EUROPEAN
NEWS
.I confess my guilt -
I caused the following to happen
Fredrick
Töben
Persecution
2003
..Germany holds the world
to ransom
Any
individual anywhere in the world will be hunted for
expressing thoughts, not in line with the German
political holocaust dogma
http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/persecution/germanfreedom.htm
"The right to know is like
the right to live. It is fundamental and
unconditional," wrote Nobel-Price winner George
Bernard Shaw.
"Democratic
Germany" denies this fundamental human right to its
people although it adopted Article 19 of the United
Nations Human Rights Charter as superior and overriding
to its own law. Article 19 of the United Nations Human
Rights Charter reads: "Everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes
freedom to hold opinions without interference and to
seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
any media and regardless of frontiers."
On Dec. 12, 2000
the German Supreme Court (BGH, Bundesgerichtshof, case
nr. 1 StR 184/00) ruled that any information, differing
from the German political holocaust version or from its
general political dogma "threatens internal peace in
the Bundes-republik", hence it constitutes a major
crime in "Democratic Germany".
Any person,
whether living in Washington, Cape Town or Timbuktu will
be hunted down, persecuted, arrested and indicted (when
entering Germany) by the Bundesrepublik's persecution
machinery, if they verbally or literally broadcast
criticism against Jewry, the political holocaust-dogma
and the German government.
This madness is
based on fear of the truth because post-war Germany was
founded on allied propaganda lies which became
constitutionally established. The results of this lie,
siege mentality, has now resulted in a law involving the
internet. Simplified it declares that everybody on our
globe represents a potential criminal to the German
system. I.e.: "A democratic American, sitting by his
computer in Ohio writes and posts an article on the
internet which displeases the German authorities, will be
persecuted by the German system." Even though he is
technically in no position to exclude Germans from being
able to access his internet posting due invisible
extending borders in the world-wide-web-system, he will
be arrested when entering "Democratic Germany".
Exception: If the author is of Jewish origin there is no
fear of persecution or harassment.
Until the 12th
of December 2000 Germany restrained itself to the
persecution of the free thinkers within its own borders.
Now it is the world. This latest strike against universal
human rights by the German system has reached a new peak
of madness. It is a declaration of war against free
thinking to everyone, anywhere in the world.
"Adenauer
[postwar Germany's first Chancellor] thought the Germans
were a 'sick people'." (Die Welt, Nov. 30, 2000,
page 3)
According to the Annual
Reports of the 'German Federal Office for the
Protection of the Constitution' (George Orwell
could not have invented a more sinister title)
the German persecution machinery prosecuted the
following totals of citizens for expressing
politically incorrect opinions in Germany:
|
propaganda offences 1994:
propaganda offences 1995:
propaganda offences 1996:
propaganda offences 1997:
propaganda offences 1998:
propaganda offences 1999:
propaganda offences 2000:
|
2,083
1,601
5,635
10,257
9,549
8698
13,863
|
innocent persecuted
victims;
innocent persecuted victims;
innocent persecuted victims;
innocent persecuted victims;
innocent persecuted victims;
innocent persecuted victims;
innocent persecuted victims
|
The figures are based on
statistics provided by the Federal Criminal
Office (BKA)
(Source: http://www.verfassungsschutz.de)
|

these laws are now being adapted and adopted by the
european union.......
Intellectual terrorism
By DR. TOMISLAV SUNIC
The modern thought police is hard to spot, as it
often seeks cover under soothing words such as
"democracy" and "human rights." While
each member state of the European Union likes to show off
the beauties of its constitutional paragraph, seldom does
it attempt to talk about the ambiguities of its criminal
code.
In June and November, 2002, the European
Commission held poorly publicized meetings in Brussels
and Strasbourg whose historical importance regarding the
future of free speech could overshadow the recent
launching of the new euro currency. At issue is
the enactment of new European legislation whose objective
is to counter the growing suspicion about the viability
of the multiracial European Union. Following the events
of September 11, 2001, and in the wake of certain veiled
anti-Israeli comments in some American and European
journals, the European Commission is aiming to exercise
maximum damage control, via maximum thought control.
If the new bill on "hate crime"
sponsored by the Commission passes through the European
parliament and is applied by the EU Council of Ministers,
the judiciary of any individual EU member state in which
this alleged "verbal offense" has been
committed will no longer carry legal weight. Legal
proceedings and "appropriate" punishment will
become the prerequisite of the European Union's
supra-national courts.
When the law is adopted, it will automatically become law
in all European Union member states, from Greece to
Belgium, from Denmark to Portugal. Pursuant to the law's
ambiguous wording of the concept of "hate
crime" or "racial incitement," anyone
convicted of such an ill-defined verbal offense in
country "A" of the European Union can be fined
or imprisoned in country "B" of the European
Union. (In reality, this is already the case.) The
enactment of this EU law : it is now easy to
place any journalist or professor in legal difficulty if
he questions the writing of modern history or the rising
number of non-European immigrants.
In England and America the legal tradition presupposes
that everything not explicitly forbidden is allowed. By
way of contrast, in Germany a legal tradition of long
standing presupposes that everything not explicitly
allowed is forbidden. That difference may underlie
Germany's adoption of stringent laws against alleged or
real Holocaust denial. In December 2002, during a visit
to Germany, Jewish-American historian Norman Finkelstein
called upon the German political class to cease being a
victim of "Holocaust industry" pressure groups.
He remarked that such a reckless German attitude only
provokes hidden anti-Semitic sentiments. As was to be
expected, nobody reacted to Finkelstein's remarks, for
fear of being labeled anti-Semitic themselves. Instead,
the German government agreed last year to pay, courtesy
of its taxpayers, a further share of 5 billion euros for
the current fiscal year to some 800,000 Holocaust
survivors. Such silence is the price paid for
intellectual censorship in democracies.
. Can any Western nation that inhibits the free
expression of diverse political views - however aberrant
they may be - call itself a democracy?
Although America prides itself on its First
Amendment, free speech in higher education and the media
is subject to didactic self-censorship. Expression of
politically incorrect opinions can ruin the careers or
hurt the grades of those naive enough to rely on their
First Amendment rights. Among tenured professors in the
United States it is becoming more common to give passing
grades to many minority students in order to avoid legal
troubles with their peers, at best, or to avoid losing
their job, at worst.
In a similar vein, according to the Fabius-Gayssot law,
proposed by a French Communist deputy and adopted in
1990, a person publicly uttering doubts about modern
antifascist victimology risks serious fines or
imprisonment in France. A number of writers and
journalists in France and Germany have committed suicide,
lost their jobs, or asked for political asylum in Syria,
Sweden, or America. Similar repressive measures
have recently been enacted by multicultural Australia,
Canada, and Belgium. Many East European nationalist
politicians, particularly from Croatia, wishing to visit
their expatriate countrymen in Canada or Australia are
denied visas by those countries on the grounds of their
alleged extremist nationalistic views. For the time
being, Russia and other post-communist countries are not
subject to the repressive thought control that exists in
the United States or the European Union. Yet, in view of
the increasing pressure from Brussels and Washington,
that may change. Contrary to widespread beliefs,
state terror, i.e., totalitarianism, is not only a
product of violent ideology espoused by a handful of
thugs. Civic fear, feigned self-abnegation, and
intellectual abdication create the ideal ground for the
totalitarian temptation. Intellectual terrorism is fueled
by a popular belief that somehow things will straighten
out by themselves. Growing social apathy and rising
academic self-censorship only boost the spirit of
totalitarianism.
Essentially, the spirit of totalitarianism is the
absence of all spirit.
April 10, 2003
Dr. Tomislav Sunic is a writer and former political
science professor in the United States. His Website may
be found at http://www.watermark.hu/doctorsunic

The U.S. Betrays Its Core Values
By Gunter Grass
April 7, 2003
Having
learned from its past, Germany rightly rejects Bush's war
and his disdain of the U.N.
BEHLENDORF, Germany -- A war long sought and planned for
is now underway. All deliberations and warnings of the
United Nations notwithstanding, an overpowering military
apparatus has attacked preemptively in violation of
international law. No objections were heeded. The
Security Council was disdained and scorned as irrelevant.
As the bombs fall and the battle for Baghdad continues,
the law of might prevails.
And based on this injustice, the mighty have the power to
buy and reward those who might be willing and to disdain
and even punish the unwilling. The words of the current
American president -- "Those not with us are against
us" -- weighs on current events with the resonance
of barbaric times. It is hardly surprising that the
rhetoric of the aggressor increasingly resembles that of
his enemy. Religious fundamentalism leads both sides to
abuse what belongs to all religions, taking the notion of
"God" hostage in accordance with their own
fanatical understanding. Even the passionate warnings of
the pope, who knows from experience how lasting and
devastating the disasters wrought by the mentality and
actions of Christian crusaders have been, were
unsuccessful.
Disturbed and powerless, but also filled with anger, we
are witnessing the moral decline of the world's only
superpower, burdened by the knowledge that only one
consequence of this organized madness is certain:
Motivation for more terrorism is being provided, for more
violence and counter-violence. Is this really the United
States of America, the country we fondly remember for any
number of reasons? The generous benefactor of the
Marshall Plan? The forbearing instructor in the lessons
of democracy? The candid self-critic? The country that
once made use of the teachings of the European
Enlightenment to throw off its colonial masters and to
provide itself with an exemplary constitution? Is this
the country that made freedom of speech an
incontrovertible human right?
It is not just foreigners who cringe as this ideal pales
to the point where it is now a caricature of itself.
There are many Americans who love their country too,
people who are horrified by the betrayal of their
founding values and by the hubris of those holding the
reins of power. I stand with them. By their side, I
declare myself pro-American. I protest with them against
the brutalities brought about by the injustice of the
mighty, against all restrictions of the freedom of
expression, against information control reminiscent of
the practices of totalitarian states and against the
cynical equations that make the death of thousands of
women and children acceptable so long as economic and
political interests are protected.
No, it is not anti-Americanism that is damaging the image
of the United States; nor do the dictator Saddam Hussein
and his extensively disarmed country endanger the most
powerful country in the world. It is President Bush and
his government that are diminishing democratic values,
bringing sure disaster to their own country, ignoring the
United Nations, and that are now terrifying the world
with a war in violation of international law.
We Germans often are asked if we are proud of our
country. To answer this question has always been a
burden. There were reasons for our doubts. But now I can
say that the rejection of this preemptive war on the part
of a majority in my country has made me proud of Germany.
After having been largely responsible for two world wars
and their criminal consequences, we seem to have made a
difficult step. We seem to have learned from history.
The Federal Republic of Germany has been a sovereign
country since 1990. Our government made use of this
sovereignty by having the courage to object to those
allied in this cause, the courage to protect Germany from
a step back to a kind of adolescent behavior. I thank
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his foreign minister,
Joschka Fischer, for their fortitude in spite of all the
attacks and accusations, from abroad and from within.
Many people find themselves in a state of despair these
days, and with good reason. Yet we must not let our
voices, our no to war and yes to peace, be silenced. What
has happened? The stone that we pushed to the peak is
once again at the foot of the mountain. But we must push
it back up, even with the knowledge that we can expect it
to roll back down again.
****************************************************
Gunter Grass won the 1999 Nobel Prize in literature. His
most recent novel, "Crabwalk," will be
published this month by Harcourt. This piece was
translated from German by Daniel Slager.
Copyright 2003 Los Angeles Times
From Neil Baird
fwd from Paul Maresh

Irish kids choose
presidency logo
EUOBSERVER /
BRUSSELS - Ireland will take over the EU presidency on 1
January 2004 - after Italy. But preparations for the
six-month term are already well under way.
Voting in 500 schools throughout the country, children
have cut the contenders for the Irish EU presidency logo
down to three.
The last three are rich in symbolism, as is to be
expected from presidency logos; a harp interwoven with a
star symbolising the partnership of Ireland and Europe.
Another option also uses the harp motif, one of the
national symbols of Ireland, this time coupled with
exploding stars.
The remaining option, called 'Boat' is said to symbolise
the fact that boats helped Irish people to travel and
trade with new lands like America and Australia. It is
not yet clear what message this would send given the
current tensions between the EU and the US.
The result of the vote will be presented to the
Taoiseach, (Irish Prime Minister) next week.
"During our Irish Presidency the historic
enlargement of the EU will occur. This will be a
momentous occasion for both the accession countries and
the EU as a whole," Irish Minister for European
Affairs, Dick Roche told the EUobserver.
"Another hugely significant event which may well
occur during our Presidency, is an Intergovernmental
Conference. This will come out of the European
Convention. It is not clear yet when the Convention will
finish, but it is increasingly possible that these
discussions will take place during the Irish
Presidency".
One crucial element of the negotiations in the Convention
is to end the practice of rotating EU presidencies every
six months, which could in fact turn the next Irish
presidency into one of its last. Website ScoilNet Written by Lisbeth Kirk
Edited by Andrew Beatty
 
|