Monday, October 26, 2009

Court of Inquisition Fines SSPX Bishop Williamson €12,000 for Denial of Dogmas of Holocaustolatry


German court fines British bishop for Holocaust claims

Richard Williamson fined €12,000 over claim on Swedish TV that fewer than 300,000 Jews died in Nazi death camps

Guardian

Monday 26 October 2009

A British bishop has been fined €12,000 after a German court found him guilty of denying the Holocaust.

Richard Williamson received a letter today from the court in the Bavarian city of Regensburg informing him that he was being fined for incitement over his claim on Swedish television that fewer than 300,000 Jews died in Nazi death camps.

In the interview, Williamson alleged that Nazi gas chambers had never existed and "only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews" had been killed by the Nazis.

Holocaust denial is classed as a hate crime in Germany and because the interview took place in Regensburg, German prosecutors were allowed to investigate.

The bishop's remarks were made public in January, shortly after Pope Benedict XVI repealed an order made by the previous pope excommunicating Williamson for his rightwing views. Williamson was consecrated a bishop by the pope's Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), an ultraconservative splinter group.

The outcry was immediate, with both Jews and members of the Catholic hierarchy criticising the pope's rehabilitation of a Holocaust-denier. While condemning Williamson's remarks, the Vatican defended its decision, only saying later that it hadn't known about his very public views about the Holocaust.

Williamson has said through his lawyer that he was assured his offending remarks would not be broadcast in Germany but only in Sweden, where there is no law against Holocaust denial. A Munich newspaper, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, said prosecutors had received a letter from the Swedish television producers in which they denied offering any assurance to Williamson that the interview, conducted in English, would be broadcast in Sweden only.

Williamson's German lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, said his client had been told to pay €100 a day for 120 days, and he was likely to appeal. If he does, there will be a proper trial in Regensburg, which Williamson will not be forced to attend.

Lossmann told Germany's Focus magazine that the fine – imposed under an "order of punishment", a German legal tool that involves no trial but, if accepted by the defendant, is equivalent to a conviction – was too harsh and that the sentencing authorities had been influenced by the publicity surrounding the case. German law allows a maximum sentence of five years in prison for belittling or denying the Holocaust.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/26/british-bishop-holocaust-fine

32 comments:

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

This is absurd. If I were Bishop Williamson, I would tell them, "No way!"

James said...

The following is an e-mail I just sent to Bp. Williamson.

October 27, 2009

Dear Bp. Williamson,

Amidst what I can only imagine must be a flood of "advice" from various quarters, I pray that I still have your ear -- as you have been so gracious in lending it to me in the past.

May God be with you in this crucial time. May our Lady keep you close to her heart.

I trust you will not disgrace your good name nor the office of Roman Catholic Bishop, the latter of which has already been disgraced quite thoroughly by those whose skulls pave the floor of hell, nor that you cause needless scandal to countless numbers of Catholics (and even non-Catholics) by paying a most evil and despicable fine imposed for the supposed violation of a most evil and despicable law. (cf. St. Augustine: "An unjust law is no law at all." This, of course, was expanded upon centuries later by the Angelic Doctor who you most certainly are quite well acquainted with!)

JUST SAY "NO!" and while you are at it you may tell the enemies of Christ to "TURN OR BURN!" After all, is that not in essence what our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, told his enemies? Is he not the one who we are to imitate? If He was worldly prudent He would never have gone to His crucifixion, but then again, if He was worldly prudent He would not have been our Lord and Saviour.

Furthermore, I trust you will not give your consent to any person or entity either paying, or even attempting to pay, the fine on your behalf -- and that should that occur that you will in the strongest and clearest of terms and in a most public way completely disassociate yourself from such action(s). I would also think it incumbent upon you to strongly and in no uncertain terms publicly discourage at your earliest opportune moment anyone or any entity from even considering to raise funds on your behalf for payment of the fine, although you would certainly be free to solicit same for a legal defense should you wish to defend yourself.

No compromise with evil. (Toleration sometimes, compromise never.) No consent to lies, indirect or otherwise. No consent to the False/Lying Shoah Theology, implied or otherwise, at the expense of the Theology of Calvary.

In Jesus Christ Crucified and His Blessed Mother who was crucified with Him,

James B. Phillips

P.S. Finally, I beg of you not to contemn by your actions, or lack thereof, the suffering of all those poor souls rotting away in jails and prisons for refusing to give into the stinking most foul lies of Holocaustianity.

Anonymous said...

James,

You are aware of this on HBO last night?

Larry David urinates on a picture of Jesus Christ - Google Search

Anonymous said...

"This, of course, was expanded upon centuries later by the Angelic Doctor who you most certainly are quite well acquainted with!)"
I assume you mean Dr. Mengele...

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Good letter, James.

God bless.

Anonymous said...

Jew Larry David urinated on a picture of Jesus - http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/28/curb-your-enthusiasm-larry-david-urinates-picture-jesus

James said...

Interesting. Just as interesting in one sense is how the "Ain't no business like Shoah Business" folks will go to such extraordinary means in trying to explain it all away. (And don't forget the lack of any reported evidence of the "Sacred" Six Million," etc. by the International Red Cross!)

Eisenhower, Churchill, de Gaulle

Three of the best known works on the Second World War are General Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe (New York: Doubleday [Country Life Press], 1948), Winston Churchill's The Second World War (London: Cassell, 6 vols., 1948-1954), and the Mémoires de guerre of General de Gaulle (Paris: Plon, 3 vols., 1954-1959). In these three works not the least mention of Nazi gas chambers is to be found.

Eisenhower's Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; the six volumes of Churchill's Second World War total 4,448 pages; and de Gaulle's three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages. In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi "gas chambers," a "genocide" of the Jews, or of "six million" Jewish victims of the war.

James B. Phillips

Anonymous said...

You can't prove something by ommision..
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/stories/death-camps.htm
-----------------
“Churchill had no doubt that a terrible crime had been committed. As
he wrote to Anthony Eden on the day that the escapees' account of the
truth about Auschwitz and the ‘unknown destination’ reached him:

“‘There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most
horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and
it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in
the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It
is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our
hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the
butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the
murders has been proved. Declarations should be made in public, so
that everyone connected with it will be hunted down and put to
death.’”

Anonymous said...

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html

So many good and decent men, and women by the way, are imprisoned for their scholarship or for doing their best in a court of law defending their client.
The truth is no defence, the courts state.

Do you think appeasing the enemies of Christ will pay off in the end?

Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.
John 7:13

James said...

In an earlier comment I said: "Just as interesting in one sense is how the 'Ain't no business like Shoah Business' folks will go to such extraordinary means in trying to explain it all away."

I should have added, "and how quickly they respond!" THANKS ANONYMOUS FOR PROVING MY POINT ON BOTH COUNTS.

James B. Phillips

Confiteor said...

James, what is so extraordinary about the fact that Anon 1:39 has supplied a piece of contrary evidence? Do you have no response other than to mock? At least Anon 1:39 has supplied something concrete, not just an inference based on an omission.

Anonymous said...

well said Confieotor

Anonymous said...

Jews trying to remove all Christian symbolism from Italian public spaces - http://jta.org/news/article/2009/11/04/1008940/italy-protests-ruling-banning-crucifix-display

James said...

Nice try Confiteor in coming to the defense of Anon (1:39). I hope the readers of this column can see through it. (I wonder if this is the same Anon at 1:48 who for some reason found it necessary to inform me of Larry David urinating on a picture of Jesus Christ and then a few minutes later at 1:57 mocks the greatest of all Catholic Theologians by referring to him as Dr. Mengele.) I believe the readers of this column have enough sense to put two and two togtether, but if you wish to continue in support (directly or inferentially) of the Holohoax there's not a whole lot I can do to stop you.

By the way I do not mock. That is the specialty of the devil and I am not one of his children. I simply present certain facts which help the readers discern what an incredibly false piece of propaganda the "Sacred" Six Million Super Money Making Holohoax is. If any of the readers of this column choose to continue to believe in this myth which still includes the forged Anne Frank nonsense (and for those especially gullible even to this day the human lampshades,etc.) so be it.

James B. Phillips

Anonymous said...

Mr. James....
I find your comments laughable...I'm not sure what motivates people to think that there's some value to trying to deny the Holocaust. It's quite fitting that Germany has made it illegal to do so. They would know...and they would certainly know if it didn't happen.
Have you no brains?

Anonymous said...

I got curious and here are some interesting things:
Goebbels' diary, for example, was barely rescued from being sold as 7,000 pages of scrap paper, but buried in the scattered manuscript were several telling entries (as translated in Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, pp. 86, 147-148):

February 14, 1942: The Führer once again expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe pitilessly. There must be no squeamish sentimentalism about it. The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.

March 27, 1942: The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only 40 per cent can be used for forced labor.

Anonymous said...

Regarding postwar testimony from Nazis, were they all tortured into confessing to heinous crimes which they supposedly did not commit? This might be believable if only a few Nazis were captured after the war, or maybe if some had courageously stood up in court and shouted to the world about the supposed attempt to silence them. But hundreds testified regarding the Holocaust, in trials dating from late 1945 until the 1960s. (For example, see Böck, Hofmann, Hössler, Klein, Münch, and Stark.)

Many of these Nazis testified as witnesses and were not accused of crimes. What was the basis for their supposed coercion?

Many of these trials were in German courts. Did the Germans torture their own countrymen? Well, Holocaust-deniers sometimes claim that the Jews have secretly infiltrated the German government and control everything about it. They prefer not to talk too much about this theory, however, because it is clearly on the lunatic fringe.

The main point is that not one of these supposed torture victims -- in fifty years, not one -- has come forth to support the claim that testimony was coerced.

On the contrary, confirmation and reconfirmation of their testimony has continued across the years. What coercion could have convinced Judge Konrad Morgen to testify to the crimes he witnessed at the International Nuremberg Trial in 1946, where he was not accused of any crime? And to later testify at the Auschwitz trial at Frankfurt, Germany, in 1963-65? What coercion was applied to SS Doctor Johann Kremer to make him testify in his own defense in 1947, and then, after having been convicted in both Poland and Germany, emerge after his release to testify again as a witness at the Frankfurt trial? What coercion was applied to Böck, Gerhard Hess, Hölblinger, Storch, and Wiebeck, all former SS men, all witnesses at Frankfurt, none accused of any crime there?

Anonymous said...

What supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force former SS-Untersturmführer Dr. Hans Münch to give an interview, against the will of his family, on Swedish television? In the 1981 interview, he talked about Auschwitz:

Interviewer: Isn't the ideology of extermination contrary to a doctor's ethical values?

Münch: Yes, absolutely. There is no discussion. But I lived in that environment, and I tried in every possible way to avoid accepting it, but I had to live with it. What else could I have done? And I wasn't confronted with it directly until the order came that I and my superior and another one had to take part in the exterminations since the camp's doctors were overloaded and couldn't cope with it.

Interviewer: I must ask something. Doubters claim that "special treatment" could mean anything. It didn't have to be extermination.

Münch: "Special treatment" in the terminology of the concentration camp means physical extermination. If it was a question of more than a few people, where nothing else than gassing them was worthwhile, they were gassed.

Interviewer: "Special treatment" was gassing?

Münch: Yes, absolutely.

And what supposed coercion could reach across four decades, to force former SS-Unterscharführer Franz Suchomel into giving an interview for the film Shoah? Speaking under (false) promises of anonymity, he told of the crimes committed at the Treblinka death camp (from the book Shoah, Claude Lanzmann, 1985, p. 54):

Interviewer: You are a very important eyewitness, and you can explain what Treblinka was.

Suchomel: But don't use my name.

Interviewer: No, I promised. All right, you've arrived at Treblinka.

Suchomel: So Stadie, the sarge, showed us the camps from end to end. Just as we went by, they were opening the gas-chamber doors, and people fell out like potatoes. Naturally, that horrified and appalled us. We went back and sat down on our suitcases and cried like old women.

Each day one hundred Jews were chosen to drag the corpses to the mass graves. In the evening the Ukrainians drove those Jews into the gas chambers or shot them. Every day!

Anonymous said...

Himmler's speech at Posen on October 4, 1943 was captured on audiotape (Trial of the Major War Criminals, 1948, Vol. XXIX, p. 145, trans. by current author):

I refer now to the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people. This is one of those things that is easily said: "the Jewish people are being exterminated," says every Party member, "quite true, it's part of our plans, the elimination of the Jews, extermination, we're doing it."

The extermination effort was even mentioned in at least one official Nazi court verdict. In May 1943, a Munich court wrote in its decision against SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner that:

The accused shall not be punished because of the actions against the Jews as such. The Jews have to be exterminated and none of the Jews that were killed is any great loss. Although the accused should have recognized that the extermination of the Jews was the duty of Kommandos which were set up especially for this purpose, he should be excused for considering himself to have the authority to take part in the extermination of Jewry himself.

Maurice Pinay said...

Anon 9:46 PM writes:
"I find your comments laughable...I'm not sure what motivates people to think that there's some value to trying to deny the Holocaust. It's quite fitting that Germany has made it illegal to do so. They would know...and they would certainly know if it didn't happen.
Have you no brains?"


***

Anon, I find the reason betrayed by your comments pitiful. I do know what motivates some people to make "The Holocaust" the alpha and omega of "Truth" and I do know what makes them believe they can force that laughable contrivance upon everyone else: that is, the pitiful Talmudic mentality; the double-standard: the Talmudic double-standard by which the rabbis can contrive a version of history according to which the Gospel has been the source of 2000 years of unspeakable persecutions for stating the rabbis forebears' responsibility for the execution of Jesus Christ while privately, in Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 43a, taking full responsibility for the execution of Jesus Christ.

As St. Augustine has said, it is not rabbinic innocence, but rather, madness that is manifest in such schemes.

If you persecute others in the name of upholding "Holocaust" "Truth" while wailing "persecution," you forfeit either your claims to persecuted class status or sanity. You can't claim both and be taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Maurice:
That's alot of words that don't actually say anything.
I understand YOUR need to conflate things, but to the ridiculous attempt to try to deny the reality of the Holocaust in the face of extraordinary amt. of evidence is evidence of extraordinary stupidity more than it is about any theological wrangling.

Anonymous said...

Those who insist with dogmatic certainty that the Holocaust is a hoax tend to be no less fanatical in their assertions than the Talmudists who treat the Holocaust as a religion.

No one posting on these blogs and message boards -- no one -- knows with absolute certainty whether the accepted narrative of the so-called Holocaust of the Jews is true or not. Reasonable people can disagree on matters of history. I repeat: REASONABLE people can disagree.

One does not have to believe that the Holocaust is a hoax to understand that the Talmudists operate according to a double standard.

I'm all for free inquiry into the truth of what happened to the Jews during World War II. "Holocaust denial" laws are despicable, yet so is the dogmatism of "Holohoax" fanatics who shout down anyone who presents a contrary point of view.

Maurice Pinay said...

11:25 AM writes:
" ... the ridiculous attempt to try to deny the reality of the Holocaust in the face of extraordinary amt. of evidence is evidence of extraordinary stupidity more than it is about any theological wrangling."

***

"The Reality of the Holocaust" ... In this relativistic world where one may freely question the existence of God, the truth of the Bible, our ability to even perceive reality or the concept that such a thing as reality even exists, there is one thing that exists, outside, nay, ABOVE the realm of the questionable: "The Reality of the Holocaust." It may be impossible to perceive reality as modern philosophers theorize (without fear of imprisonment, large fines, or ridicule) but which of them would question "The Reality of the Holocaust"? No, to do so is the height of folly. We may not know whether there is such a thing as reality, but we KNOW "The Holocaust" is REAL ...

Maurice Pinay said...

anon 11:55 AM writes: "Those who insist with dogmatic certainty that the Holocaust is a hoax tend to be no less fanatical in their assertions than the Talmudists who treat the Holocaust as a religion.

No one posting on these blogs and message boards -- no one -- knows with absolute certainty whether the accepted narrative of the so-called Holocaust of the Jews is true or not. Reasonable people can disagree on matters of history. I repeat: REASONABLE people can disagree.

One does not have to believe that the Holocaust is a hoax to understand that the Talmudists operate according to a double standard.

I'm all for free inquiry into the truth of what happened to the Jews during World War II. "Holocaust denial" laws are despicable, yet so is the dogmatism of "Holohoax" fanatics who shout down anyone who presents a contrary point of view."



***

To claim that there is "dogmatic certainty" among those who don't believe "Holocaust" dogmas, is a non-sequitur and misrepresentation. Dogmas affirm something. It would be accurate to call me a "heretic" against "Holocaust" dogmas.

You say that "Holohoax fanatics" "shout down anyone who presents a contrary point of view" despite me allowing Holocaustolators to make their case on my "piddling" blog (as it's been called) even though their side has the unreserved support of government, religion, academia, and media throughout the West and my side is banned from all of these avenues and in many countries also fined and put in prison. There is no sense of proportion in this reasoning. You say "reasonable" people can disagree, but implied in this statement is the notion that "Holohoax fanatics" are unreasonable and therefore rightly banished from "reasonable" discourse." Why? Simply because you say so. This suggestion is itself unreasonable and Talmudic.

Anonymous said...

How do you know WW2 happened?

Anonymous said...

You say "reasonable" people can disagree, but implied in this statement is the notion that "Holohoax fanatics" are unreasonable and therefore rightly banished from "reasonable" discourse." Why? Simply because you say so. This suggestion is itself unreasonable and Talmudic.

First of all, I'm not implying that everyone who questions the Holocaust is a "holohoax fanatic". There is fanaticism on both sides of the issue. Do you agree? Or is it your position that only the revisionists are pure? Also, I didn't say that the fanatics should be "banished" from reasonable discourse. Fanatics banish themselves from reasonable discourse by their own unreasonableness.

You call my reasoning "Talmudic". Are you joking? Is everyone who disagrees with you a Talmudist? Do you not understand that it is actually possible to have doubts about the revisionist thesis and yet still recognize the perfidious nature of Talmudic Judaism?

Anonymous said...

Dogmas affirm something. It would be accurate to call me a "heretic" against "Holocaust" dogmas.

Heretics have their dogmas, too.

You and Mr. Hoffman present the revisionist thesis as if it were gospel truth. As far as you're concerned, it's not open to debate. Sure, you let people post contrary views on your blog, yet you label the contrarians as Talmudists. In short, you treat them as heretics against your own dogma. In your method of arguing, how are you so very different from the Judaics?

Maurice Pinay said...

How do you know WW2 happened

***

In the case of WWII we have bodies, murder weapons and physical evidence of the crimes in addition to corroborating eyewitness testimony all in extraordinary volume.

In the case of the homicidal gas chambers tale we have no bodies, no murder weapons but reams of "eyewitness testimony" from a people whose culture and religion champions lying and deceit and has a millenia-long tradition of weaving overblown or completely fabricated tales of victimhood. And we have "confessions" that were obtained via torture.

That's why I believe that WWII occurred but do not believe the tale of the homicidal gas chambers.

Maurice Pinay said...

Do you not understand that it is actually possible to have doubts about the revisionist thesis and yet still recognize the perfidious nature of Talmudic Judaism?

***

You're confused. The gas chamber storytellers are the ones with the thesis, which I reject. If you say it's reasonable to accept that thesis then tell me what physical evidence--not "eyewitness testimony" or "confessions" extracted via torture--but *physical evidence* you know of which compels belief.

Anonymous said...

MP, I don't know if there is physical evidence or not. I haven't studied the issue in great depth. I'm sure that there will be those who argue that there is physical evidence. I don't know enough to say which side is right. Here is what I DO know:

1. The Talmudists use "the Holocaust" (whether it be fact or fiction) to further their anti-Christian agenda.

2. The very use of the term "the Holocaust" to describe what might or might not have happened to the Jews in World War II is an insult to Our Lord Jesus Christ, whose Sacrifice on the Cross is THE Holocaust that surpasses all others.

3. I'm not a Talmudist, and I don't appreciate the insinuation that I am.

Maurice Pinay said...

You and Mr. Hoffman present the revisionist thesis as if it were gospel truth. As far as you're concerned, it's not open to debate.

***

Revisionism is not a thesis, it's a method of historical analysis. In short, new evidence is considered and if found compelling the historical record is revised accordingly. On the contrary, free inquiry and debate are necessarily part of the revisionist methodology.

I believe this is the most reasonable approach for the Historian to take. You're free to disagree with this methodology and with the findings that are arrived at through its use. It's the Holocaustolators who fine and imprison people for disagreeing with their ex cathedra pontifications. It is they who don't allow debate.

Honestly now, have you protested against the "Holocaust" inquisitors as strongly as you have against me? And if you claim so, please show evidence of your activism in that regard. Let's see how "balanced" your "centrist" position is.

Anonymous said...

ahem....you don't seem to have posted by comments/reactions to yours...i wonder why?