Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day027.16 Last-Modified: 2000/07/25 MR IRVING: So there are occasions when you can use tainted . P-140 sources, am I right, and still establish the truth using them? A. I do not say that they are tainted sources as sources. They are very valid and I can prove it ditch by ditch or centimetre by centimetre. Q. Yes, if you go to page 12 where we have the OPC defining what it means by the word "extremist"? A. Yes. Q. Paragraph 2.6? A. Yes. Q. This is the Office for the Protection of the Constitution "defines as extremist all endeavours aimed at abusing, fully or in part, constitutional law and all efforts to replace it with a totalitarian nationalistic system". Now, this is your own words, and I am going to have to ask you when we come to these various people and figures and organisations whether they fit that criterion; somebody like Ewald Althans, was he trying to overthrow constitutional law and replace with a totalitarian system, in your view? A. As joining a neo-Nazi Party -- a neo-Nazi grouping, of course, of course. Q. Yes. A. This is the core of it. I mean, read the text of Michael Kuhnen. I quote at length about the second revolution. It is the second revolution in the course of the Nazi . P-141 groupings around strasse, and he rephrased it a bit and even sharpened it, so saying that Hitler is the hero of the Aryan race and so forth. So this is something. Q. Is the PDS an extremist body in the opinion of the OPC? What is the PDS? A. The PDS is a party that came out of the former Communist SED, changed the name, changed by the course of the last 10 years parts of the ideas, parts of the electorate, parts of the membership, and I would describe this grouping, this party, as a kind of post socialistic, partially authoritarian sticking to the democratic liberal rules party. So it is a mixture, very interesting to observe but not by the OPC observed party. Q. Why does the OPC not scrutinize this left wing Communist party successor then which appears to fulfil the criteria? A. No, no, this is debated, so this is a kind of tricky decision they have to make, if the dominant groupings in the party in the PDS really can be described as anti-constitutional or not. So this is debated, and there are sources that say that this is not the case and other sources say it is the case. Q. It appears to be a bit elastic then, the way they define the word "extremist"? A. In that sense they have to because it is clear from the case. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think, honestly, we have taken this far . P-142 enough. We are not going to get into examinations of totalitarian socialism. We are dealing with totalitarian nationalism. MR IRVING: If we now look back at the right-wing end of the spectrum, again the Republicans, Franz Schonhuber's Party, you have linked me with them, have you not? A. You had some connections, some interactions, in the early phase of '89 and follows with them. Q. Where they defined by the OPC as extremist? A. To a degree, it depends again because this again is a case not identical with the PDS, on the other side, but after a period of discussions and looking through the internal structure and ideologies of the Party, they decided to a degree to observe them, but, compared to the other parties, the NPD and the DVU, it is, you know, of lower intensity because of the kind of vague self-definition ---- Q. Before we ---- A. --- of the Party. Q. Before we leave the Republicans, is it right, in fact, that the Republicans fought a High Court battle in the Supreme Court against the Office of Protection of the Constitution and had the watchdogs taken off them, if I can put it like that? A. This is only the case for one State. Q. For one State? . P-143 A. For Berlin. Q. I did not know that. So effectively ---- A. And maybe some other States. I know it from Berlin, but it is not true for the Federal level. Q. Are you saying that the Republicans are extremists or not? Are you still saying they are extremists in the meaning ---- A. I personally, in my judgment, because I did a piece on that, I would say they are extremists because of the anti-Semitic rhetoric of especially the then, the then, leader of the Party, Franz Schonhuber, and the furious hatred against foreigners he spread and leanings to authoritarian state likewise. So I can go into detail if it is necessary. Q. Then this brings up again your own political opinion, though, if you state that your personal view of Schonhuber or your personal view of the Republicans ---- A. No, it is a personal scientific opinion based on an analysis of this party at length. My personal views are not of interest except your Lordship are interested in that, so I, of course, would be able to say something about my personal opinions. Q. Even the OPC has been ordered to take off the watchdogs in Berlin anyway, then this implies that they ---- A. I said ---- Q. --- are very borderline. . P-144 MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have had that ---- MR IRVING: They are very borderline, are they? MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- and we are not spending long on the OPC, I hope? MR IRVING: I am using them as a north, a kind of pole star to steer the court by. What entitles you to describe the German people's union as being a right-wing extremist body? A. You mean DVU? Q. Yes, the DVU. Have you ever read their manifesto, so to speak? A. I read a bunch of papers of them. Q. Are they anti-Semitic? A. I have even the newspapers of these days here, but maybe it is not of interest ---- Q. Can we deal with the manifestos first? Are there manifestos, did they have a Holocaust denial element? A. I referred to the Holocaust denial publications of the central paper, newspaper, of this Party, the Deutche [German] where at length over months the [German] presentation of the hoax of the 20th century was distributed to the people who were reading this Party newspaper. Q. A Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, is it not? A. Yes, to a degree, yes. Q. Has the DVU ever been prosecuted for Holocaust denial or . P-145 have any of its newspapers ever been prosecuted for Holocaust denial, and it would be a useful standard to judge by, would it not? A. I think they could have done but they did not. Q. The answer is no? A. This is up to the authorities to do if there is no [German] ---- THE INTERPRETER: If there is no one claiming, no one bringing a court case. A. If there is no one claiming this case to the court, like as long as there is no institution claiming the DVU was an unlegal party, illegal party, so it is formally legal, but because of the content and of the strategy, according to the OPC and to the social sciences right-wing extremist. Q. We are dealing with the Holocaust denial element at present. I did not quite understand your answer. Are you saying that nobody prosecuted them for Holocaust denial because nobody complained, did I understand that? A. At that period. Q. But you know as well as I do, do you not, Professor Funke, that under German law, as it relates to Holocaust denial, specifically nobody has to complain? The Public Prosecutor can start a prosecution even without a complaint? A. It was in the '70s and it was not in the centre of interest and public interest is important, as you know, . P-146 familiar with the liberal democracy. Q. But at all material times for this case they have not been prosecuted and at any time the Public Prosecutor could have prosecuted the DVU if they had engaged in Holocaust denial within the meaning of the law? A. They could have, yes, yes, they could have, definitely. Q. Yes, and the same goes for anti-Semitism. Have they ever been prosecuted for anti-Semitic remarks? A. I am not sure ---- Q. In any of their publications? A. --- that there are not some cases, so I have to restrict my knowledge, my answering on the -- restrict on the knowledge of -- restrict to the knowledge I have about this kind of relation between the Party and the judicial institutions. Q. I have to say the correct answer is not to your knowledge they have not been prosecuted? A. Not to your knowledge, thank you. Q. Page 15, the first two or three lines? A. 15? MR IRVING: Page 15, the first two or three lines. You are saying: "Right-wing extremism is often connected with an ideology and/or a practical tendency towards violence, militancy and terror". In calling me a right-wing extremist, are you saying that I am a violent, militant and terrorizing person, is that what you are trying . P-147 to ---- A. No, you have a militant rhetoric with respect to Jews. Q. With respect to Jews? A. And with respect to so-called other races, but you are not, you did not, you did not say violent things so far I saw it or, you know, applausing violence or instigating that, but you joined groups who, like the neo-Nazi groups, I said, I described before the break that are utterly for violent acts to get the second revolution done. Q. If these groups that you say I joined were committing these illegal acts, would they not have been prosecuted or declared illegal at the material times or have been declared illegal? A. Say it again. Q. If these groups that you say that I joined had been committing these illegal acts under German law, would they not have been prosecuted or put out of business? A. They are, they were. Q. At the time I allegedly joined them? A. It was nearly in the same time, so let us talk about the NO invitation, the National Offensive invitation in '92, of Swerzik, we had it. These, the groups around the Michael Kuhnen crew, or let us say the Gesinnungsgemeinschaft, were banned to a degree in the same year. So Deutsche Alternative, National Offensive, others, were banned because of the instigation of racial . P-148 hatred and instigation of violence against foreigners. This was the reason why they were banned. Q. I have to hold you to this now because the question I have to ask you is at the time I spoke, if I spoke to any of the bodies that you have mentioned, were they banned or not? A. Not, of course. Q. Yes, and how could I have anticipated that at some time in the future in a country where there had been no bans, these bodies that I have been speaking to would suddenly find themselves banned? A. As an intelligent man who knows Germany, you could have known. Q. Oh, yes. Can I take you back to the previous remark which I cannot allow it to go unchallenged where you say that I used militant language against the Jews, do you have any particular passage in mind or was this a throw-away line rather like the ---- A. No, I do not do this throw-away lines. We have 40 pages during the ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: We are back now to where we were about 25 minutes ago. A. Yes, but ---- MR IRVING: Very well. MR RAMPTON: May I intervene? I think what Professor Funke is trying to say is that he has read my cross-examination of . P-149 Mr Irving on that topic. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, well, I was going to say the same thing in a slightly different way. We have got the allegedly anti-Semitic speeches and so on that you made. Professor Funke, no doubt, could give evidence about it, but I just do not think it is a worthwhile use of the court's time. MR IRVING: My Lord, in my ignorance, I thought it important not to allow that remark to go unchallenged in case Mr Rampton a week from now says, "This was stated and he did not challenge it". MR JUSTICE GRAY: If he did, I would not listen to him.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor