Scrapbookpages Blog

July 5, 2011

You can’t trust a Swedish reporter, as Bishop Williamson learned to his dismay

Filed under: Germany, Holocaust — Tags: , , — furtherglory @ 9:26 am

Richard Williamson, a Catholic Bishop, who is now known the world over as “Holocaust-denying Bishop Williamson,” gave an interview to a Swedish television journalist in 2008; the interview was filmed in Regensburg, Germany, where Holocaust denial is a crime.

After the interview was shown on the Internet, Bishop Williamson was convicted of Holocaust denial by a German court in 2009 and fined 10,000 euro for his crime.  Williamson appealed the verdict and his appeal trial started yesterday. The appeal is being handled by his attorney, Benjamin Weller.  The Bishop, who now lives in the UK, did not attend the proceedings.

According to Williamson’s attorney, Bishop Williamson was asked “leading questions” by the Swedish journalist. Williamson specifically asked that the interview not be shown in Germany where he knew that his opinion about the Holocaust was a crime.

The Swedish journalist broke his promise and an excerpt from the Bishop’s interview was put on the Internet. 

In the interview, Bishop Williamson said:

“I believe that the historical evidence is hugely against six million Jews having being deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.”

The Swedish journalist then asked: “But you say not one Jew was killed . . .”

and Williamson finishes the sentence  “. . . in gas chambers.”

The Journalist then prompts him with “So there were no gas chambers?”

Williamson takes the bait and replies:

“I believe there were no gas chambers, yes. As far as I have studied the evidence – I’m not going by emotion . . . I think for instance people who are against what is very widely believed today about, quote, the Holocaust – I think those people conclude – the revisionists as they’re called – I think the most serious conclude that between 200,000 and 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps but not one of them by gassing in a gas chamber.”

 

 

Who is the criminal here?  A man who gave his opinion and asked that it not be shown in a country that does not allow free speech?  Or a journalist who dupes a man in order to use his opinions against him and cause him to be convicted of a crime?   In my humble opinion, the Swedish journalist is the criminal in this case.

Bishop Williamson is not a German citizen. Germany should not put non-citizens on trial for breaking their law against Holocaust denial, even if the denial is voiced while the non-citizen is visiting Germany.  Non-citizens should have immunity if their own country allows free speech.

9 Comments

  1. Kevin,
    I have read your article too. Few comments on that.
    What if the Wannsee Conference had never taken place? What do we know about it, or what evidence of it?
    Phony “protocol” written in poor German, obviously not by Eichmann? Could you imagine for a second, that we are dealing with a great hoax here?
    “They were shot by the hundreds of thousands in the Lebensraum of the east”
    What if they weren’t? Here is a real story about most famous mass execution site called “Babi Yar”.
    http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/BabiYar/Nikiforuk.html
    It seems that we are dealing with another hoax here as well.

    Comment by Gasan — July 13, 2011 @ 6:53 pm

  2. You’ve got great insights about Bishop Williamson, keep up the good work!

    Comment by Kevin Myers sometimes writes about Williamson — July 7, 2011 @ 11:33 pm

      • Good work? Well, maybe a little … but not much. Mr. Kevin Myers, who has the privilege of writing columns for the Independent, and getting paid, wrote this in the article FG linked to:

        “Moreover, there certainly was no holocaust. For if the word is to have any literal validity at all, it must be related to its actual meaning, which comes from the Greek words holos, ‘whole’, and caust, ‘fire’. Most Jewish victims of the Third Reich were not burnt in the ovens in Auschwitz.” THIS I CAN AGREE WITH, SAYS I. BUT NOT WHAT FOLLOWS:

        “They were shot by the hundreds of thousands in the Lebensraum of the east, or were worked or starved to death in a hundred other camps, across the Reich.”

        This he calls being a holocaust denier?! He’s being cute. I would ask Mr. Myers to supply the evidence for his statement, which has never been supplied by anyone. It is all hearsay and wishful thinking and “evidence” concocted by the Soviet “Extraordinary War Crimes Commissions”, an example of which is that concocted to “prove” the Germans massacred the Polish officers, soldiers and intellectuals at Katyn. Mr. Myers, please stop posing as an expert. You said you’ve done “an extensive internet search on Bishop Williamson.” Great, and maybe you’ve done an internet search on other aspects of the non-holocaust as well, but that doesn’t make you an expert. It is popular and acceptable to support Bishop Williamson because his offense is so minor, so slight, and because he’s such a dignified man in his clerical garb. I like him too.

        But to then say that the Wannsee Conference was the birthplace of ” one of the most satanic operations in world history, in which millions of Jews were murdered” is going way beyond what you personally know, and also what there is clear-cut evidence for. If you would do an extensive internet search on this (especially how about reading the actual protocol at http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/wansee-transcript.html, with a critical intelligence) — not just holocaust believer sites that “interpret” for you — you might have a similar experience as you had with Bishop Williamson.

        Until then, you are just another holocaust believer, Mr Myers, even if you do rightly reject the word “holocaust.”

        Comment by Skeptic — July 15, 2011 @ 9:59 am

  3. I followed the story of “the Heretical Two,” Simon Sheppard and Steven Whittle, the British based heretics who put up a controversial website hosted by server in California. Things got sticky for them in the UK so they jumped bail and flew to Los Angeles where they approached an immigration officer at the LAX and asked for political asylum. The upshot of their free speech adventure in the USA was that they languished in the Santa Ana jail for almost a year and wer then deported back to England for a sentencing they’d failed to appear for in a Leeds courtroom. Theirs is a complex story for a number of reasons which are summed up here: http://www.metafilter.com/88573/The-Heretical-Two. What I want to say about it is this. There was no good reason why they were denied bail in the US in lieu of the fact tens of thousands of illegal immigrants and violent street thugs are on a revolving door basis with law enforcement and justice in California. There was also a complete blackout in the MSM about their situation until a few days before they were deported. Why? Because they didn’t just question the received history of the holocaust they went out of their way to mock it and the kippahed kibbitzers who had them thrown in the klink on two continents with a few phone calls.

    Comment by who+dares+wings — July 7, 2011 @ 6:51 am

  4. Only because Bishop Williamson is a catholic.

    Here in Québec, it was discovered that the director of the Jewish-Quebec Commitee was a Hitler lover and a communist. The jewish lobby had no problem with this until it was made public here :

    http://www.vigile.net/Un-Jean-Louis-Roux-chez-les

    They just closed that commitee:

    http://www.qic-cqi.org/spip.php?article259

    Comment by Gébé Tremblay — July 6, 2011 @ 5:11 am

  5. Leading questions yes but do we have any evidence, other than Williamson’s assertion, that the journalist made and broke a promise ?

    Does the offence consist simply denying the Holocaust on German soil, or does the denial have also to be accessible in German territory? If so in what way?

    It may be in this Internet age the answer is not be at all clear.

    Comment by Ethelred — July 5, 2011 @ 3:21 pm

    • It’s been awhile since I’ve seen the video of the interview, but as I recall, Williamson asked the journalist on camera for assurance that his remarks about the Holocaust would not be shown on TV in Germany. Williamson was not the one who put the excerpt from the interview on the Internet where people in every country could see it. Williamson was being interviewed about Catholic church matters. The Journalist brought up the subject of the Holocaust and asked leading questions in order to trick Williamson into breaking the law in Germany. Williamson was foolish to say anything about the Holocaust while he was being filmed; he should not have been so trusting.

      To answer your question about whether the offense must be committed on German soil in order for the criminal to be charged with a crime: No. The purpose of the German law is to protect German citizens from hearing or reading Holocaust denial. Germar Rudolf was not on German soil when he committed his second offense of Holocaust denial, but his books and web site could be read in Germany, so that’s why he was extradited from America and put on trial in Germany. Ernst Zundel’s web site is hosted by a company in American and the web master is his wife, but he was still convicted of Holocaust denial and served 5 years in prison in Gemany because his web site could be read by German citizens.

      Comment by furtherglory — July 5, 2011 @ 10:37 pm

    • I read this at http://www.news.com.au/world/british-bishop-allegedly-duped/story-fn6sb9br-1226087634142

      Quote:
      The bishop was told the interview would be aired only in Sweden, his lawyers Edgar and Benjamin Weiler told the court.

      “The accused was duped over the purpose of the interview,” which was later broadcast around the world, notably in Germany, they said.
      End Quote

      Germany should have a printed warning notice that is handed to visitors when they enter Germany. At the time that visitors show their passport and get it stamped as they enter Germany, they should receive instructions on how to avoid arrest and prosecution in Germany for using their right of free speech in their native country. Visitors should be warned that they are now entering a country that is not free and that anything that you say CAN and WILL be used against you.

      I have been to Germany many times, but I never speak German while I am there, unless I absolutely have to. I don’t want to make a mistake and use a word that is banned because it has something to do with the Holocaust. The slightest mistake could be interpreted as Holocaust denial.

      Comment by furtherglory — July 6, 2011 @ 6:29 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: