…and Mr Wear keeps ’em coming. Yet more distortion and lies concerning the complexities of the Nuremberg Trials.
“…one must understand the Nuremberg Tribunal was never completely mothballed. Its principles live on today and are designed to entrap people exercising the human right of free speech. Control the rules of a trial, and you control the outcome.”
Absolute tosh. The laws laid down by the UN today and which were first introduced at the Nuremberg Trials concern the governing of military conflicts and go some way to preventing the sorts of violence against non combatants which were typified by those carried out by the Nazi regime. Those laws have nothing to do with the laws created by democratically elected governments designed to fight hate speech against minority groups.
“The unique (i.e. previously unheard of) definitions strayed so far from the Western concept of Blind Justice, that more than 70 years later, they are required to be upheld by increasingly draconian and globally over-reaching measures. These measures contravene multiple basic Human Rights recognized internationally, including by the UN.”
Actually not true. In relation to Mr Faurisson and his complaints about his guilt in French Courts under the Gayssot Act, the United Nations Human Rights Commission had this to say:
The restriction on the author’s freedom of expression was indeed provided by law i.e. the Act of 13 July 1990. It is the constant jurisprudence of the Committee that the restrictive law itself must be in compliance with the provisions of the Covenant. In this regard the Committee concludes, on the basis of the reading of the judgment of the 17th Chambre correctionnelle du Tribunal de grande instance de Paris that the finding of the author’s guilt was based on his following two statements: “… I have excellent reasons not to believe in the policy of extermination of Jews or in the magic gas chambers … I wish to see that 100 per cent of the French citizens realize that the myth of the gas chambers is a dishonest fabrication”. His conviction therefore did not encroach upon his right to hold and express an opinion in general, rather the court convicted Mr. Faurisson for having violated the rights and reputation of others. For these reasons the Committee is satisfied that the Gayssot Act, as read, interpreted and applied to the author’s case by the French courts, is in compliance with the provisions of the Covenant.
To assess whether the restrictions placed on the author’s freedom of expression by his criminal conviction were applied for the purposes provided for by the Covenant, the Committee begins by noting, as it did in its General Comment 10 that the rights for the protection of which restrictions on the freedom of expression are permitted by article 19, paragraph 3, may relate to the interests of other persons or to those of the community as a whole. Since the statements made by the author, read in their full context, were of a nature as to raise or strengthen anti-semitic feelings, the restriction served the respect of the Jewish community to live free from fear of an atmosphere of anti-semitism. The Committee therefore concludes that the restriction of the author’s freedom of expression was permissible under article 19, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant.
Lastly the Committee needs to consider whether the restriction of the author’s freedom of expression was necessary. The Committee noted the State party’s argument contending that the introduction of the Gayssot Act was intended to serve the struggle against racism and anti-semitism. It also noted the statement of a member of the French Government, the then Minister of Justice, which characterized the denial of the existence of the Holocaust as the principal vehicle for anti-semitism. In the absence in the material before it of any argument undermining the validity of the State party’s position as to the necessity of the restriction, the Committee is satisfied that the restriction of Mr. Faurisson’s freedom of expression was necessary within the meaning of article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.
German Historian Udo Walendy concerning the London Decree at the Nuremberg Trials wrote in 1999:
total bull shit. The notion of collective guilt for all Germans is nonsense. That is NOT what the Nuremberg trials were set up to do. They were set up to try individuals for crimes committed and not the German people as a whole. Only neo Nazis and Nazi sympathisers think otherwise.
Mr Wear’s rubbish concerning reparation payments has been busted here:
“Now just because 3,375,000 people made a claim for reparations up to 1965 ( 4,384,138 by 1987 ) it does not mean to say that 3,375,000 people actually were successful in their application. They were not. Around 1.7 million people by 1965 had their applications upheld, and yet again, there is no indication at all as to how many of these were Jewish.”
So now we come to the deliberate distortion of the Nuremberg Trial Article 19. Here is Mr Wear’s quote:
“The Trial shall not be bound by rules of evidence.”
The implication being that the courts do not need to hear any evidence at all to come to their decisions. That is pretty damning. Except that Mr Wear did not let us see the whole Article. Here is Article 19 in full:
“The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence. It shall adopt and apply to the greatest possible extent expeditious and nontechnical procedure, and shall admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value.“
For a full understanding of the complexities of the law regarding the Nuremberg Trials and the way neo Nazis distort it, see the excellent article at Holocaust Controversies found here:
The key part is this:
“So the reason for the absence of technical rules of evidence at the Nuremberg Trial of German Major War Criminals was clearly not anyone’s intention to screw the defendants, as their “Revisionist” apologists would like to believe. The American jurists wanted to apply technical rules of evidence such as were applied in the US, but this approach was disliked by the jurists from Continental Europe involved in the making of the Charter, presumably for the simple reason that they and/or the Continental European judges nominated as members of the International Military Tribunal didn’t know a thing about US-type rules of evidence and accordingly would have been unable to handle them at the trial. The Americans decided to compromise, as said rules «were involved in response to the peculiarities of trial by jury» and they thus saw no reason to urge the use of these rules «in an international trial before professional judges». This compromise, […] arguably benefited the defense insofar as none of the German lawyers acting as defense attorneys was familiar with technical rules of evidence as applied in the US. “
So actually Article 19 was of benefit to the Defense team.
The Nuremberg frenzy for guaranteeing mass guilty verdicts though not obvious in the ‘majestic’ court room photos, is none the less, self-evident fact
Well…only self evident to neo Nazis like those found in the Wear camp.
As to the reference to “Letters from Nuremberg” made by Mr Wear…the fact that a high percentage of Jews happened to work in the US team does not imply some unseen control on the trial and thirst for blood. Indeed, the persecution of the Jews and their mass murder took up a very small part of the trial.
“she did not steal anything, she did not harm anyone, she did not damage private or public property, disturb the peace, nor incite violence. She said sorry to her Mom for an opinion she once held.”
Monika Schaefer is a Holocaust Denier, regardless how many twee photos the Wear team show us. She publicly accused Jews of lying and has helped feed the scum who partake in violence and vandalism against Jewish people and institutions today. Holocaust Denial is treated seriously in countries that had the dubious “honour” of being under National Socialist control between 1933 and 1945.
Freedom of speech does not come into it.
Holocaust Denial is based purely on HATRED.