German lawyer and political philosopher Horst Mahler, 81, has escaped the German state’s efforts to imprison him under their notorious ‘incitement’ law. He is now seeking political asylum in a safe country.
Imprisoned in 2009 for the “crime” of challenging his country’s political and academic establishment with unorthodox opinions on 20th century German history, Horst Mahler was released from prison last year on health grounds but earlier this month was ordered to return to prison.
His reincarceration was due today, but yesterday Horst Mahler escaped from the Federal Republic.
Horst Mahler explains:
I owe an explanation as to why I refuse to comply with Mr Nötzel, the public prosecutor in Munich, who has summoned me back to prison under his regiment.
I have pressed charges against Mr Nötzel at the same public prosecutor’s office where he is employed, for attempting to murder me in prison. Expecting my demise, the police had already prepared a ban on demonstrations for the city of Brandenburg, where the prison is located.
On July 29, 2015, after five and a half years in prison, I had physically collapsed in my prison cell.
This was after I had been given the contraindicated drug salicylate vaseline as a treatment for my open wound on the heel of my left diabetic foot.
As a consequence of this treatment, I suffered blood-poisoning. The symptoms caused my referral to Brandenburg’s Asklepios Clinic, where I received medical care at the intensive care unit.
The doctors diagnosed, I quote: “A terminal illness.”
Regardless of this, the accused public prosecutor, who was in charge of my case, enforced my referral to the secluded unit for prisoners at the Brandenburg clinic.
As a result of this referral, my condition deteriorated rapidly, so that my left leg, which was affected with erysipelas (bacterial infection of the skin), had to be amputated up to the knee.
My life was saved only thanks to my wife’s vigorous efforts to obtain my referral to the intensive care unit at Asklepios clinic. Thanks to Gerard Menuhin’s mediation, she had succeeded in getting the Swiss weekly paper “Weltwoche” interested in my case.
In a long article, they drew international attention to this scandal.
I explained all this in my letter to the state prosecutor Munich II, dated February 9, 2017. Adding further scandalous details, I expressed my suspicion of attempted homicide.
Considering the underlying, base motives, attempted murder must be taken into consideration!
The responsible public prosecutor’s office, which is simultaneously the scene of the crime, has not acted upon my charges against the accused.
Instead, they revoked my parole and summoned me back to prison by April 19, 2017 at the latest, without obtaining a medical opinion on whether or not I am fit to serve my prison sentence.
As long as the judicial offers in charge have not been held accountable, and as long as they are involved in my case, I refuse to comply with their summons!
As this use of force against me essentially represents a political persecution that has no legal basis, I am going to seek political asylum in a sovereign state that is willing to take me in.
Since 1965 the NPD (National Democratic Party) have represented the interests of patriots in Germany. The NPD currently has one MEP and several councillors. Now, after the traitor Angela Merkel has flooded the country with millions of non-white invaders, she is seeking to silence all real opposition to the invasion by banning free speech and banning the NPD. The ruling regime in Europe is trying to shut down all opposition to White Genocide, in Greece they are trying to ban The Golden Dawn, now they’re doing the same thing in Germany, where next?
As British patriots we support German patriots & all patriots everywhere.
Free speech must mean free speech for patriots.
We say protect free speech and debate!
We say ban mad Merkel and support the NPD!
Keep Europe White!
Stop the invasion!
1pm, Saturday 27th February
07756 391034 / 07466 039534 / 07917 921734 / 07443 129684
Speak up now, or remain silent forever.
Smart dress only. All welcome.
German lawyer Sylvia Stolz has been given a 20 month prison sentence for comments she made during a speech at a conference in Switzerland. She has already served more than three years in prison from 2008 to 2011 for her defence of client Ernst Zündel.
Several European countries have laws that ban any questioning of the history of the ‘Holocaust’, turning the alleged murder of six million Jews in homicidal gas chambers during the Second World War into a form of religious ‘truth’ that cannot be challenged.
Normal historical analysis and debate is thus condemned as a form of blasphemy, and punished by long prison sentences. For example Horst Mahler, another German lawyer who dared to challenge established historical legends, has been imprisoned since 2009.
Sylvia Stolz’s latest ‘crime’ was committed at the Anti-Censorship Coalition Conference in Switzerland in November 2012. A video of this ‘criminal’ speech, with English subtitles, can be viewed below:
While sentencing Frau Stolz to prison, the judge in her latest case indicated that he fully expects her to appeal, and she will not begin her sentence until the appeal process has ended.
In fact it is likely that the German authorities have created a serious embarrassment for themselves, by prosecuting Frau Stolz for pointing out facts that were actually accepted by German courts themselves when sentencing former Auschwitz guards at trials during the 1960s. During those cases the German courts themselves admitted the absence of evidence regarding the locations of the alleged crimes of the ‘Holocaust’; the lack of any judicial findings regarding corpses or traces of the murders concerned; the lack of judicial assessment of witness statements, or of the documents or other evidence; and the lack of any documentary proof establishing the National Socialists’ intention to destroy the Jewish people in part or in whole (i.e. to commit genocide).
Yet to make these very same observations – even in the very same terms as used by the German courts themselves during the 1960s – is now a criminal act in 21st century Germany.
Though here in the UK we have not yet descended into such a Kafkaesque nightmare of bizarre criminal trials, there are attempts to extend our own notorious ‘race laws’ to encompass the criminalisation of ‘Holocaust denial’. Moreover the British authorities have signed up to the Stockholm International Conference on the teaching of the ‘Holocaust’, which instructed schools as follows:
“Care must be taken not to give a platform for deniers – do not treat the denial of the Holocaust as a legitimate historical argument, or seek to disprove the deniers’ position through normal historical debate and rational argument.”
Demonstration this Saturday – 17th January 2015 – at the U.S. Embassy, Grosvenor Square, London.
Assemble in the square at 1 p.m.
Richard Spencer of the U.S.-based National Policy Institute, main organiser of The European Congress – a nationalist/identitarian conference scheduled for Budapest this weekend – has been arrested by Hungarian police. He was served with a deportation order, and told that he is banned from all Schengen countries for the next three years. (This ban would cover most European countries: though Ireland and the UK are not included in the Schengen agreement, the UK might easily impose its own ban.)
Mr Spencer and the NPI are taking legal advice as to whether this ban should be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. The Congress had earlier been banned by Hungary’s nominally conservative government, eager lackeys of the internationalist establishment. Mr Spencer and other organisers had planned to go ahead with informal gatherings and social events in Budapest, so that the various participants from across Europe, Russia and America could still have the chance to meet and exchange ideas, though the event could no longer be open to the public.
On Friday evening police raided a bar in central Budapest where an entirely lawful gathering was taking place. Mr Spencer and others were reportedly arrested, and no official statement has yet been issued. Two videos of the police actions can be viewed below.
One of the main conference speakers, former Russian government adviser Alexander Dugin, was refused a visa to enter Hungary. Another prominent guest, NPI co-founder and publisher Bill Regnery, was arrested at Budapest airport and deported back to the USA. Nevertheless a private meeting went ahead on Saturday, addressed by former Croatian diplomat Dr Tom Sunic and American Renaissance founder Jared Taylor, who has posted a report on the AmRen website. Participants gathered on Sunday afternoon for a concluding social event in Budapest’s historic Heroes Square.
For another update on the conference, including an interview live from Budapest with Paul Fromm of tha Canadian Association for Free Expression, listen to Saturday night’s edition of the Political Cesspool online radio show with James Edwards. At the CAFE website Paul Fromm has posted a report of the weekend’s events.
Simon Sheppard A8042AA
HM Prison Northallerton
15A East Road
On 1st February 2012 I attended a hearing at the new Supreme Court in London, where lawyers for Julian Assange – founder of the whistleblowing website Wikileaks – were challenging the validity of the European Arrest Warrant under which Assange faces extradition to Sweden, where he has been charged with rape.
Many observers suspect that these rape charges are a pretext to silence Wikileaks, and potentially might see Assange extradited to the USA, where he would face a very long prison sentence for publishing more than 250,000 secret diplomatic cables. These leaks, which began to be published on Assange’s website in February 2010, were a major catalyst for the Tunisian revolution that kicked off last year’s “Arab Spring”. Wikileaks also published BNP membership lists in 2008 and 2009.
But the Supreme Court hearing did not look into the merits or otherwise of either the Wikileaks publications or the Swedish charges. It centred rather on the validity of the European Arrest Warrant, and in doing so raised issues important to all of us.
Until the last decade there were long established principles for extraditing alleged criminals across national borders, recognising that different countries have very different legal systems. First of all there would have to be an extradition treaty between the countries concerned, and the initial extradition request would be made between governments. Then there would have to be a court hearing, in which for example an English court would have to be convinced that: (a) Assange’s alleged offences would have been criminal in the UK as well as in Sweden – the principle of “dual criminality”; (b) there was at least a prima facie case against him; (c) he could expect a fair trial.
All of this was thrown out as part of the ideologically driven push for European Union. The political elite eventually realised that “harmonisation” of laws and procedures across the continent would prove too problematic, so they opted instead for the principle of “mutual recognition”. Jack Straw, Home Secretary in Tony Blair’s government at the turn of the millennium, suggested moving towards a position “where each Member State recognises the validity of decisions of courts from other Member States in criminal matters with a minimum of procedure and formality”.
In practice this meant the new European Arrest Warrant system, under which English courts are no longer allowed to question whether the alleged “crime” is covered by English law, nor whether there is even a prima facie case against the accused, nor even (in most cases) whether the accused could expect a fair trial. All the English court is allowed to do is check whether the European warrant has been validly made out, then rubber stamp the warrant and send the accused on his way to a European trial.
All this would be bad enough, but the issue addressed in Assange’s apopeal is that in his case (and others) the arrest warrant has not been issued by any sort of judge, but by a public prosecutor – so at this stage the case has not even be considered by anyone independent. As Assange’s barrister Dinah Rose pointed out, this contravenes the tradition of nemo iudex in causa sua – no-one should be a judge of his own case.
Worse still, it appears that during the passage of the European warrant system into English law, this potential problem was flagged up more than once, only to be fobbed off by government ministers with the assurance that in practice there would be no need to worry. In January 2002 for example, Home Office minister Bob Ainsworth told the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee: “it will not be possible for authorities that clearly are not courts, that are not judicial authorities to issue requests for European arrest warrants as they will not be recognised.”
Yet in the present case a Swedish prosecutor – clearly not a court – has issued a warrant which has indeed been recognised by the English courts, and unless the Supreme Court overturns that recognition Julian Assange will be extradited on exactly the type of warrant that Tony Blair’s minister assured Parliament would never be allowed. The Assange case is in this respect reminiscent of the Toben case, under which Australian academic Dr Fredrick Toben faced extradition to Germany for “crimes” that did not even amount to an offence under English law. That case fell at the first hurdle when Toben’s defence team challenged the validity of the German warrant: this time the Supreme Court will have to make a historic decision addressing the fundamental principles of the European Arrest Warrant.
LANCASHIRE EVENING POST, 21 June 2010: A BNP activist from Lancashire who wrote and distributed leaflets which blamed Muslims collectively for the heroin trade has been cleared of intending to incite religious hatred.
Anthony Bamber, 54, told a jury his intention was to create a debate about the “crime against humanity” that was the flow of the drug on to Britain’s streets.
He was responsible for heading a campaign which sent up to 30,000 of the leaflets by hand or post to targeted areas and individuals throughout the north of England over a 12-month period.
Bamber, of Greenbank Street, Preston pleaded not guilty to seven counts of distributing threatening written material intended to stir up religious hatred between March and November 2008. He was cleared by a jury at Preston Crown Court of all seven counts.
Representing himself, Bamber said there had been “no unpleasant incidents or social unrest” following the sending of the leaflets. Giving evidence last week, he explained they were targeted at educated professionals such as teachers, doctors, lawyers and clerics who were unlikely to take physical retribution against Muslims upon reading the literature. His aim was to create curiosity and interest which would then lead to a debate, he said.
DAILY MAIL, 21 Nov 2009: Sarah Robinson was just a teenager when World War II broke out. She endured the Blitz, watching for fires during Luftwaffe air raids armed with a bucket of sand. Often she would walk ten miles home from work in the blackout, with bombs falling around her.
As soon as she turned 18, she joined the Royal Navy to do her bit for the war effort. Hers was a small part in a huge, history-making enterprise, and her contribution epitomises her generation’s sense of service and sacrifice.
Nearly 400,000 Britons died. Millions more were scarred by the experience, physically and mentally.
But was it worth it? Her answer – and the answer of many of her contemporaries, now in their 80s and 90s – is a resounding No.
THE PRESS, Dewsbury, 11 Nov 2009: A TEENAGE boy was knocked unconscious with a house brick, stabbed with a screwdriver and “left for dead” in a vicious race attack.
Joseph Haigh, 14, was savagely beaten by the gang of up to 15 Asian youths in Thornhill on Friday night.
The gang hurled racist abuse at him, constantly referring to the colour of his skin, yet police refused to classify the attack as racially-motivated.
Joseph’s dad Jonathan, 42, of Thornhill, said: “It was a racist attack.
“They were calling him ‘white trash’ and white this, that and the other.
“This is why people are angry about what is happening in this country.
“If it had been an attack by whites on an Asian lad it would have been a definite race attack. When it’s the other way round they don’t want to know.”