French Radio pulls plug on Faurisson interview
Faurisson after an encounter with Jewish thugs
A French Radio station has terminated an interview with the French professor Robert Faurisson after only 28 minutes even though he remained within the boundaries of the law and questioned at no point the accuracy of the holocaust but only spoke about the persecution of revisionists and the laws in place to deny historical revisionists their right of expression and the academical right of free inquiry. The Unholy Jewish Inquisition never sleeps! They like to promote what they call “diversity” but diversity of opinion they do not tolerate.
A French Radio station considered to be a voice for right-wing politics pulls the plug on live interview with Professor Robert Faurisson.
On Wednesday, 9 April 2008, 19:30 hours, both presenter, Martin Peltier, and Robert Faurisson agreed they would, in their discussion about world-wide Revisionist persecution, stay within the legal limits, as set down by the Fabius-Gayssot law – Radio Courtoisie http://www.radiocourtoisie.net.
After 27 minutes into the 90 minute program the broadcast was terminated and classical music was played instead. This appears to have been self-censorship because station management only found out at the beginning of the program who was to be the evening’s guest.
Prof Faurisson managed to detail his own persecution as well as that of Swiss Amaudruz, Austrians Honsik & Fröhlich, Germans Zündel, Stolz, Rieger, Australian Töben, Greek Plevris, French Notin, Plantin, Gollnisch.
Anyone wishing to receive a copy of the French transcript may request it from alexandervL@gmx.net
Prof. Robert Faurisson (Paris, 2007)
2) Here is the transcript (thanks to “Bocage”) of Martin Peltier’s broadcast on Radio Courtoisie of Wednesday, April 9 at 7:30 PM:
Guest: Professor Robert Faurisson. The program had been scheduled to run an hour-and-a-half but was abruptly silenced after 27 minutes.
Martin Peltier: Good evening, Professor. I have to explain to the listeners why I decided to invite into the studio someone who’s been prosecuted for law-breaking. We’re different in every way: you’re a university professor, I was never a good student; you’re half-British, and Great Britain is my pet political villain; you’re an atheist, I’m Catholic. Why, then? Well, there are reasons, some perhaps not so valid – for example, stirring things up is always fun, and there are also frivolous motives: you like Nerval and you feel Isidore Ducasse cannot be taken seriously, and that’s very good.
And then there are two valid reasons: To begin with, I think of the Gospel where Jesus says: Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. [Matthew 25:40] Now, in today’s society “the least” isn’t the unemployed, or the illegal immigrant who benefits from the good will and support of all sorts of well-meaning organizations. “The least” is the revisionist, the naked mangy wretch who spreads the worst of plagues: that which affects the memory.
And there’s a second reason for this invitation: today we won’t be speaking about your ideas or your work, Professor Faurisson, because to speak of those has been forbidden to us by law. But the manner in which you have been treated by the media and government agencies is disgusting and shocking. One can very well understand that thoughts and their expression must be limited, must be guided — maybe it’s even desirable; does one ever know? But that a society which has made blasphemy a virtue and loudly proclaims its desire for unrestricted liberty represses “incorrect thought” with extreme ferocity is intolerable from the points of view of reason and morality, both. It is therefore necessary to denounce this situation specifically and vigorously: we cannot remain our whole lives prostrate before the diktat handed down by the powerful and the [inaudible] they impose. For the honor of the press and of the French people we must from time to time attempt to lift ourselves off the ground even if all we can manage is the tip of an ear.
So today we’re going to do history, a little history of revisionism. There will be absolutely no justifying of any claims whatsoever, only telling what has happened.
With that said, let’s be clear that we are not going to talk about the gas chambers! The 1990 Gayssot Law forbids debate on the subject of “crime against humanity” as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1946. And unless I’m mistaken, it even forbids the semblance of debate.
What is the law’s text exactly? Can you quote it from memory?
Robert Faurisson: That’s right, this law, passed July 13, 1990, which we’ve come to call the Fabius-Gayssot or Gayssot Law, forbids debate on crimes against humanity as defined, judged, and punished in particular by the international military court in Nuremberg in 1945-46. But this law of July 13, 1990 has come to be interpreted in such a way that there exists today a body of legal precedent saying you have neither the right to debate nor, to put it simply, the right to merely seem to debate. As a result, anything, or nearly anything, can be interpreted as debate.
MP: Of course. And it’s there that — if I may — it’s no secret, Professor, that you have raised questions about the existence of execution gas chambers in occupied Europe under Hitler and you revise considerably downward the generally accepted 6 million figure of Jews who died during the Second World War. Therefore I won’t ask you to comment on this subject and if you happen to stray onto it I’ll cut you off without hesitating or showing you the least courtesy, I warn you. You are here under surveillance, in a sense — it was the best I could offer, and we will limit ourselves to three subjects that were strictly defined prior to the broadcast. Furthermore, to be honest with you, even without the Gayssot Law I wouldn’t let you expand on your revisionist ideas: apart from legal penalties enacted by lawmakers and decided by judges there are others, spontaneously applied, no matter whether applied quietly or demanded loudly: these are the pressures on families, the negative comments in the workplace, the assaults against those who think wrong thoughts and those who make their expression possible. There are extra-legal forces in our country functioning with complete freedom; there are militias above the law and I admit I’m afraid of them; I’m scared of the more or less hidden power one sees busy at work around the memory of the years called the darkest of our history.
And the first thing I’d like you to talk about is precisely the persecution of revisionists in France and the rest of the world. You yourself were beaten up and left for dead by a bunch of thugs whom the police finally preferred to let go. You’ve lost your employment. Several legal proceedings have ruined you financially. But still, you consider yourself fortunate, because when all is said and done you’ve never gone to jail for revisionism. What is … how do you view
yourself where this whole business is concerned?
RF: To reply to your question: “to judge is to compare”; I compare my situation with that of many other revisionists, especially Germans and Austrians. I judge the legal system that has condemned me but I also compare it to the German, Austrian, Swiss, and British legal systems, the English-speaking Canadian legal system, the American legal system, and others — the Australian legal system, for example. And I feel I’m fortunate to live in the bountiful country called France. I’ll add that for me, the French government is fine when it’s not in a war or a civil war, overt or insidious. And finally, I must confess, I’m lucky.
MP:You’ve given a little summary of the situation. I’d like to return, point by point, to … Is … Exactly, one must teach. Already, the story of the various persecutions. Can you tell us the true situation in the different countries? Can you say, for example, what the situation is in Switzerland? What trials of revisionists have there been, and what persecutions have they been subjected to? I’m thinking perhaps of Amaudruz?
RF: Well, there’s Amaudruz who at age of 82, I think, went to prison for three months I believe — and there’ve been others. I admit this is a subject I don’t like getting into so much, because bringing up the persecutions revisionists have been subjected to is a way of complaining. The question is to learn whether, at bottom, we are right or not — but on that subject you’ve forbidden me to speak.
MP: Absolutely. On that I’m very clear. But by definition, one can’t speak of things one can’t speak of. It’s a tautology. But I love tautologies: they’re my favorite sport. And so I think it is nevertheless interesting — you don’t wish to speak about it but I want to make you talk about it because I believe the public, even the educated public, doesn’t … you, you’re immersed in it, a bit like Obélix, since you were small but the broad public, even educated, even informed, has not appreciated the extreme … I won’t say severity, but the extreme bizarreness of criminal penalties imposed on several individuals. All right, let’s look at Austria. I have two cases I’d like you to talk about: the case of Mr. Honsik and that of Mr. Frölich. I don’t ask you to talk about them for hours, but in two minutes you can do it justice — go ahead.
RF: Gerd Honsik is indeed a revisionist, who lives in Vienna; he was convicted of revisionism; he fled to Spain and, not long ago, Spain extradited him to Austria and so Honsik is in jail.
MP: They extradite people charged with that?
RF: They do!
MP: It’s a misdemeanor or a felony? It’s got to be a misdemeanor, no?
RF: Well, “misdemeanor” or “felony,” it all depends, doesn’t it; for example, in Anglo-Saxon law one speaks of “crime,” which can include misdemeanors; it’s a question of vocabulary — no matter. The fact, the important fact — you are right to underline it — is that they succeeded in extraditing someone. Now, in this regard, I’ll continue therefore to respond, since you spoke of Honsik but also of Frölich; I’ll quickly mention Frölich then I’ll come back to this business of extradition because, you’re right, it’s important. Frölich is an expert in gas chambers that are used for disinfecting, and he said the Nazi gas chambers were, in his judgment, impossible because …
MP: Yes but, there we’re really …
RF: Wait … that’s it. Therefore, for being a revisionist he was convicted and, I believe, has been sentenced to something like six years and five months in prison.
RF: Getting back to the question of extradition. You know, they stress that France has laws against revisionism.
RF: It’s also the case with Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, Germany obviously, and other countries. They stress that in the Anglo-Saxon countries there are no laws against revisionism. Pure hypocrisy! And that’s what I’m getting at with the question of extradition. Take the United States. It’s a country where, I must say, personally I felt free. It’s about the only country in the world where I felt free. Well, that’s finished. Because if we take the case of a prominent revisionist, Ernst Zündel, he lived in Tennessee and one fine day saw five burly cops arrive, put him in handcuffs, and take him to jail, whereafter he was delivered to Canada; Canada — listen to this — put him in prison for two years in the most abominable conditions …
RF: Meaning: in his cell, where he froze in winter, had no right to a chair, no right to a pillow, no right to anything, was subjected continually to anal searches and intimidation with the use of dogs – they would put him down on the floor, and dogs – can you imagine? — drooling on him: that’s how he was treated for two years in Canada, then …
MP: A technical question, while it occurs to me: he had been brought to Canada from the U.S. on an international warrant, a request for extradition?
RF: Not even. Yes, there was a request; it wasn’t international: it was Canada who requested and obtained him, it was an agreement between the U.S. and Canada. So, the United States, where they have the First Amendment, where you’re supposed to be able to express yourself freely, treats a revisionist like a gangster using gangster methods. And he was handed over. And he was tried in a special court, I repeat, special, called the Human Rights Commission. And I know from experience what that involves, and I think the listeners will be interested in this point.
MP: All right, what’s a “Human …
RF: This: some said when, in 1992, Zündel finally won the unbelievable trials of 1985 and 1988 by a decision handed down in 1992, certain individuals — I won’t name them — said this wasn’t acceptable; something had to be done. They said we need the Human Rights Commissions. And the good people said yes. Then the legislators said yes. Then came the second stage — but wait: it would need human rights courts, not ordinary courts, and they created special courts where the judges are appointed according to how sensitive they are to a particular problem — I trust I don’t need to spell it out — and one is called before these courts — it happened to me when I came forward to defend Ernst Zündel. They have you raise your right hand, they have you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and the next minute if you make the mistake of saying, “But Ernst Zündel has done nothing wrong because what he says is true, it can be demonstrated, and I feel confident I am able to demonstrate it,” the court interrupts and tells you, “Be advised that here, truth is no defense. It doesn’t matter to us whether or not what you say is true. All that matters to us is to know the pain you are liable to inflict on a segment of Canadian society.”
MP: All right, getting back to what you were saying – so, he was tried in Canada in this fashion …
RF: Then Germany wanted him, and he was handed over and tried under horrible conditions …
MP: A further extradition …
RF: A further extradition, and in Germany not only was he sentenced to five years in prison but they refused to take into account the two years he had spent in jail in Canada and, furthermore, one of his lawyers is now in jail …
MP: What’s her name?
RF: Sylvia Stolz. “Stolz” means “proud” in German. She’s being called “the German Joan of Arc.” And another of his lawyers is due to go on trial. His name is Jürgen Rieger.
MP: Wow, these people are busy!
RF: Right. But you know, if you consider the physical suffering inflicted on revisionists, this isn’t that bad!
MP: We’ll come back to that later …
RF: I don’t know how much good it’ll do …
MP: But at the moment we’re dealing with a purely judicial issue. There’s that case in Australia I think, a Mr. Toben; in Belgium there’s a former Vlaams Blok senator; there’s Costas Plevris in Greece … Apart from purely judicial questions, confining ourselves to punishments which are not brutal punishments or court-imposed punishments, there are disciplinary punishments or punishments by universities. I have in mind, in France, people such as Notin, Plantin, Bruno Gollnisch …
RF: Of course!
MP: Could you say just a few words about that? To me that does not at all seem insignificant.
RF: Take the case of Notin. For having inserted, in a genuinely confidential scientific review, a tiny reflection expressing skepticism to do with the question you do not wish me to talk to about, for doing that, Notin was put through hell. It began with the killing of his house pets: they killed his dogs …
MP: His cats.
RF: Yes, pardon me, his cats. Then they went after his wife, his children, himself, and then …
MP: Insults? Threats?
RF: Everything you can think of. To keep this brief I’ll tell you the outcome of his ordeal: his colleagues took it upon themselves, of course, to judge him and convict him. The unfortunate journal which had published his article got pounded: some people went around to all the libraries and confiscated every copy. Finally, he was unable to practice his profession of instructor at the University of Lyon-3; and thereupon, seeing himself condemned, and under the weight of a trial, he, well, had the misfortune of selecting a lawyer — who shall remain unnamed but who is not someone to be taken seriously — who had him sign a retraction. I should add that Notin — today he no longer hides from it, I believe — apologized to me for that retraction, saying he was advised to do it. It ended up serving no purpose: at one point, when he had hopes of obtaining a position abroad, and was under the impression he was going to get it, “they” found out and, naturally, that was no longer possible. It was to have been in Morocco. He finally wound up in Mexico and, of course, divorce: wife, four kids — finished. An example was made of him. [Translation note: or, “And that’s one example.”]
And you mentioned another case, that of Plantin. It’s unbelievable. Plantin was a very serious, prudent, reasonable man. He had presented a thesis defense [at university] which had gotten him a grade of “Very Good” from a professor named Régis Ladous. It wouldn’t be called “revisionist” but it did touch on it. Then the following year he earned another diploma. But that’s not important. Ten years passed. Someone remembered this episode, at a time when it had been quite a while since Plantin had been associated with the university, and no one particularly knew his whereabouts. Here’s what they had the nerve to do — get this, it’s absolutely incredible; I don’t think it’s ever happened before in in the history of the world yet it happened in Lyon, France: they concocted a fake thesis defense 10 years after the fact! What they did was oblige Ladous to come, they summoned Plantin — who, of course, didn’t show — and there they proceeded to pretend to do a thesis defense! It took I think 10 minutes; Ladous retired to deliberate, and came back declaring that the thesis, which had earned a grade of “Very Good,” now, ten years later, got a grade of … I don’t remember the adjective but it was something like “intolerable”!
Yes we have unbelievable examples. I’ll cite more if you’re interested …
MP: Yes, this subject interests me.
RF: I’m not particularly interested but if you are I’ll continue [translation note: in the original there was some banter here between the two men, which I didn’t translate]. Well, look what happened to me last year: a well-known Italian professor invited me to come give a brief series of lectures [in the original there’s more light banter in here, which I’ve left out], and so I went to the University of Teramo. If you picture Rome, on a straight line drawn from that city to the Adriatic you’ll find Teramo. I went to the University of Teramo and, as planned, I showed up in the morning early. And what did the university president do? I don’t know if the like has ever happened before. Well, he closed down the university!
MP: That was very Italian. They can be very sly, because a solution had to be found.
RF: (Laughing) You seem to approve!
MP: No, but one has to have imagination.
RF: And then, what follows is interesting: well, we found ourselves a hotel where we thought we’d be able to hold our little conference, and there I encountered a group of Italian reporters. Italians, you know, can be very subtle …
MP: I’ll say!
RF: … and it’s only human. I found myself at the door of the hotel — which was refusing me entry — right next to one of these beautiful Italian town squares. The reporters questioned me, I answered them but not the way I’m doing with you: right off, I brought out my big guns, namely, the 60-word sentence which I won’t say to you …
MP: No, don’t!
RF: And at that point I said to them, “But you know, what’s happening here is amazing. Because in France it would be unthinkable for me to discuss this subject, more or less right on a public street, in the company of reporters.” I told them, “Or, so far! Up to this point it’s gone all right.” No sooner had I said that, than I heard an uproar — it was a particular group of individuals whom I won’t describe further, who’d come by train from Rome, led by a very brawny butcher’s assistant who threw a punch — and I mean a punch which could’ve been fatal — at the professor who’d invited me, and …
[here the broadcast suddenly went dead “at the request of the CSA,” followed by uninterrupted music].
And it goes even further:
Martin Peltier (the radio host) has just received a letter from Henry de Lesquen informing him of the permanent termination of his radio program.
Down the memory hole:
Breaking with usual procedure, Radio Courtoisie did not re-broadcast Martin Peltier’s interview with Robert Faurisson the next day. Further, it didn’t offer any explanation or apology to its listeners. It didn’t even acknowledge the significance of an event likely without precedent in its twenty years of existence.
Remarkable is that now their censoring activity and the Persons they censor are also taken out of the picture or down the memory hole like Orwell would have said. Without the Internet we would probably not even know about this case of censorship, or censorshit like I like to call it, because they surely would not have told us! “An interview with Faurission?” “That never happened!” “Who the hell is this “Faurission” supposed to be anyway?” “Such a person never existed!”
Faurisson is a very brave soul who choose the pursuit of truth over his own security and well being and it is apparent that the other sides fears him and for some reason has to resort to censorship, prosecution, and all kind of totalitarian measures of oppression against him and what he stands for. I have to ask myself why, isn’t the holocaust “the best documented event in history”? Why do they have to resort to such measures? One does not actually need to read anything the revisionist wrote about the holocaust to smell that something is not right, the way in which laws and censorship are used to shut people down and to deny them the fundamental right to state their opinions stands for itself I believe. What kind of truth is it that requires special protection by such totalitarian measures? Truth can stand on its own and requires neither special protection by laws nor large scale indoctrination measures directed especially at the young at an age when they are still unable to think critically and are thus easily manipulated.
The German philosopher Schopenhauer noted that: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident.”