Arbeit macht frei: - Fredrick Töben

dumpster. The article then states that 1.-1.5 million were killed at
Auschwitz, not the original 4 million, without explanation, of course.
Netanjahu will also visit Wannsee Villa where the ‘final solution’ was
planned. This is contrary to what Prof Jehuda Bauer told me in 1991 on a
visit to Melbourne. He stated that this Wannsee meeting was ‘hardly’ the
beginning of the extermination process now called ‘the final solution’.
9. It is instructive briefly to reflect on the two ‘spreading false news’ court
cases Ernst Zündel fought in Toronto, Canada, in 1984/5 and 1988,
where Prof Raul Hilberg had to admit under oath that his stated two
Hitler written orders that began the ‘final solution’ – as stated in his The
Destruction of European Jewry – did not exist!
10. #4: How can a questioning of historical events be offensive? That was
the draw-card the Iranian President threw out to the world in December
2006 when he asked just before the International Holocaust Conference:
‘Is the Holocaust not an historical event?’
Answer: ‘Yes.’
Dr Ahmadienjad: ‘Then, like any other historical event, let’s investigate it,
let’s ask questions about it.’
The Response is always a vicious labelling of anyone who dares question
the official Holocaust narrative as ‘hater’, ‘Holocaust denier’, ‘antisemite’,
‘racist’, ‘Nazi’, ‘xenophobe’, even now ‘terrorist’. Mature enquiry is thus
blocked. I ask: What have the Holocaust believers to fear from an open
debate on this topic?
11. Further, under the Racial Discrimination Act, there are defences, such
as work done for academic and artistic purposes. It appears that the
material I and others produced and published had no redeeming qualities.
Branson never defined what is and is not ‘of academic value’.
12. The ‘offensive material’ claim is, of course, a mechanism of
censorship, a one-way street for those who take everything literally, then
feel hurt and aggrieved when they come across an opinion they do not
agree with, then litigate. What amazes me was the tenacity with which
Lewis and Wertheim kept on looking at the material posted on Adelaide
Institute’s website that could be used as evidence against me. Obsessivecompulsive
behaviour would be an apt description. In would have thought
that in a mature social democratic society anyone who comes across
material found to be offensive and hurtful, would cease and desist from
reading it and switch off. In legal terms it is the push-pull or the publish
and purchase argument. Internet material is not pushed on to anyone but
it has consciously to be pulled down or downloaded.
13. #5: My matter is one of persecution through legal prosecution. At this
stage of legal argument the matters of fact that gave rise to the orders
became irrelevant, and hence my statement about this matter that the
189