The sexual hysteria underlying the Spanish Inquisition has now re-appeared in our civilisation; when once to be accused of casting spells meant an almost certain guilty verdict, the same result is now obtained by accusations of sexual acts with minors. There is no presumption of innocence, but the reverse: see the cases of Cardinal Pell, Harris, Hughes, Brabham and criminologist Paul Wilson
The following three cases reveal that, even without sexual concerns, the judicial procedure has become an instrument of tyranny concerned with enforcing the adoption of the irrational notions of Political Correctness. This means that, like the Inquisition, to be charged is to be guilty, for the court is there to penalise anyone who contradicts official madness, so neither truth nor reason can be used in defending the accused.
Brick layer Brad Love was jailed for eighteen months for complaining to his member of parliament about immigration in Canada, spring 2003
Ernst Zündel, after being arrested in the USA in 2003, illegally deported to a Canadian goal and held in solitary confinement, was then deported to a German goal in 2005 where he was tried (June 2006) for inciting racial hatred. And in Mannheim, Germany, on Thursday 15th February 2007 the 67-year-old was convicted of 14 counts of incitement and sentenced to the maximum of 5 years in prison.
British historian David Irving has been found guilty in Vienna, Monday 20 February 2006, of denying the Holocaust of European Jewry and sentenced to three years in prison. Irving is an authority on the murder of the Jews in Europe during the Second World War, having visited the sites, studied original documents and interviewed people involved. The crime of 'Denying the Holocaust' is that of contradicting the Austrian government's version of the genocide, for which truth is no defence.
The recreation of the irresistible insane monster of the Inquisition is clearly revealed by David Irving's open letter (April 7th 2007):
. . .the German Government has quietly admitted that over the last twelve months it prosecuted over 18,000 Germans for offences of "right-wing extremism," of which only a few hundred involved actual violence: i.e. they prosecuted over seventeen thousand thought-crimes — people unwitting displaying the old swastika emblem, or even worse, National Socialist ideas, and perhaps even "denying the H[olocaust]."
As the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung recently pointed out in a courageous editorial, most of these new criminal records have been sprung on ordinary citizens blissfully unaware of the criminality of their actions and thoughts, because the tame German media are too cowardly to report any of these cases — even the major trials like those involving the revisionists Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf.
These absurd laws themselves are protected by fresh layers of other, even more absurd, laws making it impossible even for court-appointed attorneys to provide an adequate and conscientious defence to those accused under the thought-crime laws. Any German or Austrian lawyer who does, can be — and frequently is — himself ordered arrested by the judge, for having associated himself with these criminal thoughts and deeds. Zündel's court-appointed defence attorney Sylvia Stolz made herself unpopular with the prosecutor for "hampering the prosecution," and is now to be prosecuted for so hampering. Go figure, as the Americans say.
More than once my chosen Austrian lawyer, Dr Herbert Schaller, arrived in the Vienna prison with fresh horror tales from Zündel's Mannheim courtroom—the judge Meinerzhagen had warned him that if he asked certain questions of the court, or made certain defence motions, he too would be arrested.
I remember that in January 1993, when I was tried in Munich under Germany's laws for the suppression of free speech, one of my three lawyers turned up apologetically on the morning of the hearing apologizing that he could not continue to act for me, as the Munich Bar Association had threatened him with dismissal — i.e. the end of his career — if he did. He showed me their actual letter. I was fined thirty thousand deutschmarks, around twenty thousand dollars, for uttering a single sentence which the Polish authorities now belatedly admit was true.
...This morning I have received a letter from Frau K., an elderly Viennese lady in her nineties. Exercising what is the constitutional right of every citizen in most other countries, on September 27 of last year she had written a personal letter to the President of Austria, one Herbert Fischer — a small, straw-haired gentleman of even smaller character and endowed with all the intellect and bearing of Lady Chatterley's gardener — to protest against my arrest, trial, and imprisonment. "What David Irving said was right," she wrote in one passage of this incriminating letter.
She received no presidential reply? Right. — She heard no more? Wrong.
On March 8 the Austrian criminal authorities sent her a letter fining her the sum of 200 euros under penalty of jail for having written these seditious words to their august president. No trial, no hearing, no defence — no lawyer would have dared to defend her anyway.
This is the new Europe, coming soon to a jailhouse near us. I for one shall do my damndest to prevent it.