A Second Open Letter to France's Ambassador to the US by Paul Grubach
 Faurisson was severely injured in a nearly fatal attack on Sept. 16, 1989. |
Ambassador Pierre Vimont Embassy of France in the United States 4101 Reservoir Road, NW Washington, D. C. 20007
Dear Ambassador Vimont
As you are undoubtedly aware by now, Holocaust revisionist scholar Dr. Robert Faurisson will probably stand trial for comments he made at the Iran Holocaust Conference of December 2006. Allegedly, he violated France's Gayssot Act, a statute passed in 1990 that prohibits any public doubt about the alleged Jewish Holocaust.
There is a new development to this ongoing story that I would like to bring to your attention.
On January 24, Dr. Faurisson was taken into police custody for questioning and a search of his house was carried out. In my last open letter to you of January 15, I brought attention to the hypocritical double standard of the French government.
In September 2006, high school teacher Robert Redeker made a scathing attack upon the Prophet Mohammed and the Islamic religion in the center-right daily Le Figaro. Because of threats to his life, he was forced to go into hiding.
The French government immediately came to his defense, offering him police protection and a public statement on his behalf. In reference to Redeker's case, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called the threats to his life "unacceptable," and added: "We are in a democracy. Everyone has the right to express his views freely, while respecting others, of course." (See The New York Times, 30 September 2006, p. A 3)
That this is an outrageous lie is demonstrated by the ongoing plight of Dr. Faurisson. In 1991, French "democracy" demanded that Dr. Faurisson be removed from his university chair. In July 2006, French "democracy" again violated his inalienable right to freedom of speech and research. He was convicted of "Holocaust denial" by a Paris court over remarks he made on Iranian television, and was given a three-month suspended prison term and he has to pay 18 000 euros.
Clearly, as the cases of Redeker and Faurisson show, one has the right to attack and violate the sacred beliefs of Muslims, but one has no right whatsoever to question and repudiate the Holocaust doctrine, one of the most sacred beliefs of Jewish-Zionism. The sacred belief and taboo of the Jewish people is enshrined in law in France. If you contest the Holocaust, you are prosecuted and persecuted.
However, the sacred beliefs of Muslims are not enshrined in law. If you attack Muslim beliefs, this is depicted as an expression of "freedom of speech." Once again, this is evidence of a hypocritical double standard. I have come across another case which further bolsters my point.
Do you recognize the name of the French Jewish writer, Marek Halter? He co-founded the so-called "anti-racist" group, SOS-Racisme. There is an interview of him in the February 11, 2005 issue of the English edition of The International Jerusalem Post, (pp. 9-11).
Halter claims that France's rapidly growing Islamic population is too frequently incompatible with democracy. Let me give you two of his direct quotes. Halter stated: "All of a sudden we realize that they [Muslims] are not a small minority anymore and that the way most of them practice their religion is not compatible with French democratic principles." He also stated: "Muslims threaten to weaken a French democracy that no longer knows how to impose its rules without seeming oppressive."
In April 2007 the European Union made inciting racism and xenophobia crimes throughout its 27 member states in a landmark decision. Even before April 2007, when Halter made these statements, inciting racism and xenophobia in France were outlawed.
That is to say, Halter made these statements when these "racism and xenophobia" laws were on the books. A French prosecutor could cogently argue that Halter's statements incite hatred and xenophobia against Muslims, and thus, the man should be prosecuted. After all, he is stating that Muslims as a group threaten to weaken and even destroy French "democracy."
This will cause people to hate Muslims. Your so-called French "democracy" allows him to make anti-Muslim statements. Yet, Robert Faurisson is put on trial by this same French "democracy" for making statements that contest and debunk Holocaust orthodoxy.
Do you see my point, Ambassador Vimont? France grants "freedom of speech" to Jewish people like Marek Halter who criticize and attack Muslims. Yet, "democratic" France denies freedom of speech to non-Jews like Faurisson who question and debunk the orthodox view of the Holocaust.
If France was truly a democracy as former Prime Minister de Villepin claims, it would defend Dr. Faurisson's right to freedom of research on the Holocaust. That is to say, there would be no "limits in advance" or "prewritten conclusions" about his Holocaust research.
After all, France grants freedom of research for atheists and others who deny the existence of God or attack the Islamic and Christian religions.
If the French government does prosecute and imprison Dr. Faurisson for his Holocaust revisionist views, this will only demonstrate to the world the truth of his arguments. The French government cannot disprove his Holocaust revisionism with reason and science, but must resort to oppressive laws and prison sentences in its attempt to silence truth.
Sincerely, Paul Grubach
A copy of this letter has been sent to Press TV
In September 2006, high school teacher Robert Redeker made a scathing attack upon the Prophet Mohammed and the Islamic religion in the center-right daily Le Figaro. Because of threats to his life, he was forced to go into hiding.
The French government immediately came to his defense, offering him police protection and a public statement on his behalf. In reference to Redeker's case, former Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called the threats to his life "unacceptable," and added: "We are in a democracy. Everyone has the right to express his views freely, while respecting others, of course." (See The New York Times, 30 September 2006, p. A 3)
That this is an outrageous lie is demonstrated by the ongoing plight of Dr. Faurisson. In 1991, French "democracy" demanded that Dr. Faurisson be removed from his university chair. In July 2006, French "democracy" again violated his inalienable right to freedom of speech and research. He was convicted of "Holocaust denial" by a Paris court over remarks he made on Iranian television, and was given a three-month suspended prison term and he has to pay 18 000 euros.
Clearly, as the cases of Redeker and Faurisson show, one has the right to attack and violate the sacred beliefs of Muslims, but one has no right whatsoever to question and repudiate the Holocaust doctrine, one of the most sacred beliefs of Jewish-Zionism. The sacred belief and taboo of the Jewish people is enshrined in law in France. If you contest the Holocaust, you are prosecuted and persecuted.
However, the sacred beliefs of Muslims are not enshrined in law. If you attack Muslim beliefs, this is depicted as an expression of "freedom of speech." Once again, this is evidence of a hypocritical double standard. I have come across another case which further bolsters my point.
Do you recognize the name of the French Jewish writer, Marek Halter? He co-founded the so-called "anti-racist" group, SOS-Racisme. There is an interview of him in the February 11, 2005 issue of the English edition of The International Jerusalem Post, (pp. 9-11).
Halter claims that France's rapidly growing Islamic population is too frequently incompatible with democracy. Let me give you two of his direct quotes. Halter stated: "All of a sudden we realize that they [Muslims] are not a small minority anymore and that the way most of them practice their religion is not compatible with French democratic principles." He also stated: "Muslims threaten to weaken a French democracy that no longer knows how to impose its rules without seeming oppressive."
In April 2007 the European Union made inciting racism and xenophobia crimes throughout its 27 member states in a landmark decision. Even before April 2007, when Halter made these statements, inciting racism and xenophobia in France were outlawed.
That is to say, Halter made these statements when these "racism and xenophobia" laws were on the books. A French prosecutor could cogently argue that Halter's statements incite hatred and xenophobia against Muslims, and thus, the man should be prosecuted. After all, he is stating that Muslims as a group threaten to weaken and even destroy French "democracy."
This will cause people to hate Muslims. Your so-called French "democracy" allows him to make anti-Muslim statements. Yet, Robert Faurisson is put on trial by this same French "democracy" for making statements that contest and debunk Holocaust orthodoxy.
Do you see my point, Ambassador Vimont? France grants "freedom of speech" to Jewish people like Marek Halter who criticize and attack Muslims. Yet, "democratic" France denies freedom of speech to non-Jews like Faurisson who question and debunk the orthodox view of the Holocaust.
If France was truly a democracy as former Prime Minister de Villepin claims, it would defend Dr. Faurisson's right to freedom of research on the Holocaust. That is to say, there would be no "limits in advance" or "prewritten conclusions" about his Holocaust research.
After all, France grants freedom of research for atheists and others who deny the existence of God or attack the Islamic and Christian religions.
If the French government does prosecute and imprison Dr. Faurisson for his Holocaust revisionist views, this will only demonstrate to the world the truth of his arguments. The French government cannot disprove his Holocaust revisionism with reason and science, but must resort to oppressive laws and prison sentences in its attempt to silence truth.
Sincerely, Paul Grubach
A copy of this letter has been sent to Press TV
No comments:
Post a Comment