THE HANDSTAND

MAY 2003

  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
H
aving 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