C. : Appel til Amnesty International

Foreningen Amnesty International arbejder i en række lande for at hjælpe og støtte uskyldige, der er ofre for politiske overgreb som uretfærdig fængsling, afskedigelse og/eller ruinering ved bøder. Vi har før skrevet til organisationen om overgrebene mod betydelige europæere. Vi besluttede at skrive igen :

Rubjerg 29.5.2001

Amnesty International

Dyrkøb 3 1166 København K

Generalsekretær Lars Normann Jørgensen.

Vesteuropas kultur bygger på lykkelige perioder med ytrings- og forskningsfrihed og på at kulturinteresserede har kunnet besøge kulturens arnesteder og mødes med begavede personer på tværs af politiske grænser.

Denne frugtbare periode blev bremset med de to store krige, især med den sidste, hvor propaganda fik en indflydelse, som aldrig før. Eftervirkningerne af dette mærkes især syd for vore grænser.

Dér er nutidshistorien blevet pålagt tabubestemmelser, som i Tyskland, Østrig, Frankrig og Schweiz forsvares med middelalderlige love. Som følge af dette forbydes bogudgivelser og bogimport, og fremragende forskere og skribenter er blevet fængslet eller idømt grove bøder eller tvunget til tavshed eller i eksil.

Den sidste skæbne er overgået berømtheder som Jürgen Graf, Germar Rudolf, Roger Garaudy og muligvis Abbé Pierre. Franske forskere er afsat fra deres stillinger og idømt bøder, som Robert Faurisson. Henri Roques er blevet frataget sin doktorgrad. Serge Thion, Vincent Reynourd og Jean Plantin slæbes for domstol. Ældre revisionister med verdensry som Udo Walendi og Wilhelm Stäglich har været udsat for brutale overgreb. Mindre berømte samvittighedsfanger i hundrede- eller tusindvis sidder i tyske fængsler.

Selv borgere fra andre lande risikerer at blive retsforfulgt for at udbrede de undertrykte opfattelser, selv om de er lovlige i deres hjemlande. Sådan er lovene om forbudte meninger en hindring for den fri bevægelighed i Europa, ligesom de er lammende for den historiske forskning i Europa.

Dette kan ikke fortsætte ind i det ny årtusinde. Amnesty må gøre en kraftig indsats.

Det er uværdigt, at vi kritiserer fjerne lande, med utroligt vanskelige økonomiske og politiske forhold, men tier stille om de systematiske overgreb indenfor det langt mere velstillede Europa.

Amnesty må skrive til de ansvarlige politikere i Danmark og EU og vække medierne af deres slummer.

Med venlig hilsen

Lars Thirslund

* * *

Vi fik svar fra London som følger :

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL Ref..: DK ge co/sec co

Mr Lars Thierslund Loenstrupvej 122 DK - 9480 Loekken Denmark 22 August 2001

Dear Mr Thierslund

Thank you for your letter dated 29 May 2001, adressed to Lars Norman Joergensen. at the Danish Section of Amnesty International, which was forwarded to the International Secretariat of

the organization for reply in August 2001.

First I wish to apologize for the delay in replying to you.

In your letter you refer to a number of persons who, in your opinion, have had their right to freedom of expression violated in various ways because of laws which are in force in some Western European countries.You say that these laws prevent the circulation of their ideas and the publication of their books and you ask to Amnesty International to take action against such laws. Your letter mentions in particular Jürgen Graf, Germar Rudolf, Roger Garaudy, Abbé Pierre, Robert Faurisson, Henri Roques, Serge Thion, Vincent Reynourd, Jean Plantin, Udo Walendi and Wilhelm Stäglich. I understand that you regard these people as 'prisoners of conscience'.

Amnesty International defines prisoners of conscience as people detained for their political religious or other conscientiously held beliefs or because of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth or other status - who have not used or advocated violence. With respect to this definition, in 1995 the organization decided at a meeting of its International Council - the highest decision-making body of Amnesty Internatinal - that it would exclude from prisoner of conscience status not only people who are imprisoned "for having advocated national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence". The decision codified Amnesty International's intention to exclude from prisoner of conscience status those who advocate the denial of the Holocaust and it confirmed what had in fact been the de facto interpretation of the prisoner of concience definition contained in Article 1 of Amnesty Internationals Statute,

In making its decision to exclude certain individuals from the prisoner of conscience status in 1995 the International Council further decided that Amnesty International skould abide by international standsrds and in particular article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which states "Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law."

Amnesty International seeks to promote the world-wide observance of all human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and as such the organisation does not support any group or person engaging in activities aimed at diminishing the rights and freedoms of others.

I hope I have clarified the position of Amnesty International wih regard to the persons you mention in your letter.

Yours sincerely

Elisa De Pieri Campaigner Europe Program International Secretariat.

* * *

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

International Secretariat 7 1 Easton Street 7 London WC1X ODW / United Kingdom / Ref. : DK ge co/sec co

1 september 2001

Dear Mrs Elisa De Pieri

Thank you very much for your letter dated 22 August 2001

First I must express a bit of doubt whether my letter of 29.5.2001 has been correctly and exhaustively translated into English. I pointed out, that the laws mentioned prevent free speach, free research and free travel in a great part of Europe. The persons mentioned are victims of these medieval circumstances. A step backwards for common European culture.

So, I certainly consider these persons as prisoners of conscience. I am surprised and disapointed that Amnesty seem to have decided to exclude such highly gifted and meritorious persons.

None of these people advocate violence or hatred. On the contrary they are working for truth and understanding.

Your reference to denial of Holocaust is misleading when it is not made clear what this means. Holocaust was defined as the murder of 6 million jews including 4 million killed in Auschwits-Birkenau where gaschambers and crematoriums with flaming chimneys were used. This statement has been proven absolutely false.

Our latest danish encyclopedia tells us to day, that the number of perished in Auschwitz has been exagerated by at least 3 million. Even details have shown to be unreliable.

Those, who won't admit that and who want to prevent the truth to be spoken in Europe, are the real haters and they are those who incite to discrimination and hostility. They are the persons who ought to be condemned by Amnesty.

Many people still remember that Amnesty struggled for the members of Rote Arme Fraktion, who certainly were using violence.

Now the Amnesty.organisation condemns to prison persons, whos only crime is to seek the truth and express it the best way they are entitled to according to the conventions of basic human rights.

If the organisation shall be trusted it must make the Council free of the lobby aimed at diminishing the free expression of speech and free research in Europe.

Unless that you can't claim to "promote the world-wide observance of all human rights".

I hope I have clarified, that the position of Amnesty International with regard to the laws snd the persons I have mentioned and many others is disgracefull and that your definitions need being looked over and modernized.

I hope to hear from you again.

Yours cincerely

Lars Thirslund.

Loenstrupvej 122 / DK - 94 80 Loekken / Danmark / Tele.: 0045 * 98 99 65 74

Copy to Mr. Lars Normann Jørgensen.

* * *

Rubjerg 1.9.2001

Amnesty International Dyrkøb 3 1166 København K Generalsekretæren

Kære Lars Normann Jørgensen.

Hermed mit svar til Elisa de Pieri. Jeg vil naturligvis gerne læse Jeres oversættelse af mit brev 29.5.2001.

Med venlig hilsen

Lars Thirslund

* * *

Kontoret sendte straks sin oversættelse. Den kunne ikke lastes for Elisa De Pieri's eller måske briternes mangel på historisk og europæisk udsyn.

Naturligvis kan De Pieri ikke gå imod Rådets beslutning; men hun kan og bør foreløgge det for Rådet, når det kan dokumenteres, at uklarhed i dets formulering anvendes til overgreb mod den for alt kulturarbejde vigtigste menneskeret : ytringsfriheden.

Beslutningen, at begrebet holocaust har den ovenfor angivne betydning var en politisk beslutning af de sejrende magter efter verdenskrigens afslutning. At fastholde den gennem et halvt århundrede er stadigvæk politik, og at fastholde den efter at den har vist sig at være falsk er en meget snavset politik. De af mig nævnte personer er forfulgte på grund af denne politik.

Amnesty må stryge denne politiske hrændemærkning af forskere og sandhedssøgere og kæmpe for de forfulgte.

20. november 2001 har vi ikke hørt fra sekretariatet.

Rubjerg, Danmark, 7.9.2001

Institute for Historical Review

P.O Box 2739 Newport Beach, CA 92659 USA

Dear sirs

Concerning free speach and revisionism in Europe.

A brief record by Lars Thirslund.

In Europe the problems facing free speach take on a little different dimension from that in the USA. In Germany, Austria, France and Switzerland revisionistic manifestions are simply forbidden by laws, and its defenders are sentenced to prison or heavily fines.

This is not exactly the case in Scandinavia and Great Britain. Here you formally are allowed freely to express your opinion on holocaust and other disputed historical issues, but you are prevented from bring it out trough the media. Papers, radio and TV are in Scandinavia dominated by zionistic powers so strongly, that nothing comes through, that is troublesome to zionism and Israel

The evident cruelties in Palestine can't, of course, be totally ignored, when observed by scores of international reporters, but not even the most famous revisionist books are ever mentioned here and that goes even for distinguished Jewish dissidents as Israel Shahak and Benjamin Friedman

This situation has caused the appearance of samisdat-publishings, which now even appear on the internet.

It was almost a shock to me, when I six years ago got acquainted witr the IHR and the JHR and after short investigations of my own came to the conclusion that you were disclosing facts that all my life had been hidden to the public in my own and nearby countries.

I could'nt stay passive to this discovery. It soon proved impossibel to bring the information out in the official media. The censorship was thorough as under the Sovjet dictatorship. So I did as the dissidents were doing in the Sovjet

Union. I started together with my wife Marianne Herlufsdatter a small bulletin, which we called "Western Samisdat". By that time we did not know, that Ernst Zündel long before had started a much more powerful and more western samisdat-publishing.

Seeing the cruel situation for revisionists south of our own country we soon started, co-operating with other Danish revisionists, actions against the horrible laws produced in the four countries, that makes this possible.

With twentyfive other Danish persons we wrote 17.4.1998 to the chairman of the EU-Parliament urging him to make the Parliament take action against these impossible laws. It now appeared, that the EU had made special precautions, to make it impossible for common citizens to have letters presented for the chairman. A committee for petitions is founded obviously with the purpose of stopping unpleasent proposals to reach the top round the members of the Parliament, who are strongly directed by the media.

The chairman of the committee, Mr. Sandro Fontana declared 13.04.1999, that the Parliament had decided, that certain questions as that of the right to express revisionistic oppions on the holocaust, was to be declared a question solely concerning the individual countries. Therefore the question could not be handled of the EU-Parliament. He added, that all members of the committee were agreed that any attempt to deny or diminish "the historical recognized fact", that holocaust has taken place, can weeken our defence against racism and antisemitism.

I answered at once 16.04.1999 emphasizing, that the EU-Parliament, the Council and the Commission in a solemn common declaration in Rome 05.04.1977 had assured their respect for the basic human rights, specially the European conventions signed in Rome 04.11.1950.

I could not se, that Wilhelm Stäglich, Udo Walendy, Germar Rudolph, Günther Deckert and Robert Faurisson as little as Garaudy and abbé Pierre denied historical facts. On the contrary they denied what had shown to be historical falsities.

We never wanted to exonerate Germans from crimes they did, but we find that everybody must be obliged to liberate them from professed crimes they never commited. I wondered if our letter had been correctly translated. They never did send us copy of their translation, what they of course were obliged to do.

They never answered this letter, and it became clear that there was no way to get through to the top af the EU with this important case.

But now the Parliament had established a "ombudsman", who shall help common people against the authorities. He is Finnish with a Swedish name, Jacob Söderman. He ought to be able to understand a little

Danish and Danish way uf thinking. However, he answered that he could or would do nothing about the medieval laws, or about the prisoned persons, or about our fruitless applications to the Parliament. He could do absolutely nothing.

We tried a free EU-telephone.number. It passed me to a General Secretariate for Justice. Neither this could nor, I surmise, would help.

So I wrote again to Amnesty International in Denmark. I had done so once earlier. This time my letter resulted in an answer from the central organisation in London. I found the answer offending to the gifted persons I had mentioned. They seemed to be considered either as criminals or as idiots. Maybe the following correspondensc will interest other revisionists :

* * * * * *