For Defending Free Speech — Jewish Supremacists Seek Prison for Parliamentarian

EU Parliamentarian Bruno Gollnisch on learning that he would be stripped of immunity for simply defending free speech

Jewish Supremacists Seek to Imprison Parliamentarian for Defending Free Speech!

By Dr. David Duke
November 26th, 2005

A member of the European Parliament and professor at the University of Lyon, Dr. Bruno Gollnisch, has lost his immunity and faces prison for simply defending the right of free speech and free debate!

The Zionists who use the Holocaust as the sword and shield of the racial-supremacist state of Israel have demanded that there can be no academic or intellectual debate concerning the validity of even the smallest detail of the Jewish version of the Holocaust. Not only do they demand no debate, they have used their disproportionate influence in the media, finance and government to secure laws that imprison anyone who simply dares to express a contrary opinion about any aspect of this historical occurrence of over 60 years ago.

Of course, such repression is completely unique. There is no such prohibition on discussing or dissecting the greatest state-run murder system in history, the Communist Gulag. Nor is there any such prohibition on debate of any other period of European and World History. Only the Holocaust story is protected from any inspection, criticism, questioning.

Imprisonment of free thinkers is an outrageous violation of freedom of speech, intellectual inquiry and thought, and a violation of the very core of human rights. They have simply given the Holocaust, in its amorphous and often changing version, the status of a kind of state religious dogma. The laws basically say that if you dare to academically question or debate any popular version of the Holocaust you are guilty of Holocaust denial and should be fined into bankruptcy and then imprisoned.

The laws themselves are ridiculous in their structure. For instance, if a world-renowned historian such as David Irving says the actual death toll at Auschwitz was far less than the official 1.1 million, he can be stripped of all his possessions and sentenced to 20 years in prison. But, when a man commissioned by the Holocaust Industry itself to do the definitive study on the Auschwitz death toll, Jean-Claude Pressac, says the figure is closer to 300,000 to 500,000, there is no threat of prison.

In fact, Holocaust mainstream literature has over the years dramatically reduced the Auschwitz death toll from 4 million, to 1.1 million. If that kind of reduction were done today it would be called “Holocaust Denial” and punishable by years in prison. Ironically, some leading Holocaust historians accept the fact that the 1.1 million figure is far too high, and that probably less than half that number died there.

For many years and even to the present there are many official and popular accounts of the Nazis making soap from the bodies of Jewish victims. Yet no less a respected Holocaust chronicler, an official at Yad Vashem in Israel, Shmuel Krakowski, says that the widely believed soap story is completely untrue. He will not be prosecuted.

If a Jewish Holocaust historian admits (as some have done) that some of the gas chambers shown to tourists and proclaimed to be authentic, are in fact not, having been built after the war, he will have no problem. But if David Irving or Germar Rudolf does the same they are called “Holocaust Deniers” and face up to 20 years in prison.

In short, “Holocaust Denial” laws are draconian, heresy-type laws that can applied to anyone who simply doesn’t intellectually agree with an amorphous, non-specific Holocaustography. It is used as a political weapon to defend an historical opinion that has become like a religious dogma.

Holocaust Denial, like the charge of heresy, can be construed out of just about anything, just as “heresy” was punishable for hundreds of years for simply questioning with reason and scientific inquiry whether the sun actually revolved around the earth.

Germar Rudolf - Ernst Zundel - David Irving
Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel and David Irving Face Prison for Thinking
Three decent and intelligent scholars I know in Europe are now facing years in prison for simply challenging some of the Jewish promoted historical interpretations of the Second World War and the Holocaust. I know and respect them all. They are David Irving, Ernst Zundel, and Germar Rudolf. In other words, they face imprisonment for intelligently voicing an opinion about a period of history over 60 years old.

In truth, the Holocaust promoters cannot stand even the slightest criticism or challenge. Are they afraid that their case is not so convincing? That could be a good reason why they seek to terrorize with prison and poverty anyone who questions their dogma.

These are men who don’t deny that atrocities occurred. They don’t deny that many Jews were killed unjustly in the war. With reason, documentation, and scientific inquiry (such as modern forensics) they question certain aspects of the Holocaust story.

In the case against Bruno Gollnisch, a respected professor and member of the EU Parliament, Zionists have pushed for a whole new level of free speech repression. They now seek the imprisonment of anyone who simply supports free speech and free debate on all historical matters, including the Holocaust.

EU Parliamentarian Bruno does not deny the Holocaust or any aspect of the Holocaust. He faces being fined, stripped of his seat in Parliament, and imprisonment for saying simply two sentences urging free speech:

Speaking in Lyon, France, in October 2004, Gollnisch said: “I do not deny the existence of deadly gas chambers. But I’m not a specialist on this issue, and I think we have to let the historians debate it.” He did not contest the “hundreds of thousands, the millions of deaths” during the Holocaust, but added: “As to the way those people died, a debate should take place.”

I know Bruno Gollnisch well. He invited me into his home a few years ago and took me with him on to the floor of the European Parliament, along with Jean Marie LePen. I can tell you that there is no more kindhearted and intelligent man in all of France.

Returning from Syria, I have come to realize just how big are the lies of Bush and Blair and all the Zionist propagandists when they talk about the need to bring freedom of speech, press and democracy to the Mideast.

The idea they present is that America is free, England is free, Europe is free, but somehow the Middle East is not. In many ways the opposite is true.

In Syria, no one would be imprisoned for examining archaeological and historical evidence and then suggesting that the number of victims the Christian Crusaders captured in Jerusalem was less than the historically accepted figure. In Europe today, a respected University Professor and member of the European Parliament can face imprisonment for simply saying that historians should be allowed to debate any issue.

In America, we still have Free Speech in our U.S. Bill of Rights. Yet, the American government has just sent two men to certain imprisonment in Europe for their historical opinions on the Holocaust. Both are married to American women and one has a daughter who is an American citizen as well.

Jewish supremacism is a threat to all people. It is a threat to freedom.

In Europe anyone can support the Jewish supremacist, Apartheid State of Israel. They can openly write about and support the mass-murderer Ariel Sharon (even the Israeli Kahane Commission assigns responsibility for Sabre and Shatila massacre on Sharon). They will not be threatened with prison for defending and even financially supporting this evil state and its mass-murderer Prime Minister.

But in parts of Europe a historian cannot simply question and debate aspects of historical events that happened 60 years ago, events stemming from policies they themselves condemn.

The old axiom is true.

If you want to know who rules, just find out whom you cannot criticize.

I will make up my own axiom.

If you want to learn the truth, seek out those ideas that men are imprisoned for voicing.

–David Duke

Here is the original ariticle–


French deputy loses immunity despite acceptance of Holocaust
French deputy must defend Holocaust comments

AFP Tuesday, 22 November 2005

BRUSSELS — EU lawmakers refused Tuesday to grant immunity from prosecution to a French far right-wing deputy for remarks about the Nazi gas chambers, in a case threatening to embarrass the EU assembly.

After four times delaying a vote on Bruno Gollnisch, number two in France’s extreme right National Front, the parliament’s legal affairs committee voted overwhelmingly not to give him protection as a member of the European parliament (MEP) from court proceedings.

Gollnisch was charged over his comments at a press conference last year which trod a fine line on the edge of French laws against calling into question crimes against humanity.

The committee chairwoman, British MEP Diana Wallis, said her panel felt that the way Gollnisch had acted “was not fairly and fully and squarely within the member’s exercise of his duties as a member of this parliament.”

“We are not in any way entering into a debate on the nature of the charge in France or the nature of the law in France,” she said.

Speaking in Lyon, France, in October 2004, Gollnisch said: “I do not deny the existence of deadly gas chambers. But I’m not a specialist on this issue, and I think we have to let the historians debate it.”

He did not contest the “hundreds of thousands, the millions of deaths” during the Holocaust, but added: “As to the way those people died, a debate should take place.”

Four days later, then French justice minister Dominique Perben, who is now transport minister and intends to run against Gollnisch in 2007 municipal elections, ordered police in Lyon to launch an inquiry.

They found he had no case to answer but Perben insisted charges be laid.

The trial of Gollnisch, who claims he is being persecuted by Perben, was scheduled for September but was pushed back until November 29 so that parliament could rule on his immunity.

The EU assembly will vote on the committee’s recommendation in full session next week. In the unlikely event that it votes against the committee’s advice, the case against Gollnisch would probably have to be dropped.