Chutzpah in Modern Germany
by Dr. Ingrid R. Zundel
On Jan 2, 2013, a German citizen named Günter (sometimes spelled Guenther) Deckert will once again report to the gates of yet another penitentiary to be disciplined for his incurable devotion to Truth in History.
Michael Hoffman II, a former Associated Press wire writer turned Historical Revisionist, (www.revisionisthistory.org) explains some of the details of this case:
In the World War II revisionist history movement in Germany, Günter Deckert is among the most hard-working and humble of its martyrs.
I say “martyr” because any resident of Germany who persists in actively and publicly doubting the existence of execution gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau — the holy relic of the West’s most sacred religion (Holocaustianity) — will be fined and likely imprisoned.
Günter Deckert has been to prison before in Germany for this reason – five years’ imprisonment, 1995 to 2000 – and he is about to be imprisoned again.
His “crime”? Translating from Italian into German historian Carlo Mattogno’s treatise, “Auschwitz: The First Gassing” (überarbeiten, deutsche Endbearbeitung/ -fassung). http://revisionistreview.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/researcher-gunter-deckert-sentenced-to.html
Actually, “überarbeiten” means, in essence, only editing. Not translating or writing, much less agreeing! In fact, I double-checked, and Günter, a long-time friend of many noted European dissidents, who served as a note-taker and freelance reporter in my husband’s bizarre, drawn-out political show-trial in 2007 in Mannheim, explained:
By 1995, I had accumulated 11 years, This was reduced to five years, which I served to the last minute in JVS “Veste” Bruchsal, founded in 1948, a replica of a Pennsylvania prison model.
How did Deckert ran afoul repeatedly of “speech crimes” in ‘the free-est democracy that ever existed on German soil” – always held up as a bastion of “freedom of speech” to be emulated in countries like China and such? Here’s how:
• Having insulted entrenched mandarins of the establishment such as Foreign Minister Kinkel, several luminaries of the FDP, a political Party, and the illustrious Ignatz Bubis, the then Jewish leader of the Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland, by accusing them in various ways of political hypocrisy.
• Having had the gall to call the Heidelberg Police Department “Stasi-West”.
• Having dispensed helpful advice to Michel Friedman, then Vice President of said Judenrat, former CDU politician and talk show host, yammerer par excellence and President of the European Jewish Congress – before he was convicted of illegal drug use and what is described on the Net as “forced prostitution” of very young girls from the Ukraine. Deckert to Friedman:
“If you don’t like it here, why don’t you pack your suitcase and join your compatriots in Israel? There you can lecture and complain.”
Arguably Deckert’s worst political sin was for an impromptu (verbal) translation of the forensic Leuchter Report, based on an investigative expedition to Auschwitz, which documented for the first time, ever, that Auschwitz could never have been the scene of an industrial-type, assembly-line, politically motivated genocide of utterly innocent bipeds through gassing. That alone, recalls Deckert, cost him two years.
(Actually, urban lore has it that – as he stood next to Fred Leuchter at a small gathering of fellow Germans, translating from English to German – he smirked!)
Deckert suggests that the current judgment – 5 months in prison – are likewise attributed to his recidivist ways, despite his carefully distancing himself explicitly on page 3 by stating that the author’s (Mattogno’s) theses and conclusions are not his (Deckert’s) own.
Paul Eisen, a free speech activist living in Britain, sent me the following comments:
“I’m glad to say I’ve had no experience of Germany’s ‘Incitement of the Masses’ laws (Holocaust denial to you and me) and quite honestly, I found it all a bit hard to believe. Surely Mr Deckert must have done something worse than just translating a revisionist document into German to merit such a sentence.
Then, some days later, I received the following exchange which does clarify things a bit. It’s between a Mr William Henderson of Toronto, Canada and Georg Jürgens, Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission to the German Embassy in Canada.
Mr Henderson wrote:
I note from an RSS feed that I subscribe to that Gunther Deckert is due to report to prison for a five month term early in the new year.
Further inquiry reveals that his crime was to translate a document from Italian into German.
It seems to me that a jail sentence for the mere translation of a document is somewhat ridiculous.
Could you please advise me what harm a simple document could do and why the matter would even be of any interest to the German authorities?
William E. Henderson
And Mr Jurgens replied:
Dear Mr Henderson,
It exceeds the capacity of this Embassy to find out exactly what the notorious neo-nazi Deckert did this time.
To get an idea about this man you might want to check him out on Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Deckert
Just let me add that if you translate foreign documents to deny the Holocaust or to incite racial hatred you are punishable under German law.
Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission
Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany
So, it’s true. “If you translate foreign documents to deny the Holocaust or to incite racial hatred you are punishable under German law.”
Two questions remain:
1. Why is questioning the Holocaust “incitememt to racial hatred”?
2. In this globalised, internet age, when national boundaries mean nothing and English reigns supreme, what possible purpose can this serve other than to further cow a terrified population?
Show trials and vicious speech crime convictions are extremely painful for victims of the current political system involved, but they are one fine vehicle to illuminate said system’s corruption. When will the ever-so-obedient – because politically terrorized – German judiciary ever learn and rip the Jewish muzzle from their faces? It ought to dawn on them that doing so would be in their own interest – especially now that they have a legal directive from highest international quarters, which they gutlessly choose to ignore!
A recent United Nations document, titled “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, dated July 11, 2011 contains some marvelously gleaming paragraphs. Most cogent for dissident historians engaged in scuffle after scuffle with the insufferably pushy Holocaust Lobby are the following gems:
Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person. They are essential for any society. They constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society. The two freedoms are closely related, with freedom of expression providing the vehicle for the exchange and development of opinions.
Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights. (…) The freedoms of opinion and expression form a basis for the full enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights.
The obligation to respect freedoms of opinion and expression is binding on every State party as a whole. All branches of the State (executive, legislative and judicial) and other public or governmental authorities, at whatever level – national, regional or local – are in a position to engage the responsibility of the State party. (…) The obligation requires States parties to ensure that persons are protected from any acts by private persons or entities that would impair the enjoyment of the freedoms of opinion and expression to the extent that these Covenant rights are amenable to application between private persons or entities.
Paragraph 1 of article 19 requires protection of the right to hold opinions without interference. This is a right to which the Covenant permits no exception or restriction. Freedom of opinion extends to the right to change an opinion whenever and for whatever reason a person so freely chooses. No person may be subject to the impairment of any rights under the Covenant on the basis of his or her actual, perceived or supposed opinions.
All forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific, historic, moral or religious nature. It is incompatible with paragraph 1 to criminalize the holding of an opinion. The harassment, intimidation or stigmatization of a person, including arrest, detention, trial or imprisonment for reasons of the opinions they may hold, constitutes a violation of article 19, paragraph 1.
Any form of effort to coerce the holding or not holding of any opinion is prohibited. Freedom to express one’s opinion necessarily includes freedom not to express one’s opinion.
Paragraph 2 requires States parties to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds regardless of frontiers. This right includes the expression and receipt of communications of every form of idea and opinion capable of transmission to others (…) It includes political discourse, commentary on one’s own and on public affairs, canvassing, discussion of human rights, journalism, cultural and artistic expression, teaching, and religious discourse. (…)
Paragraph 2 protects all forms of expression and the means of their dissemination. Such forms include spoken, written and sign language and such non-verbal expression as images and objects of art. Means of expression include books, newspapers, pamphlets, posters, banners, dress and legal submissions. They include all forms of audio-visual as well as electronic and internet-based modes of expression.
Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with paragraph 3, and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defences as the defence of truth and they should not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification. (…)
In any event, a public interest in the subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defence. Care should be taken by States parties to avoid excessively punitive measures and penalties. (…)
States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. (…)
Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events. (…)
Might there be a lesson for the Minister-Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission to the German Embassy in Canada – so that, next time, he won’t be embarrassing himself by resorting to name-calling – and even referencing his gutter behavior by citing Wikipedia?
On free-speech matters, or lack thereof in Germany, I have yet more to say. I came across a nifty little video showcasing Sylvia Stolz.
A small snippet of a girl, known affectionately by fellow European dissidents as “Germany’s Joan of Arc”, Sylvia is a young lawyer by trade. She acted as co-counsel at Ernst Zundel’s show trial in Mannheim. She volunteered as yet another German martyr for Truth in History.
Sylvia knew perfectly well that to offer a proper defense is now itself a crime in Germany in Holocaust-related trials. By offering scientific evidence on behalf of a “Denier” she would be implicitly guilty of being a “Denier” herself. Imagine a court stonewalling exculpatory evidence of, say, a murder case by accusing a lawyer defending a client accused of a murder that he, the lawyer, might be a murderer himself! And yet, in “Holocaust Denial” cases that is precisely what happens!
Sylvia decided to set an example. She engineered hilarious drama by chirping away about illegal tactics of Germany’s Zionist-beholden government and its judiciary, to the hysterical objections of Judge Meinerzhagen, ignoring his furious pounding and pontifications, insisting cheerfully that she had every right on earth to a legal defense of her client by submitting evidence for the scientific basis of his heretical beliefs! Even a Frankfurter Allgemeine reporter, Volker Zastrow, fell for her charms and wrote a tongue-in-cheek piece on Fräulein Stolz’s repeated assaults on Meinerzhagen’s “limbic system” – that part of the brain that controls one’s emotions – to the point where the frustrated judge was forced to flee his own courtroom to hide out and cool off. That was petite Sylvia – goading him and goading him, to peels of laughter from the audience! It’s a classic!
In the end, Sylvia Stolz paid dearly for her gallant effort – as she knew from the start that she would. One merry morning, four sentinels in the employ of Germany’s own shadow government grabbed Fräulein Stolz and bodily carried her out of the courtroom. In due course, she found herself sentenced for three-and-a-half years for insubordination against a judge’s orders – and bravely served all but three months of that sentence. As far as I know, she also lost her license to practice law in what Ernst Zundel calls a “… geographical piece of land that people still call Germany – where speaking the Truth is now a crime enshrined in law.”
I have two brief tapes for you I offer for comparison.
The first features Sylvia’s last words before she, too, reported to the Political Inquisition so as to be caged for three years of her life with the dregs of the Vaterland’s scum.
The second video clip is my definition of Chutzpah:
Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=232136