English Translation of Prof. Robert Faurisson?s Latest Radio Interview
April 18, 2008 on 7:59 pm | Friedrich Braun | Crime, European Union , Free
Speech , Law , Revisionism | | Email This Post | Print this Post
The original French version can be found here.
See also French Radio pulls plug on Faurisson interview.
[As always, a great ?thank you? goes to Fred Scrooby who undertook the
translation of this interview.]
Self-censor****p at Radio Courtoisie (Paris) [?Radio Courtesy?]
1) Statement by ?Bocage? (April 11, 2008)
It was in greatest secrecy that Martin Peltier had invited Professor
Faurisson to be on his monthly radio show?s April 9 broadcast on Radio
Courtoisie. Both men had agreed to avoid any violation of the
Fabius-Gayssot Law, not just to keep from being prosecuted themselves, but
to keep from jeopardizing the radio station which, they knew, was under
surveillance by the CSA (Conseil supérieur de l?audiovisuel) [Superior
Audiovisual Council].
The program began at 7:30 PM. The two participants, extremely careful [not
to violate the Gayssot Law], told of the persecutions which revisionists
the world over have been subjected to. (Any interested readers can request
a transcript of the broadcast.) But at about 27 minutes into the interview
the broadcast was silenced ? The immediate reason given was, ?It is being
terminated at the CSA?s request.?
Now, here?s what appeared at the website of the daily newspaper Le
Parisien
at 10:30 that evening:
STRANGE SILENCE AT RADIO COURTOISIE
Brutal interruption of Wednesday evening?s programming at Radio Courtoisie
As the station, which bills itself as ?the all-conservative radio
station,?
was broadcasting a program on revisionism, transmission suddenly went
dead.
Without warning, the ?Free Journal Show,? hosted by Martin Peltier, was
suddenly replaced by classical music. The show never resumed.
As for the program by Paul-Marie Coûteaux, MEP, which was to have started
at
9:30 PM, it was rescheduled to a later date.
We contacted Henry de Lesquen, station manager, who explained the
broadcast
had been interrupted ?by the [government?s] Delegate for Editorial
Matters,
who considered some comments expressed by one of the participants
unacceptable.? However, he didn?t say which comments, or why the
programming never resumed.
It seems not only was there censor****p of the broadcast itself, there was
censor****p of the above article announcing the censor****p, since Prof.
Faurisson?s name isn?t even mentioned!
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 sup****t of all sorts
of well-meaning organizations. ?The least? is the revisionist, the ****d
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 s****t. 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
im****tant 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 im****tant. 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.
MP: OK.
RF: Getting back to the question of extradition. You know, they stress
that
France has laws against revisionism.
MP: Yes.
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 ?
MP: Meaning?
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 fa****on ?
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 im****tant. 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 re****ters. 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 re****ters 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
re****ters.? 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].
3) Message from Eric and Monique Delcroix to [radio host] Martin Peltier:
[translation note: Eric Delcroix, a laywer, has defended Prof. Faurisson
in
court against charges of revisionism]
Dear friend,
It was a bit prematurely that we rejoiced at hearing your interview with
Prof. Faurisson ? Censor****p of the most brutal sort, supposedly at the
spoken request of the CSA, cut short one last illusion ? And you had taken
every precaution so as not to be in violation of the Fabius-Gayssot Law.
The predictions of the late humorist Pierre Desproges are coming true. One
is reminded of his ?Tribunal des flagrants délires? [translation note:
there?s a French play on words here which would be hard to retain in
translation; the French means, literally, ?Court of Outright Delusions?],
where he has the court bailiff announce the prisoner as ?Monsieur
Faurisson,? eliciting the judge?s response, ?No, not that name, it?s not
permitted!? Soon we won?t even have names; we won?t exist. ?Blow up?!
Orwell warned us.
Best wishes,
Eric and Monique Delcroix
4) Heard on the news (Radio France, evening of April 12)
Martin Peltier has just received a letter from Henry de Lesquen informing
him of the permanent termination of his radio program. To listeners who
had
called expressing surprise, Radio Courtoisie explained that the order to
cut off the interview came from CSA. But it?s likely that at 7:30 to 8
o?clock PM the CSA offices are closed, with nothing working but phone
message machines which the censors will play back the next day. In
reality,
the censor****p decision seems to have been taken within Radio Couroisie by
Madame Paoli, Delegate for Editorial Issues, after conferring with
Monsieur
Henry de Lesquen. In Radio Courtoisie?s favor it must be said that
intolerance expressed through the media today is such that self-censor****p
is practically become a necessity. Martin Peltier forged ahead without
reflecting; as a result he?ll be called irresponsible for jeopardizing an
entire enterprise. ?He should at least have asked other individuals than
Faurisson to come and talk about repression of revisionism!? Which others?
Paul-Marie Coûteaux, MEP with views similar to Philippe de Villiers, was
supposed to be interviewed at Radio Courtoisie at around 9 o?clock but he
indicated that he refused to go on after Faurisson. Therefore he didn?t
show up. For their part, Emmanuel Ratier and Alain Sanders volunteered to
Henry de Lesquen that they didn?t know Faurisson was to come on after
them.
It?s unlikely E. Ratier will re****t anything about this affair in his next
edition of ?Faits et Do***ents.?
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.
2 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
1.
When will this tyranny end? It surely must, as all other periods
of ?darkness? have.
Comment by robert ? April 20, 2008 #
2.
Robert yes, it will of course end. The problem is the other side
wants
to make sure whites will have been changed racially before it ends. Thay
way they?ll have the upper hand permanently. We must not permit that to
happen.
Comment by Fred Scrooby ? April 20, 2008 #
|
