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.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor