?  The broadcast clearly shows Bishop Williamson warning the journalist that such comments are illegal in Germany and that they should not be published there. The higher court has now agreed that the prosecutors’ charges against Bishop Williamson failed to make these matters clear, and that his conviction should therefore be thrown out. [ ... ] ... dangerous ambiguity of a German legal system which operates by very different standards of free expression from many of its European partners. Dr Fredrick Toben with Lady Michele Renouf following the defeat of a European Arrest Warrant in the London courts, allowing Dr Toben to return to Australia a free man rather than be extradited to Germany. Such contradictions led of course to the historic victory in the London courts in 2008, when a European Arrest Warrant against the Australian academic Dr Fredrick Toben, drawn up by German prosecutors was similarly thrown out for reflecting the very vagueness of the law it is based upon, which fails to define terms such as “holocaust” or its unique alleged mass murder weapon.  On that occasion too, the German authorities and their partners in the Crown Prosecution Service insisted that they would appeal and continue to seek Dr Toben’s extradition, but they quickly abandoned their flimsy case. CONTINUES http://jailingopinions.com/blog/?p=22 SMH Holocaust denier Frederick Toben backs George Brandis' plans for discrimination law May 13, 2014 Holocaust denier Frederick Toben has strongly backed the Abbott government's plans to water down race hate laws, describing them as a welcome challenge to "Jewish supremacism" in Australia. In an explosive submission to Attorney-General George Brandis' review of the Racial Discrimination Act, obtained by Fairfax Media, Mr Toben congratulated the government for its attempt to rectify what he describes as a "flawed law, which only benefits Jewish-Zionist-Israeli interests". His comments drew immediate anger in the Jewish community, which has warned that the government's plans for Section 18C of the act will open the door to "vilification on a massive scale". Mr Toben said Senator Brandis – who famously defended people's "right to be a bigot" – had incorrectly claimed the need for reform of the Racial Discrimination Act was about free speech and the conviction of News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt under 18C. "The essence of what the RDA Section 18C is all about and why it needs to be repealed is that the so-called 'Bolt law' is in effect a 'Holocaust' protection law," Mr Toben wrote. "The 'Bolt law' case was used in an attempt to hide this Holocaust matter and to make it a free expression issue. The trap set for the multiculturalists in Australia by Jewish interests, who designed Section 18C, is that the sole aim of this section has always been to legally protect ... the Holocaust-Shoah narrative." Senator Brandis distanced the government from Mr Toben's support on Tuesday, describing him as a "nutter".  "I've never read anything that Mr Toben has said but I'm aware of his views from press reports and views I've heard attributed to Mr Toben are absolute rubbish," he said. "I don't agree with Mr Toben but I do agree with President Barack Obama who said last week in relation to the Donald Sterling case: 'when people, when ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don't have to do anything, you just let them talk'." The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, and the Zionist Federation condemned Mr Toben but said it was the government's proposal that would allow him to freely peddle his views. Mr Toben, a German-born Australian, was found to be in breach of discrimination laws in 2003. He went to jail in 2009 for defying Federal Court orders to remove material from his website that claimed there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, and describing the murder of millions of Jews during World War II as the "Holocaust myth''. Executive Council of Australian Jewry executive director Peter Wertheim said: "I am sure the government will derive no joy at all from Fredrick Toben's endorsement of its proposals to water down section 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act. "Toben has spent a large part of his life vainly attempting to rehabilitate the disgraced record of Nazi Germany. If the government's proposed changes to the law are enacted, racist rants of this kind will be given a free pass on the basis that they are part of a public discussion. "Worse still, overtly racist discourse will be given the accolade of freedom of expression. It's time for the government to abandon its ideologically-driven attempt to emasculate laws that have worked well for nearly 20 years." Tsvi Fleischer of the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council said the changes proposed by the government were a licence to vilify on a massive scale. "Toben's submission is more evidence of that," he said. "If the changes go through according to the government's model for comment, we do fear that people like Toben will be able to say whatever he wants – which is usually how evil the Jews are all the time." Labor senator Lisa Singh said: "Mr Toben is wrong in almost everything he says, except in his claim that the Abbott government's changes would give him licence to continue his racist tirades. "George Brandis has offended the vast majority of communities and organisations across Australia with his proposals to license racism. The only people still supporting him unequivocally are extremists like Holocaust denier Frederick Toben." SOURCE http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/holocaust-denier-frederick-toben-backs-george-brandis-plans-for-discrimination-law-20140513-zrbnx.html One man's 'race hate laws' are another man's political (and potentially ethno-political) suppression laws. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Sylvia Stolz lawyer politically persecuted political prisoner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Stolz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCuwbbNQcZI ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Those that think Germany is some pinnacle of 'European values' and the embodiment of 'justice', 'freedom',  Western 'democracy' and Superhero goodness-and-light, might want to take a look at some of this material. Germany is a totalitarian state and Germans are political prisoners not only for challenging official political and historical narratives, but also for seeking to defend themselves in court (which is next to impossible, if you listen to what Syliva Stolz has to say on the matter in the video above). Germany is a totalitarian state of the worst order:  a state that is forcibly 're-educating' citizens, & denying, suppressing, extinguishing various freedoms, defences and academic facts etc.  I'm not sure what that is, but I think Mahler and various others targeted by the German state are (or have in the past been) political prisoners and/or targets of political persecution. This is a bigger revelation to me than the Snowden leaks confirming that we are under the intrusive gaze and supervision of a coterie of Western totalitarian powers conducting mass-surveillance upon multiple unsuspecting entire nations across the world (including their own). This is absolute proof that the 'freedoms' we are given to believe we have in Western democracies are a lie. Why would anyone dream that whistleblowers or defenders of any civil freedoms whatsoever belong in brave new fascist Germany? And who knew that there's Canadian-German and British-German collusion to prosecute people for apparently speaking their minds?  Wow. And it doesn't end there.  Apparently, Australia was also instrumental in suppression of thought/opinion of a German-Australian academic, Dr Fredrick Toben (given the Federal authorities website take-down order) -- an academic the Australian Attorney-General, George Brandis, has labelled a 'nutter', in what is most likely a desperate attempt to distance himself from the said academic's approval.  Nice one.  lol I don't know anything about Toben, but all these academics around the world cannot be 'nuts'. Recall from earlier reading of related material that there's also been a New Zealand academic that's fallen prey to what I guess is suppression of dissenting opinion or thought -- but in an academic setting (and in empirical terms, I guess), which is probably far worse than suppressing the voices of the great unwashed (academia requires integrity and grounding in reality, and academia is a thought-leader, a thought shaper, a voice of reason,  and an authority 'defining' that which is -- but that vital voice of reason is silenced by the state). Below are some notes I did back when I first came across this New Zealand academic.  I've left out the parts that might be considered controversial (yeah, I know, what a chicken ... lol).  Anyone that's interested can link and read the article.  Note:   page 2 is not linked.  It's a two-instalments deal, & the source has not correctly linked the second instalment.  The article's written by an academic, Thomas Fudge, who resigned in protest at Canterbury University's refusal to publish an article defending NZ academic, Joel Hayward.  Thomas Fudge sounds like a really cool and decent guy.  History's his field so he'd also have some amazing things to share. Thomas Fudge's article in defence of Joel Hayward is one of the most mind-blowing things I've ever read. ------- PS -- It's a sad day when you have to rely on the Liberal party to defend vital freedoms, while the pathetic waste of space that is the Labour party lobbies to rob you of freedom. What passes as the 'left' of politics disgusts me.  And all this time I fancied myself a 'socialist'.  ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Summary Holocaust, history and free speech 11:04 AM Thursday Jul 24, 2003 by Thomas Fudge, History Lecturer Canterbury University history lecturer THOMAS FUDGE has resigned in protest at the university's refusal to publish this article defending a young academic against the charge of holocaust denial. It appears in two instalments, today and tomorrow. [note:  page 2 of article/letter, link broken.  No.  It's a two-instalments deal.  Not linked.] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3514153 Article also available at:   https://archive.is/e8Q2A  ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- In Summary Subject:  MA Thesis Joel Hayward 1993 Hayward awarded master of arts degree first class honours in history University of Canterbury thesis on the historiography of the Holocaust later wrote a PhD thesis 1996  -  appointed to a lectureship at Massey University late 1999 -- MA thesis publicly denounced -- New Zealand Jewish Council: -- alleged thesis historical revisionism constituting Holocaust denial -- Hayward -- repeatedly apologised -- agreed to the extraordinary step of including an appendix to thesis -- modifying his findings, co-operated with subsequent investigation -- university appointed an independent working party to investigate -- claims against the thesis -- committee consisted of: -- retired High Court judge Sir Ian Barker -- Professor Ann Trotter -- Professor Stuart MacIntyre -- lengthy report concluded that the thesis was seriously flawed -- & Hayward should not have essayed a judgement in such a controversial area -- report did not recommend withdrawal of the thesis by the university -- & did not agree with the allegations -- that Hayward's argument was racist or motivated by malice -- opinion:  thesis did not deserve high marks received widely publicised in media -- no fewer than 6 serving or retired members of history dept -- persisted in own judgement that thesis was a first-class effort -- notwithstanding finality of report & qualified exoneration of Howard -- during 2000, 2001, and 2002 Hayward received hundreds -- of pieces of hate mail -- abusive phone calls, threats against himself, his wife & small children -- harassment at Massey University -- & continued negative media attention -- livelihood affected: -- attempts to publish, unsuccessful -- efforts to find employment, unsuccessful -- issue is beyond concern over allegedly flawed (but unpublished) research -- is this issue re academic values & freedom? -- is this issue of academic freedom and intellectual fashions? -- Hayward's detractors claim that he is wrong in terms of both -- censure attempts several years prior to 1999, before thesis written -- due to this, Hayward embargoed thesis for 3 years as soon as it was examined -- on 3-yr expiration, Hayward notified university library -- to make thesis available to researchers -- library replied it had restricted thesis, so it could only be consulted w/ -- Hayward's permission until 1999 -- almost immediate allegations published re holocaust denial -- was outrage over thesis a device for attacking Hayward? -- one critic stated academic freedom could exist without academic responsibility -- LEGAL OPINION: -- interpretation re Hayward thesis -- permitted very limited right to academic freedom -- those for academic freedom argue: -- universities should be great storehouses of wisdom & learning -- & students should be able to learn & choose -- Academic freedom implies -- no taboo subjects, no off-limits topics -- official statements re NZ academic libraries -- that no materials & authors should be restricted or removed due -- to doctrinal disapproval or pressure -- senior academics, however, steer students from controversial subjects Holocaust -- IRRESPECTIVE of intellectual considerations -- those wishing to question received notions re holocaust in NZ -- are controlled by accepted 'truth standards' -- danger lies in ambiguity of 'truth standards' Howard rejected well-established 'facts' -- re holocaust -- thesis examined writings of those who questioned holocaust industry -- a significant number have done so over last 30 years -- Is it not the duty of universities & researchers to question -- conventional understandings? MA Thesis 'The Fate of Jews in German Hands:  An Historical Enquiry into the Development & Significance of Holocaust Revisionism -- Joel Hayward -- investigation of holocaust histriography -- esp. branch regarded as 'revisionist' -- concluded some of the revisionist literature unworthy of -- in-depth scholarly consideration -- other material found to be significant & noteworthy -- Hayward arrived at 3 principal conclusions based on historiography -- & weight of historical evidence: DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE FACTORS AVAILABLE AT SOURCE -- working party investigating Hayward thesis -- FOUND HIM NOT GUILTY of:  racism, anti-Semitism or falsifying data SOURCE http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3514153 --------------------------------------------------------------- LINK TO THESIS http://ipac.canterbury.ac.nz/ipac20/ipac.jsp?index=BIB&term=373451 Thesis not available online - must request a copy. --------------------------------------------------------------- ꕤ