Arbeit macht frei: - Fredrick Töben

1. Mary Maxwell is a final-year law student at the University of Adelaide, a
former president of the South Australian branch of the Independent
Scholars Association of Australia, former president of Australian Institute
for International Affairs (South Australian branch), former member of the
policing subcommittee of the Liberal Party of South Australia Policy
Committee.
2. She is the author of Human Evolution (Columbia University Press,
1984), Morality among Nations (State University of New York Press,
1990), and other books and journal articles, editor of The Sociobiological
Imagination (State University of New York Press, 1990), and has given
public lectures in cities throughout Australia, and overseas.
3. Mary Maxwell is the widow of George Maxwell, M.D., founding
professor of paediatrics at the University of Adelaide, who inspired and
encouraged her to support high standards of academic and scientific
research. She holds a Ph.D. in Politics from the University of Adelaide.
Her qualification to compose this amicus curiae brief consists of many
years of research in science, politics, and law.
4. In United States Tobacco Co v Minister for Consumer Affairs and
Others (1988) 20 FCR 520, the Full Federal Court stated (at 536): …there
is an overriding right of the court to see that justice is done. An amicus
may be heard if good cause is shown for doing so and if the court thinks it
is proper. Nothing in these reasons should be understood to delimit or
restrict the availability of or effectiveness of this valuable tool.
5. In Attorney-General (Cth) v Breckler & Ors (1999) 197 CLR 83, the
High Court (per Kirby J at 134) stated: [i]n many proceedings, especially
in recent years, [we have] granted leave to governmental and nongovernmental
organisations to make submissions as amici curiae where
their interests have suggested a capacity to provide submissions from a
specialised viewpoint, an industry perspective or in the public interest.
6. Toben v Jones is being watched worldwide because it could be
precedent-setting, and because there is a growing community of scholars
working on a revisionist view of many aspects of World War II history.
This amicus seeks to point out, for the Court, two effects that the ruling
may have on Australians who are not parties to the case, indeed on all
Australians. Thus, it is a public-interest submission.
7. The issues to be dealt with, in two parts of the amicus brief, are as
follows:
Part One -- the need, for schools and universities to continue to impart
students the traditional rules governing scientific and historical research,
and
Part Two -- the way in which a jail sentence for a scholar will chill free
expression in Australia, mainly by engendering self-censorship.
133