Страница:
million, and now to even less.
(He was recently quoted in the K-W Record as saying that the
number of Jews who died in concentration camps was "of the
order of 100,000 or more.")
* Incorrect. Do you really believe all the
newspapers say? I may have said "killed", not
"died".
But during the 1988 trial of pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel,
he was forced to admit under cross-examination that he hadn't
even read all of Eichmann's 1960 trial testimony. (In this
testimony, Eichmann admitted that Nazi leaders discussed
the so-called "Final Solution to the Jewish
problem"--extermination, in 1942.)
* Incorrect. I have Eichmann's manuscript
memoirs, given to me in Buenos Aires in
November 1991. He states that to him Final
Solution always meant the Madagascar Solution.
Anyway, do you really want to base your case on
the utterances of a Nazi war criminal?
In November 1991, a reporter from The Independent showed
that Irving omitted crucial lines from a translation of Goebbels'
diaries--lines that would have contradicted his theory that
Hitler knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews.
* Incorrect. Which "crucial lines" am I supposed to
have omitted?
Irving's record is clear: he is not an historian, and he has
made false statements and been forced to apologize for them.
As Andrew Cohen, reporter for the Financial Post, has said,
"David Irving should be denied credibility."
* Well, that really wants to make me hang up my
shingle: namely, that a shyster from a money-rag
doesn't believe me. What a waste of kilobytes,
when there are megabytes of reputable historians
saying precisely the opposite about me.
Yours sincerely,
David Irving
Focal Point Publications
Professor Jeffrey Shallit
Associate Professor
Computer Science Department
University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario
Canada
The following is the full text of the article by Mr. Shallit that Mr.
Irving quotes in the preceding letter.
&&&&& LIES OF OUR TIMES
by Jeffrey Shallit
How the Words of the Holocaust Deniers and Their Allies
Show Them For What They Are
1. Background
Canada has a long tradition of tolerance and multiculturalism.
That's why many residents of the K-W area were shocked and
saddened to learn that a stereo store on King Street in
Kitchener was displaying posters advertising a talk by David
Irving, a self-described historian who says that the estimates
of six million Jews killed by the Nazis during World War II are
greatly exaggerated. Inside the store, according to the K-W
Record, one can find for sale a book by Fred Leuchter that
claims that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were never used
for mass killing. After local protests, the store owner retaliated
by putting up posters about the banking system based on the
writings of anti-Semite Eustace Mullins. Subsequently, these
posters were taken down by the store owner, but one explicitly
anti-Semitic flyer still remains. The Kitchener-Waterloo
Record recently carried a letter to the editor by Paul Fromm,
director of "Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc.".
This letter defended neo-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel, saying,
"Zundel was dragged through the courts for nine years ...
MERELY for his UNPOPULAR views." [emphasis mine]
Who are Michael Rothe, David Irving, Fred Leuchter, Eustace
Mullins, and Paul Fromm, and what do they stand for?
2. Michael Rothe
Michael Rothe is the owner of European Sound Imports, at
109 King Street W. in Kitchener. According to the K-W Record,
he is a native of southern Germany, who came to Canada
eight years ago. His stereo store might appear harmless on
the outside, but on the inside, one can obtain anti-Semitic
propaganda from a variety of sources. According to the
Record, in addition to the book by Fred Leuchter mentioned
above, one can also purchase a booklet on the court battles of
pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel. Rothe also believes that the
Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated, and that there is a
world-wide Jewish conspiracy behind it. "They want money.
When they have money they have power," he has been
quoted as saying. Although Rothe has claimed, "I have not
seen a neo-Nazi before," according to the Record, he attended
a recent "victory party" for Ernst Zundel, and Zundel was
recently sighted at his store. When I asked Rothe if he knew
what Irving would speak on, he claimed, "Irving comes to
speak on Germany ... only Germany." When I pointed out that
this was false, that Irving actually spends a significant portion
of his speeches discussing how the Holocaust is a hoax, he
repeated, "No, that is wrong -- Irving only speaks about
Germany." However, the posters Rothe himself has put up
belie this claim--they list the Holocaust as a topic of Irving's
speech.
3. David Irving
David John Cawdell Irving is a British "historian", born in
1938.
According to David Cesarani of the Wiener Library in London,
England, he attended Imperial College at the University of
London, but never graduated. He holds no academic degree
and no academic position at any university or college.
He calls himself a "moderate fascist", and claims, among
other things that the gas chambers at Auschwitz (in which an
estimated 2-3 million people died) were "built by the Poles
after the war as a tourist attraction." (For this remark, he was
fined DM 10,000 by a Munich court in May 1992.
The judge was quoted as saying that the gas chambers of
Auschwitz were "an historically certain fact.")
Irving denies being a "Holocaust denier" or "Hitler apologist",
and seems willing to resort to legal action if necessary.
In a recent fax printed in the K-W Record, he is reported as
saying, "I have warned 22 British newspapers that I shall not
hesitate to commence libel action if they use smear phrases
such like 'Hitler apologist' or 'Holocaust denier' to embellish
their writings." But Bernard Levin, writing in The Times of
London in May of this year, quoted Irving as saying, "I hope
the court will fight a battle for the German people and put an
end to the blood lie of the Holocaust which has been told
against this country for 50 years." Irving first entered the
headlines in 1970.
In July of that year, he was forced to apologize in the High
Court of London for "making a wholly untrue and highly
damaging statement about a woman writer."--not an
auspicious start for someone who claims to be in pursuit of the
truth.
Later that year, Irving was back in the headlines, concerning
publication of his book, "The Destruction of Convoy PQ17".
Ostensibly an expose of an ill-fated 1942 Arctic convoy
headed for the Soviet Union during World War II, it eventually
resulted in Irving being fined 40,000 British pounds for libel.
Irving's book faulted Captain John Broome, commander of the
convoy at the time, saying he was guilty of "downright
disobedience" and "downright desertion of the convoy."
Broome brought suit against Irving for false statements, and
won a judgment in August of 1970.
Irving's lawyers appealed, and lost in March, 1971.
The case is revealing because of what it says about Irving's
abilities as a historian and his motives as an author.
According to the Times of London, Irving showed a copy of the
manuscript to Broome before publication. Broome objected to
the accuracy of some thirty passages in the book, and
threatened to sue for libel if Irving did not make changes.
At that point, William Kimbers Ltd., Irving's publisher, notified
him that they would not publish the book as it was then
written. Later, Irving published the book with another
publisher.
The court found that Irving "was warned from most
responsible quarters that his book contained libels on Captain
Broome ... To make [the book] a success he was ready to risk
libel actions ... Documentary evidence .... showed that [Irving]
had deliberately set out to attack Captain Broome and in spite
of the most explicit warnings persisted in his attack because it
would help sell the book." The court labeled Irving's conduct
as "outrageous and shocking."
Irving's misrepresentations did not end with the publication of
his book.
According to Cesarani, in 1979, a German publisher had to
pay compensation to the father of Anne Frank after printing the
German edition of Irving's book, Hitler's War.
Irving had claimed that Anne Frank's diary was a forgery.
Irving claims that according to his "research", the Holocaust is
greatly exaggerated.
(He was recently quoted in the K-W Record as saying that the
number of Jews who died in concentration camps was "of the
order of 100,000 or more.") But during the 1988 trial of
pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel, he was forced to admit under
cross-examination that he hadn't even read all of Eichmann's
1960 trial testimony.
(In this testimony, Eichmann admitted that Nazi leaders
discussed the so-called "Final Solution to the Jewish
problem''-- extermination, in 1942.) In November 1991, a
reporter from the Independent showed that Irving omitted
crucial lines from a translation of Goebbels' diaries -- lines that
would have contradicted his theory that Hitler knew nothing
about the extermination of the Jews.
Irving's record is clear: he is not an historian, and he has
made false statements and been forced to apologize for them.
As Andrew Cohen, reporter for the Financial Post, has said,
"David Irving should be denied credibility."
4. Eustace Mullins
According to analyst Chip Berlet of Political Research
Associates, Mullins is quite simply, "the most vicious
anti-Semite on the face of the planet." Eustace Clarence
Mullins, born in 1923, is the author of a biography of Ezra
Pound (a copy exists in the University of Waterloo library). But
he is also the author of numerous truly bizarre tracts published
by small Christian publishers. Some of these, like the excerpt
recently posted and then removed by Kitchener store owner
Rothe, are critiques of the banking system. Berlet says,
"Mullins masks his anti-Semitism with a critique of the [U.S.]
Federal Reserve System." In a 1952 book, Mullins wrote a
book blaming Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch, and other U.S.
Jews for drowning Americans in debt.
According to Mullins, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 put the
nation's banking reserves in the hands of the "Jewish
International Bankers" for the purpose of carrying out a plan
for world dictatorship. In a 1955 article entitled, "Jews mass
poison American children", Mullins claimed that the polio
vaccine, invented by Jonas Salk, was a poison because it
contains live polio germs. Other books depict Jews as
parasites, living off their gentile hosts. In what has to be one of
the most bizarre of Mullins' beliefs, it has been reported by L.
J. Davis that Mullins has claimed that the phrase "Have a nice
day" is a code for Jews to begin killing Christians. Mullins'
writings have been adopted wholesale by violent extremists in
the US, such as the Posse Comitatus. Should we not be more
than a little worried to see those writings appearing in the
window of a store in Kitchener?
5. Fred Leuchter
Rothe sells the "Leuchter report" in his store, a book
purporting to be an engineer's refutation of the existence of
gas chambers in Poland. (David Irving also uses Leuchter's
report to support his claims.) What Rothe will not tell you,
however, is that Fred Leuchter is not an engineer. Rothe also
won't tell you that, according to the Boston Globe, Leuchter
admitted to illegally collecting 20 pounds of building and soil
samples in Poland, and that Leuchter's ``analysis'' has been
thoroughly rebutted in a report by French pharmacist
Jean-Claude Pressac. Pressac "noted that Leuchter never
looked at documents in the Auschwitz Museum, and failed to
study German blueprints of the gas chambers." Leuchter is a
self-described expert in the construction of execution
machines. With his false credentials, he convinced authorities
in several states in the U.S. to let him construct execution
machinery for their prisons. But in 1990, according to the New
York Times, his misrepresentations began to unravel. The
Attorney General of Alabama questioned his expertise. Illinois
terminated his contract after determining that his machine for
injecting cyanide would cause prisoners unnecessary pain.
Then, in October 1990, Leuchter was charged with fraud in
Massachusetts. It was revealed that he had only a bachelor's
degree in history, and was not licensed to practice
engineering in Massachusetts. In June 1991, to avoid a trial in
which he would surely have been convicted, Leuchter
admitted that, "I am not and have never been registered as a
professional engineer", and that he had falsely represented
himself as one. Under the consent agreement, Leuchter
agreed to stop "using in any manner whatsoever the title
'engineer'", and to stop distribution of the Leuchter report.
Despite the agreement, one can still obtain copies of the
report from Rothe's store in Kitchener. According to the Boston
Globe, Leuchter was deported from Britain in 1991. Leonard
Zakim, a spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League of
B'nai Brith, said, "Leuchter's admissions of lying to promote
his business in violation of Massachusetts law should serve to
discredit Leuchter wherever he travels." **[See comments on
Leuchter after this article]
6. Paul Fromm
Paul Fromm claims to be the director of a group called
"Canadian Association of Free Expression". While the name
sounds innocuous, the truth is darker. According to
investigative journalist Russ Bellant, Fromm helped found the
Canadian neo-Nazi organization Western Guard. In a 1983
interview with a Toronto Star reporter, Fromm was caught
dissembling. He said he "never had any connection" with the
Western Guard, but the Star account revealed that Fromm
himself had had a letter published in the Star in February
1973 that stated "... in May, 1972, many members, myself
included, left the Western Guard...". Asked to explain the
discrepancy, Fromm said in a Star interview that it was "a
matter of semantics". In Julian Sher's 1983 account of the Ku
Klux Klan, Fromm is reported as saying that belief of a
supreme race "is a good idea." Remarks like this caused him
to be kicked out of the federal Progressive Conservative Party.
In September 1991, the Star reported that Fromm was ejected
from a Toronto meeting on race relations after he blurted out,
"Scalp them," while a native Canadian was speaking. In April
1992, the Star reported on Fromm's 1990 speech before the
Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi organization advocating white
supremacy. According to the Star, Fromm told the neo-Nazi
group, "We're all on the same side." Fromm later claimed in a
Star article that he hadn't known about the Heritage Front's
neo-Nazi views. But Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish
Congress disputes this. "He had to know," Farber said. "There
was a Nazi flag with swastikas, about 10 feet long and 5 feet
tall, just to his right. Furthermore, just a few months after the
Star article came out, Fromm spoke again before the same
group."
7. Conclusions
Although the holocaust "revisionists" and their defenders
claim to be in pursuit of the truth, the record says otherwise.
Although some claim to be advocates of free speech, their real
goal is a regime that would deny free speech, and more, to
Jews and other minorities. It is easy to dismiss Rothe, Irving,
Leuchter, Mullins, and Fromm as kooks. But according to
statistics compiled by the League for Human Rights of B'nai
Brith, anti-Semitism in Canada is at its highest level in a
decade. There were 251 reported incidents of harassment and
vandalism against Jews in Canada in 1991, up 42% from two
years earlier. The reader may feel that anti-Semitism is only a
distant threat. But consider this: many of the sources I sought
in preparing this article are listed as ``missing'' in our
University library. Some articles had been ripped out of
magazines. Others books, though still on the shelves, I found
to contain anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi graffiti. To repeat a saying
attributed to Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for evil
to triumph is for good men to do nothing." For Further
Reading: Julian Sher, "White Hoods: Canada's Ku Klux Klan",
New Star Books, Vancouver, 1983. James Ridgeway, "Blood
in the Face", Thunder's Mouth Press, New York, 1991. Russ
Bellant, "Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party",
South End Press, Boston, 1991. Steve Mertl and John Ward,
"Keegstra: The Trial, The Issues, and The Consequences",
Western Producer Prairie Books, Saskatoon, 1985. James
Coates, "Armed and Dangerous: The Rise of the Survivalist
Right," Hill and Wang, New York, 1987.
About the author.
Jeffrey Shallit, who is not Jewish, is associate professor in the
computer science department at the University of Waterloo.
CODOH comments on Shallit's comments about
Leuchter:
Rothe sells the "Leuchter report" in his store, a book
purporting to be an engineer's refutation of the
existence of gas chambers in Poland. (David Irving
also uses Leuchter's report to support his claims.)
What Rothe will not tell you, however, is that Fred
Leuchter is not an engineer.
Fred Leuchter is self-trained in the extremely arcane field of
execution equipment, and before smears such as Mr. Shallit's
had their effect he worked for numerous state prison systems
in the United States on the repair, upgrading, and replacement
of said equipment. He has done work on gallows, electric
chairs, gas chambers, and in fact is the inventor and builder of
not only the automatic equipment used for lethal injection but
also determined the type and sequence of the four drugs used
to insure maximum comfort and a certain, painless death
when physicians refused to offer any assistance in this area.
At the second Zuendel trial in Canada, the judge recognized
his expertise, and ruled that he was an engineer by virtue of
experience and demonstrated ability, and therefore he would
be allowed to testify as an expert witness regarding gas
chambers. In some other areas, such as crematories, he was
not allowed to testify.
Rothe also won't tell you that, according to the
Boston Globe, Leuchter admitted to illegally collecting
20 pounds of building and soil samples in Poland, and
that Leuchter's "analysis'' has been thoroughly
rebutted in a report by French pharmacist
Jean-Claude Pressac. Pressac "noted that Leuchter
never looked at documents in the Auschwitz Museum,
and failed to study German blueprints of the gas
chambers."
The legality of the collection process has nothing to do with
the validity of the analyses of same. This is but another
example of the attempts to heap all possible negatives
because of the damage his investigations have done to the
accepted myths regarding non-existent gas chambers. His
sample analyses have, in fact, been independently verified by
the later work of both a Polish government commission,
Austrian engineer Walter Leuftl, and the inarguably qualified
German chemist, Germar Rudolf.
Shallit does not indicate if Pressac indicates what relevance
the "documents in the Auschwitz Museum" might have on the
matter. Given that much of what is on display at Auschwitz are
reproductions with obvious liberties taken to closer match
wartime accounts, a fact only admitted in the last few years,
one would have to be wary of whatever they purport to claim is
documentation. And the plain fact is that no "German
blueprints of the gas chambers" exist. What does exist are
blueprints of the various Krema (crematoria) which supporters
of gas chambers claim were "code worded" to hide the actual
use to which they would be put. These blueprints do exist, and
nothing on them supports the gas chamber theory--none of the
special provisions one would expect, such as sealing, gas
introduction equipment, forced air circulation of the closed
room(s) or adequate ventilation are indicated.
After a particularly traumatic cross-examination by the attorney
for Prof. Robert Faurisson, during which Pressac became
incoherent to the point of tears on the stand, he has retreated
from any active defense of his extremely flawed work, and it is
no longer cited by top-level historians. His alleged refutation of
challenges to the existence of gas chambers is a huge
embarrassment of a book now trotted out only by lay people
such as Mr. Shallit, and professional promoters of the gas
chamber myths.
With his false credentials, he convinced authorities in
several states in the U.S. to let him construct
execution machinery for their prisons.
Leuchter presented no false credentials. It is common for
self-trained individuals, particularly in fields for which no
academic accreditation exists, to advertise or present
themselves as Leuchter did--an "execution engineer." His
expertise in that field is amply demonstrated by work
experience. Shallit's comments are based on the events
following Leuchter's appearance in the Zuendel trial. A New
York based group called Holocaust Survivors and Friends in
Pursuit of Justice brought action in Massachussets based on
an obscure and never tested state law saying that people
working in areas involving public safety could not present
themselves as engineers unless they were licensed as such
by the state. Of amusing and revealing relevance is the fact
that the charge was brought and supported by a judge that
designing execution devices qualifies as working in an area
involving "public safety"!! Surely this is close to the height of
doublespeak. (See "The Execution Protocol" by Trombley,
Crown Publishing 1992)
But in 1990, according to the New York Times, his
misrepresentations began to unravel. The Attorney
General of Alabama questioned his expertise. Illinois
terminated his contract after determining that his
machine for injecting cyanide would cause prisoners
unnecessary pain.
The Alabama warden's actions were in response to Leuchter's
having testified against the Florida prison system when an
inmate brought suit against her electrocution sentence on the
basis that the antiquated equipment there constituted cruel
and unusual punishment, which it demonstrably did. The
Alabama produced letter to other wardens warned them that if
Leuchter tried to sell them equipment and they refused to buy,
he might wind up testifying against them. This libelous and
career threatening action might have brought great financial
penalty on him and the state of Alabama were not Leuchter by
this time a sufficient pariah who saw no hope of getting a fair
shake in court. The comments regarding Illinois describe only
an excuse given which has no basis in reality.
Then, in October 1990, Leuchter was charged with
fraud in Massachusetts. It was revealed that he had
only a bachelor's degree in history, and was not
licensed to practice engineering in Massachusetts. In
June 1991, to avoid a trial in which he would surely
have been convicted, Leuchter admitted that, "I am
not and have never been registered as a professional
engineer", and that he had falsely represented himself
as one. Under the consent agreement, Leuchter
agreed to stop "using in any manner whatsoever the
title 'engineer'", and to stop distribution of the
Leuchter report.
See comments above about this charge. Leuchter did not at
any time advertise himself as a "professional engineer" but
only as an "execution engineer." He never "falsely
represented himself as one" as Shallit states. It is not even
illegal for him to advertise and work as an execution engineer
unless one would seriously make the case that this involves
public safety. It is not illegal in Massachussets to work and
advertise as an engineer in a great many areas. Shallit's
comment is based on surmise which is in turn based on
ignorance of the terminologies and their meanings. The
difference between "professional engineer" and "engineer" is
not a trivial distinction. The title "Professional Engineer"
(Massachussets equivalent "licensed engineer" in other
locations "state certified engineer") is that used to legally
certify documents as correct, and the certifier must in many
states (but far from all) have certain qualifications (which vary)
to do this. Such a certification places all liability on the
certifying engineer for any errors, and absolves others of
blame for implementing his mistakes--hence the legal
importance. In Massachussets, it only applies to projects
involving public safety, quite a stretch for Leuchter's expertise,
which is directed toward insuring rapid death!
Leuchter does not distribute his report, other entities do that.
Trombley makes no mention of the report in his account of the
case, only the matter of the use of the title engineer, which has
nothing to do with the report since the report has nothing to do
with work in Massachussets.
Leonard Zakim, a spokesperson for the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, said,
"Leuchter's admissions of lying to promote his
business in violation of Massachusetts law should
serve to discredit Leuchter wherever he travels."
A typical ADL smear tactic, Leuchter's credibility is in no way
discredited by the Massachussets/New York travesty of
justice. A biased court surrounded by several hundred
screaming demonstrators made a ludicrous interpretation of a
law and applied it against an unpopular defendant. None of
this has a thing to do with the scientific data contained in that
report, data later supported by several other sources whose
qualifications no one argues. Leanard Zakim's statement is
pure and hateful propaganda intended to silence those who
threaten his livelihood.
David Thomas, 2/28/97
CODOH can be reached at:
Box 439016/P-111
San Diego, CA, USA 92143
Comments from Fred Leuchter
Dear David Thomas,
Your remarks after the Irving to Shallit letter are not entirely
true.
The Massachusetts Court refused to interpret the law publicly,
although it did privately, and forced both parties..i.e. The
Commonwealth and Leuchter into a settlement as a trial
would not be beneficial to either. Leuchter entered into an
agreement with the Engineering Board to do none of the
things that he never did in the first place and not to recant or
change anything he ever did or said, in return for the board's
dropping of the complaint. Leuchter agreed in a pretrial mutual
promise with the Commonwealth that in return for the
Commonwealth dropping its illegal prosecution of him he
would not break the law by saying things or doing things he
had never done or said in the first place. Leuchter never
admitted to any wrong doing or ever did any wrong. He simply
agreed to be a law abiding citizen (which he had been all his
life) for 2 years more. Even after the 2 years he still has not
broken the law.
Please consider this and restate your description. I am sick of
people misunderstanding what took place in Cambridge
Court.
Fred Leuchter
4/5/99
To The Federal Court of Canada from Galina Buyanovsky. Montreal, March 20, 1997.
Galina Buyanovsky
175 Sherbrook St.West,
Apt. 98 Montreal, Quebec,
CANADA H2X 1X5
FEDERAL COURT
Supreme Court Building Ottawa,
Ontario K1A 0H9
CANADA
Tel.(514)843-8458 See the list of the places where the copies of that appeal are submitted below.
Dear Sirs! This appeal is formal. It composed not by a lawyer but by the refugee claimants themselves. Despite a temptation to treat it as a non-official letter
we want an official response. We claim that a wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel exists, and that Canadian Ministry of
Immigration is manipulated by a foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was denied. The chairman of the immigration committee assigned
to our case was Mr. Jacques La Salle. He is a permanent director of the Informative Committee Canada-Israel, an organization that may be considered as a
shadow structure of Israeli government. Allegations that Mr. Salle systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel with partiality were
expressed several times. In 1996 Federal Court indirectly recognized that. Despite of that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard - Canadian Minister of Immigration [ look
over her anger declaration about the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel: see our BIBLIOGRAPHY in the end, #4, ] - gave Mr. La Salle a new
commissioner's mandate (for the next term). 52% of refugee claimants from Israel obtained their refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it is
0(%). In 1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards refugees from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was terminated* (see
comments). However, his mandate wasn't terminated in general. And this person whose partiality towards the Russian-speaking people was already
recognized is sent now to hear the cases of Russians who flied from Kazachstan. Russians from Kazachstan are too often told that they are not eligible for the
political asylum in Canada - because they could go to Israel, not to Canada. For example, the first hearing of a refugee claimant from Kazachstan was
dedicated to his situation in Kazachstan, when the second - to his refusal to go to Israel. How can it happen in a country that is not a province of Israel, but
an independent state? Why refugees from Israel who face deportation and express a will to go to Russia are sent to Israel anyway**?
Is it true that Mr. La Salle lived in a kibbutz in Israel and holds an Israeli passport? Is that true that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard is his ex-wife and his best friend
now? If only one of these questions can be answered positively - the first paragraph of our message is completely correct! And the last question about Mr.
La Salle. Since he was accused in partiality - does it means that his decision in our case can still be in force? We came to Canada as refugee claimants, not to
Israel, and it's obvious that our right is to be heard by an independent commissioner, not by a person whose whole life and social activity is devoted to Israel.
The translator who worked for our lawyer, Mrs. Eleonora Broder, has also devoted herself to Israel, but in a different way. She sabotaged the cases of all
her employer's clients, distorting the translation of the most important documents and statements: Always in favor of these forces which wants save Israel's
face and to send Russian from Israel back. Being afraid of her angry clients she flied Montreal and disappeared in an unknown direction. Her most favorite
sabotage action was to distort the real indication of nationality or another data in her translations of birth certificates, passports, and other documents. This
trick she used when she "translated" documents of L.M., K.R., L.G., and other people who turned to our lawyer. Commissioners like Mr. La Salle, Mr.
Dorion, and like the immigration officer Mrs. Malka, who have visual partiality to Russian-speaking people, based their rejections of refugees' claims on such
"mistakes". She used to change voluntarily also the meaning of refugee claimants' stories and so called pifs' data. She placed a wrong information about our
nationalities despite our sincere statements. We came from a country with another mentality and different culture. If a Canadian would probably check the
translation using another translator help, we didn't. Then, again, Mrs. Broder did a back translation into Russian for us to show that everything was translated
correctly, but that back translation actually is in contradiction with her French version. Another interesting detail is that the most serious mistakes she did in
official documents' translations were related to the people whose hearing were attended by Mr. La Salle, Mrs. Judith Malka and - probably Mr. Dorion. In
other words, were attended by people whose relations to Israel or to Jewish roots are easy to detect. If you need more detailed and precise proof of Mrs.
Broder's sabotage we can give it to you.
Mr. La Salle based his rejection of our claim generally on one thing. He based it not only on Mrs. Broder's sabotage, but on direct lie and distortion of our
words, too. So, he interpret our words that we were persecuted by Israelis because they treated us as "Russians" as if we said that in our Teudat Zehuts
(internal obligatory passports) we were mentioned as Russians, not Jews***. In reality there were no indication of Teudat Zehuts in our words. It is obvious
that the meaning of our words is that Israelis treat fresh Russian-speaking immigrants as strangers, not like real Jews, and this is the main source of our
problems in Israel. (Another reason is that my husband is not a Jew). But if even there was no distortion of our words: Does Mr. La Salle was legally and
morally correct to base his rejection on "Teudat Zehuts" issue? The indication of nationality in different kinds of ID-s is in deep contradiction with the main
moral norms of democracy. No wonder that no democratic state (we don't speak about Israel now) has such indication. That indication of nationality in
passports in ex-USSR and in South African Republic was accused by the democratic press and by Human Rights organizations****. Canada has no
obligatory indication of nationality in her code. Does it means that Canada doesn't recognizes the obligatory indication of nationality in passports? If so, and
also if we are on Canadian soil, then the investigation about the indication of our nationality in our passports is illegal (at least, morally illegal as minimum). As
a Canadian commissioner Mr. La Salle couldn't make it a key issue in his rejection of our claim. As an Israeli he couldn't ignore this issue because in Israeli
society it is a key issue! Then, I want to attract your attention by the fact that there is an obligatory indication of country of origin in Israel, not only of
nationality. This is the source of conflicts as well. Since the commissioners like Mr. La Salle avoid mentioning it - this is one of the evidences of their partiality.
Let me point out that there are almost no paragraphs in our refugee claim declaration where we mention the indication of nationality (Russian) in my husband's
passport as the source of our troubles. In the same time we name other reasons like social, ethnic and religious ground for persecutions and discrimination in
our life in Israel*****. Why then the "Teudat Zehuts" issue dominates in the Immigration and Refugee Board decision in our claim? Probably, because Mr.
La Salle acts in interests of Israel, and Israel wants to justify her obligatory indication of nationality before other countries. Let me point out also that the
"Teudat Zehut" is not an ID. It is actually a passport. Because it's function is different from Canada's social number or medical insurance card, or any other
ID. Social number in Canada is confidential. Then, another ID can be given to police or to other authorities. In Israel T.Z. is the only ID recognized by the
authorities. To present T.Z. just everywhere - from clinic to school, from employment office to hotel - is an obligatory rule. That fact is also ignored by the
commissioners. We can analyze Mr. La Salle's declaration paragraph by paragraph, but our main point is that the decision in our case was visually based not
on the hearing and not on our refugee declaration, but on the very fact that we came from Israel. We'd only like to give examples of the most ridiculous and
tendentious paragraphs of Mr. La Salle's declaration. This declaration, which is politically and emotionally motivated, has nothing what to do with juridical
documents.
Dear Sirs! You must take into consideration that Mr. La Salle gave identical answers to a number of refugee claimants (to family Z., for example). 4 from 6
main topics in his answers to us and to family Z. are identical. So, he submits a clichй to all his victims. He also doesn't care to deny the credibility of the
events described in our claim by analyzing them. His attitude can be expressed in 2 sentences: It can not be; because it couldn't happen in Israel (in such a
beautiful Middle East country!). That's why he uses such "evidences" of our "insincerity" as "very little inter-community tension had been noted" (p.5 of his
response to our claim, p.3 of his response to family Z. claim). If even such "evidences" were truth (we have evidences that even the members of Israeli
government claim the opposite******), they are not able to explain or reject each event, each personal case. But it can be clearly explained by Mr. La
Salle's motivations. He unconsciously expresses his motivations on p.4 of his decision: "Monsieur Nikitin est de nationalitй russe et les deux enfants, comme
leur mйre, sont juifs"(p.4). In other words, he didn't write "were Jewish in Israel", or "were considered as Jewish in Israel", but he wrote "are Jewish"! That
means that for h i m they are Jewish. So, under which laws he considered our claim: Under the laws of Canada - or under the laws of Israel!?******* Then,
on p.5 he wrote that "Mrs. Buganovky {instead of Buganovsky} was hesitated to answer the questions, she avoided to answer them directly, precisely". We
can comment that phrase very "directly and precisely"! This is an old trick used by Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion and Mrs. Malka. They compose a question like
"are you sure that you did an attempt to lie?" Then they demand to answer "yes" or "no" only. If you answer "yes", that means - you're a liar, if you answer
"no", it means - "I am not sure" or "may be". In a real situation there are much more versions of consequences if you answer "yes" or "not" directly. The
paragraph #6 on p.5 is absolutely identical to the text of a rejection sent to family Z. This paragraph doubts about what happened to our daughter in
kinder-garden and at school because of the claim that there are " no inter-communal tensions in Israel" and because "efforts were made to sensitize school
officials to the new reality...(etc)". Mr. La Salle took these "evidences" from s document he mentions as Exhibit A-1. But we'd like to ask Mr. La Salle next
questions: 1. How can the same document be used as a contra-argument in the matter of two different girls, who lived in Israel in different cities and in
different time? (We mean us and family Z.). 2. How can a document, which must be composed before the events described in our refugee declaration took
place, be used as an "evidence"?! Does it have a license for the future? 3. How cans Mr. La Salle to swear that if Israel claims she "made efforts to sensitize
school officials" to discrimination or violence, the efforts were really made, or were properly made? Then, if even "efforts" were really made (we can swear,
they weren't) it doesn't mean that they met a proper reaction of school officials! My husband and me - we also want to express our deep concern about the
credibility of this Exhibit when it speaks about Israel. We know that this document (Exhibit A-1 (5.4) mentions a "Department of Integration", which doesn't
exist in Israel. It's clear that the real name of Israeli Ministry of Absorption ("misrad ha-klita in Hebrew) was replaced by non-existing "Ministry of
Integration" because it sounds strange for Canadian (or American, European) ears. But the "Ministry of Absorption" is the real name of the organization,
which "takes care" of new immigrants. And the Exhibit A-1 changes it to the "Department of Integration"... In reality the Zionist ideology is against
integration. Look over Ben-Gurion's, Orlosorov's, Bella Katsnelson's, Golda Meir's works and statements! Then you will be convinced that the name
"Ministry of Absorption" expresses their desires completely well. It means that the Exhibit A-1 replaces actually the truth by the lie, not only a real name by a
false name. Then - how can such a document be considered as a credible one? We can present another evidence that Exhibit A-1 is highly contradictory and
strange in itself. On page 6 (p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Mr. La Salle writes (quoting Exhibit A-1), that 80% of Israel population is mobilized to
welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any juridical document! Let's to abstract
from its complete nonsense and suppose it reflects something from Israel's life and reality, and reflects the mentality of Israelis (Mr. La Salle's intention to
choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects his national identity as Israeli). If Israel is a country like other countries, like Canada, so how it
comes that "80% of Israeli population" can be "mobilized" to "welcome new immigrants"? How people can be "mobilized" (or, probably, ordered) to
"sponsor immigrants" and to help them by "giving money, closes and furniture" (p.3, 5-th line of Mr.La Sall's response to family Z. claim). May be something
is wrong in a country where population can be "mobilized"? May be, our troubles have been erupted exactly because people in such a country have to be
(He was recently quoted in the K-W Record as saying that the
number of Jews who died in concentration camps was "of the
order of 100,000 or more.")
* Incorrect. Do you really believe all the
newspapers say? I may have said "killed", not
"died".
But during the 1988 trial of pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel,
he was forced to admit under cross-examination that he hadn't
even read all of Eichmann's 1960 trial testimony. (In this
testimony, Eichmann admitted that Nazi leaders discussed
the so-called "Final Solution to the Jewish
problem"--extermination, in 1942.)
* Incorrect. I have Eichmann's manuscript
memoirs, given to me in Buenos Aires in
November 1991. He states that to him Final
Solution always meant the Madagascar Solution.
Anyway, do you really want to base your case on
the utterances of a Nazi war criminal?
In November 1991, a reporter from The Independent showed
that Irving omitted crucial lines from a translation of Goebbels'
diaries--lines that would have contradicted his theory that
Hitler knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews.
* Incorrect. Which "crucial lines" am I supposed to
have omitted?
Irving's record is clear: he is not an historian, and he has
made false statements and been forced to apologize for them.
As Andrew Cohen, reporter for the Financial Post, has said,
"David Irving should be denied credibility."
* Well, that really wants to make me hang up my
shingle: namely, that a shyster from a money-rag
doesn't believe me. What a waste of kilobytes,
when there are megabytes of reputable historians
saying precisely the opposite about me.
Yours sincerely,
David Irving
Focal Point Publications
Professor Jeffrey Shallit
Associate Professor
Computer Science Department
University of Waterloo,
Waterloo, Ontario
Canada
The following is the full text of the article by Mr. Shallit that Mr.
Irving quotes in the preceding letter.
&&&&& LIES OF OUR TIMES
by Jeffrey Shallit
How the Words of the Holocaust Deniers and Their Allies
Show Them For What They Are
1. Background
Canada has a long tradition of tolerance and multiculturalism.
That's why many residents of the K-W area were shocked and
saddened to learn that a stereo store on King Street in
Kitchener was displaying posters advertising a talk by David
Irving, a self-described historian who says that the estimates
of six million Jews killed by the Nazis during World War II are
greatly exaggerated. Inside the store, according to the K-W
Record, one can find for sale a book by Fred Leuchter that
claims that the gas chambers at Auschwitz were never used
for mass killing. After local protests, the store owner retaliated
by putting up posters about the banking system based on the
writings of anti-Semite Eustace Mullins. Subsequently, these
posters were taken down by the store owner, but one explicitly
anti-Semitic flyer still remains. The Kitchener-Waterloo
Record recently carried a letter to the editor by Paul Fromm,
director of "Canadian Association for Free Expression, Inc.".
This letter defended neo-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel, saying,
"Zundel was dragged through the courts for nine years ...
MERELY for his UNPOPULAR views." [emphasis mine]
Who are Michael Rothe, David Irving, Fred Leuchter, Eustace
Mullins, and Paul Fromm, and what do they stand for?
2. Michael Rothe
Michael Rothe is the owner of European Sound Imports, at
109 King Street W. in Kitchener. According to the K-W Record,
he is a native of southern Germany, who came to Canada
eight years ago. His stereo store might appear harmless on
the outside, but on the inside, one can obtain anti-Semitic
propaganda from a variety of sources. According to the
Record, in addition to the book by Fred Leuchter mentioned
above, one can also purchase a booklet on the court battles of
pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel. Rothe also believes that the
Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated, and that there is a
world-wide Jewish conspiracy behind it. "They want money.
When they have money they have power," he has been
quoted as saying. Although Rothe has claimed, "I have not
seen a neo-Nazi before," according to the Record, he attended
a recent "victory party" for Ernst Zundel, and Zundel was
recently sighted at his store. When I asked Rothe if he knew
what Irving would speak on, he claimed, "Irving comes to
speak on Germany ... only Germany." When I pointed out that
this was false, that Irving actually spends a significant portion
of his speeches discussing how the Holocaust is a hoax, he
repeated, "No, that is wrong -- Irving only speaks about
Germany." However, the posters Rothe himself has put up
belie this claim--they list the Holocaust as a topic of Irving's
speech.
3. David Irving
David John Cawdell Irving is a British "historian", born in
1938.
According to David Cesarani of the Wiener Library in London,
England, he attended Imperial College at the University of
London, but never graduated. He holds no academic degree
and no academic position at any university or college.
He calls himself a "moderate fascist", and claims, among
other things that the gas chambers at Auschwitz (in which an
estimated 2-3 million people died) were "built by the Poles
after the war as a tourist attraction." (For this remark, he was
fined DM 10,000 by a Munich court in May 1992.
The judge was quoted as saying that the gas chambers of
Auschwitz were "an historically certain fact.")
Irving denies being a "Holocaust denier" or "Hitler apologist",
and seems willing to resort to legal action if necessary.
In a recent fax printed in the K-W Record, he is reported as
saying, "I have warned 22 British newspapers that I shall not
hesitate to commence libel action if they use smear phrases
such like 'Hitler apologist' or 'Holocaust denier' to embellish
their writings." But Bernard Levin, writing in The Times of
London in May of this year, quoted Irving as saying, "I hope
the court will fight a battle for the German people and put an
end to the blood lie of the Holocaust which has been told
against this country for 50 years." Irving first entered the
headlines in 1970.
In July of that year, he was forced to apologize in the High
Court of London for "making a wholly untrue and highly
damaging statement about a woman writer."--not an
auspicious start for someone who claims to be in pursuit of the
truth.
Later that year, Irving was back in the headlines, concerning
publication of his book, "The Destruction of Convoy PQ17".
Ostensibly an expose of an ill-fated 1942 Arctic convoy
headed for the Soviet Union during World War II, it eventually
resulted in Irving being fined 40,000 British pounds for libel.
Irving's book faulted Captain John Broome, commander of the
convoy at the time, saying he was guilty of "downright
disobedience" and "downright desertion of the convoy."
Broome brought suit against Irving for false statements, and
won a judgment in August of 1970.
Irving's lawyers appealed, and lost in March, 1971.
The case is revealing because of what it says about Irving's
abilities as a historian and his motives as an author.
According to the Times of London, Irving showed a copy of the
manuscript to Broome before publication. Broome objected to
the accuracy of some thirty passages in the book, and
threatened to sue for libel if Irving did not make changes.
At that point, William Kimbers Ltd., Irving's publisher, notified
him that they would not publish the book as it was then
written. Later, Irving published the book with another
publisher.
The court found that Irving "was warned from most
responsible quarters that his book contained libels on Captain
Broome ... To make [the book] a success he was ready to risk
libel actions ... Documentary evidence .... showed that [Irving]
had deliberately set out to attack Captain Broome and in spite
of the most explicit warnings persisted in his attack because it
would help sell the book." The court labeled Irving's conduct
as "outrageous and shocking."
Irving's misrepresentations did not end with the publication of
his book.
According to Cesarani, in 1979, a German publisher had to
pay compensation to the father of Anne Frank after printing the
German edition of Irving's book, Hitler's War.
Irving had claimed that Anne Frank's diary was a forgery.
Irving claims that according to his "research", the Holocaust is
greatly exaggerated.
(He was recently quoted in the K-W Record as saying that the
number of Jews who died in concentration camps was "of the
order of 100,000 or more.") But during the 1988 trial of
pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel, he was forced to admit under
cross-examination that he hadn't even read all of Eichmann's
1960 trial testimony.
(In this testimony, Eichmann admitted that Nazi leaders
discussed the so-called "Final Solution to the Jewish
problem''-- extermination, in 1942.) In November 1991, a
reporter from the Independent showed that Irving omitted
crucial lines from a translation of Goebbels' diaries -- lines that
would have contradicted his theory that Hitler knew nothing
about the extermination of the Jews.
Irving's record is clear: he is not an historian, and he has
made false statements and been forced to apologize for them.
As Andrew Cohen, reporter for the Financial Post, has said,
"David Irving should be denied credibility."
4. Eustace Mullins
According to analyst Chip Berlet of Political Research
Associates, Mullins is quite simply, "the most vicious
anti-Semite on the face of the planet." Eustace Clarence
Mullins, born in 1923, is the author of a biography of Ezra
Pound (a copy exists in the University of Waterloo library). But
he is also the author of numerous truly bizarre tracts published
by small Christian publishers. Some of these, like the excerpt
recently posted and then removed by Kitchener store owner
Rothe, are critiques of the banking system. Berlet says,
"Mullins masks his anti-Semitism with a critique of the [U.S.]
Federal Reserve System." In a 1952 book, Mullins wrote a
book blaming Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch, and other U.S.
Jews for drowning Americans in debt.
According to Mullins, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 put the
nation's banking reserves in the hands of the "Jewish
International Bankers" for the purpose of carrying out a plan
for world dictatorship. In a 1955 article entitled, "Jews mass
poison American children", Mullins claimed that the polio
vaccine, invented by Jonas Salk, was a poison because it
contains live polio germs. Other books depict Jews as
parasites, living off their gentile hosts. In what has to be one of
the most bizarre of Mullins' beliefs, it has been reported by L.
J. Davis that Mullins has claimed that the phrase "Have a nice
day" is a code for Jews to begin killing Christians. Mullins'
writings have been adopted wholesale by violent extremists in
the US, such as the Posse Comitatus. Should we not be more
than a little worried to see those writings appearing in the
window of a store in Kitchener?
5. Fred Leuchter
Rothe sells the "Leuchter report" in his store, a book
purporting to be an engineer's refutation of the existence of
gas chambers in Poland. (David Irving also uses Leuchter's
report to support his claims.) What Rothe will not tell you,
however, is that Fred Leuchter is not an engineer. Rothe also
won't tell you that, according to the Boston Globe, Leuchter
admitted to illegally collecting 20 pounds of building and soil
samples in Poland, and that Leuchter's ``analysis'' has been
thoroughly rebutted in a report by French pharmacist
Jean-Claude Pressac. Pressac "noted that Leuchter never
looked at documents in the Auschwitz Museum, and failed to
study German blueprints of the gas chambers." Leuchter is a
self-described expert in the construction of execution
machines. With his false credentials, he convinced authorities
in several states in the U.S. to let him construct execution
machinery for their prisons. But in 1990, according to the New
York Times, his misrepresentations began to unravel. The
Attorney General of Alabama questioned his expertise. Illinois
terminated his contract after determining that his machine for
injecting cyanide would cause prisoners unnecessary pain.
Then, in October 1990, Leuchter was charged with fraud in
Massachusetts. It was revealed that he had only a bachelor's
degree in history, and was not licensed to practice
engineering in Massachusetts. In June 1991, to avoid a trial in
which he would surely have been convicted, Leuchter
admitted that, "I am not and have never been registered as a
professional engineer", and that he had falsely represented
himself as one. Under the consent agreement, Leuchter
agreed to stop "using in any manner whatsoever the title
'engineer'", and to stop distribution of the Leuchter report.
Despite the agreement, one can still obtain copies of the
report from Rothe's store in Kitchener. According to the Boston
Globe, Leuchter was deported from Britain in 1991. Leonard
Zakim, a spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League of
B'nai Brith, said, "Leuchter's admissions of lying to promote
his business in violation of Massachusetts law should serve to
discredit Leuchter wherever he travels." **[See comments on
Leuchter after this article]
6. Paul Fromm
Paul Fromm claims to be the director of a group called
"Canadian Association of Free Expression". While the name
sounds innocuous, the truth is darker. According to
investigative journalist Russ Bellant, Fromm helped found the
Canadian neo-Nazi organization Western Guard. In a 1983
interview with a Toronto Star reporter, Fromm was caught
dissembling. He said he "never had any connection" with the
Western Guard, but the Star account revealed that Fromm
himself had had a letter published in the Star in February
1973 that stated "... in May, 1972, many members, myself
included, left the Western Guard...". Asked to explain the
discrepancy, Fromm said in a Star interview that it was "a
matter of semantics". In Julian Sher's 1983 account of the Ku
Klux Klan, Fromm is reported as saying that belief of a
supreme race "is a good idea." Remarks like this caused him
to be kicked out of the federal Progressive Conservative Party.
In September 1991, the Star reported that Fromm was ejected
from a Toronto meeting on race relations after he blurted out,
"Scalp them," while a native Canadian was speaking. In April
1992, the Star reported on Fromm's 1990 speech before the
Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi organization advocating white
supremacy. According to the Star, Fromm told the neo-Nazi
group, "We're all on the same side." Fromm later claimed in a
Star article that he hadn't known about the Heritage Front's
neo-Nazi views. But Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish
Congress disputes this. "He had to know," Farber said. "There
was a Nazi flag with swastikas, about 10 feet long and 5 feet
tall, just to his right. Furthermore, just a few months after the
Star article came out, Fromm spoke again before the same
group."
7. Conclusions
Although the holocaust "revisionists" and their defenders
claim to be in pursuit of the truth, the record says otherwise.
Although some claim to be advocates of free speech, their real
goal is a regime that would deny free speech, and more, to
Jews and other minorities. It is easy to dismiss Rothe, Irving,
Leuchter, Mullins, and Fromm as kooks. But according to
statistics compiled by the League for Human Rights of B'nai
Brith, anti-Semitism in Canada is at its highest level in a
decade. There were 251 reported incidents of harassment and
vandalism against Jews in Canada in 1991, up 42% from two
years earlier. The reader may feel that anti-Semitism is only a
distant threat. But consider this: many of the sources I sought
in preparing this article are listed as ``missing'' in our
University library. Some articles had been ripped out of
magazines. Others books, though still on the shelves, I found
to contain anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi graffiti. To repeat a saying
attributed to Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for evil
to triumph is for good men to do nothing." For Further
Reading: Julian Sher, "White Hoods: Canada's Ku Klux Klan",
New Star Books, Vancouver, 1983. James Ridgeway, "Blood
in the Face", Thunder's Mouth Press, New York, 1991. Russ
Bellant, "Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party",
South End Press, Boston, 1991. Steve Mertl and John Ward,
"Keegstra: The Trial, The Issues, and The Consequences",
Western Producer Prairie Books, Saskatoon, 1985. James
Coates, "Armed and Dangerous: The Rise of the Survivalist
Right," Hill and Wang, New York, 1987.
About the author.
Jeffrey Shallit, who is not Jewish, is associate professor in the
computer science department at the University of Waterloo.
CODOH comments on Shallit's comments about
Leuchter:
Rothe sells the "Leuchter report" in his store, a book
purporting to be an engineer's refutation of the
existence of gas chambers in Poland. (David Irving
also uses Leuchter's report to support his claims.)
What Rothe will not tell you, however, is that Fred
Leuchter is not an engineer.
Fred Leuchter is self-trained in the extremely arcane field of
execution equipment, and before smears such as Mr. Shallit's
had their effect he worked for numerous state prison systems
in the United States on the repair, upgrading, and replacement
of said equipment. He has done work on gallows, electric
chairs, gas chambers, and in fact is the inventor and builder of
not only the automatic equipment used for lethal injection but
also determined the type and sequence of the four drugs used
to insure maximum comfort and a certain, painless death
when physicians refused to offer any assistance in this area.
At the second Zuendel trial in Canada, the judge recognized
his expertise, and ruled that he was an engineer by virtue of
experience and demonstrated ability, and therefore he would
be allowed to testify as an expert witness regarding gas
chambers. In some other areas, such as crematories, he was
not allowed to testify.
Rothe also won't tell you that, according to the
Boston Globe, Leuchter admitted to illegally collecting
20 pounds of building and soil samples in Poland, and
that Leuchter's "analysis'' has been thoroughly
rebutted in a report by French pharmacist
Jean-Claude Pressac. Pressac "noted that Leuchter
never looked at documents in the Auschwitz Museum,
and failed to study German blueprints of the gas
chambers."
The legality of the collection process has nothing to do with
the validity of the analyses of same. This is but another
example of the attempts to heap all possible negatives
because of the damage his investigations have done to the
accepted myths regarding non-existent gas chambers. His
sample analyses have, in fact, been independently verified by
the later work of both a Polish government commission,
Austrian engineer Walter Leuftl, and the inarguably qualified
German chemist, Germar Rudolf.
Shallit does not indicate if Pressac indicates what relevance
the "documents in the Auschwitz Museum" might have on the
matter. Given that much of what is on display at Auschwitz are
reproductions with obvious liberties taken to closer match
wartime accounts, a fact only admitted in the last few years,
one would have to be wary of whatever they purport to claim is
documentation. And the plain fact is that no "German
blueprints of the gas chambers" exist. What does exist are
blueprints of the various Krema (crematoria) which supporters
of gas chambers claim were "code worded" to hide the actual
use to which they would be put. These blueprints do exist, and
nothing on them supports the gas chamber theory--none of the
special provisions one would expect, such as sealing, gas
introduction equipment, forced air circulation of the closed
room(s) or adequate ventilation are indicated.
After a particularly traumatic cross-examination by the attorney
for Prof. Robert Faurisson, during which Pressac became
incoherent to the point of tears on the stand, he has retreated
from any active defense of his extremely flawed work, and it is
no longer cited by top-level historians. His alleged refutation of
challenges to the existence of gas chambers is a huge
embarrassment of a book now trotted out only by lay people
such as Mr. Shallit, and professional promoters of the gas
chamber myths.
With his false credentials, he convinced authorities in
several states in the U.S. to let him construct
execution machinery for their prisons.
Leuchter presented no false credentials. It is common for
self-trained individuals, particularly in fields for which no
academic accreditation exists, to advertise or present
themselves as Leuchter did--an "execution engineer." His
expertise in that field is amply demonstrated by work
experience. Shallit's comments are based on the events
following Leuchter's appearance in the Zuendel trial. A New
York based group called Holocaust Survivors and Friends in
Pursuit of Justice brought action in Massachussets based on
an obscure and never tested state law saying that people
working in areas involving public safety could not present
themselves as engineers unless they were licensed as such
by the state. Of amusing and revealing relevance is the fact
that the charge was brought and supported by a judge that
designing execution devices qualifies as working in an area
involving "public safety"!! Surely this is close to the height of
doublespeak. (See "The Execution Protocol" by Trombley,
Crown Publishing 1992)
But in 1990, according to the New York Times, his
misrepresentations began to unravel. The Attorney
General of Alabama questioned his expertise. Illinois
terminated his contract after determining that his
machine for injecting cyanide would cause prisoners
unnecessary pain.
The Alabama warden's actions were in response to Leuchter's
having testified against the Florida prison system when an
inmate brought suit against her electrocution sentence on the
basis that the antiquated equipment there constituted cruel
and unusual punishment, which it demonstrably did. The
Alabama produced letter to other wardens warned them that if
Leuchter tried to sell them equipment and they refused to buy,
he might wind up testifying against them. This libelous and
career threatening action might have brought great financial
penalty on him and the state of Alabama were not Leuchter by
this time a sufficient pariah who saw no hope of getting a fair
shake in court. The comments regarding Illinois describe only
an excuse given which has no basis in reality.
Then, in October 1990, Leuchter was charged with
fraud in Massachusetts. It was revealed that he had
only a bachelor's degree in history, and was not
licensed to practice engineering in Massachusetts. In
June 1991, to avoid a trial in which he would surely
have been convicted, Leuchter admitted that, "I am
not and have never been registered as a professional
engineer", and that he had falsely represented himself
as one. Under the consent agreement, Leuchter
agreed to stop "using in any manner whatsoever the
title 'engineer'", and to stop distribution of the
Leuchter report.
See comments above about this charge. Leuchter did not at
any time advertise himself as a "professional engineer" but
only as an "execution engineer." He never "falsely
represented himself as one" as Shallit states. It is not even
illegal for him to advertise and work as an execution engineer
unless one would seriously make the case that this involves
public safety. It is not illegal in Massachussets to work and
advertise as an engineer in a great many areas. Shallit's
comment is based on surmise which is in turn based on
ignorance of the terminologies and their meanings. The
difference between "professional engineer" and "engineer" is
not a trivial distinction. The title "Professional Engineer"
(Massachussets equivalent "licensed engineer" in other
locations "state certified engineer") is that used to legally
certify documents as correct, and the certifier must in many
states (but far from all) have certain qualifications (which vary)
to do this. Such a certification places all liability on the
certifying engineer for any errors, and absolves others of
blame for implementing his mistakes--hence the legal
importance. In Massachussets, it only applies to projects
involving public safety, quite a stretch for Leuchter's expertise,
which is directed toward insuring rapid death!
Leuchter does not distribute his report, other entities do that.
Trombley makes no mention of the report in his account of the
case, only the matter of the use of the title engineer, which has
nothing to do with the report since the report has nothing to do
with work in Massachussets.
Leonard Zakim, a spokesperson for the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, said,
"Leuchter's admissions of lying to promote his
business in violation of Massachusetts law should
serve to discredit Leuchter wherever he travels."
A typical ADL smear tactic, Leuchter's credibility is in no way
discredited by the Massachussets/New York travesty of
justice. A biased court surrounded by several hundred
screaming demonstrators made a ludicrous interpretation of a
law and applied it against an unpopular defendant. None of
this has a thing to do with the scientific data contained in that
report, data later supported by several other sources whose
qualifications no one argues. Leanard Zakim's statement is
pure and hateful propaganda intended to silence those who
threaten his livelihood.
David Thomas, 2/28/97
CODOH can be reached at:
Box 439016/P-111
San Diego, CA, USA 92143
Comments from Fred Leuchter
Dear David Thomas,
Your remarks after the Irving to Shallit letter are not entirely
true.
The Massachusetts Court refused to interpret the law publicly,
although it did privately, and forced both parties..i.e. The
Commonwealth and Leuchter into a settlement as a trial
would not be beneficial to either. Leuchter entered into an
agreement with the Engineering Board to do none of the
things that he never did in the first place and not to recant or
change anything he ever did or said, in return for the board's
dropping of the complaint. Leuchter agreed in a pretrial mutual
promise with the Commonwealth that in return for the
Commonwealth dropping its illegal prosecution of him he
would not break the law by saying things or doing things he
had never done or said in the first place. Leuchter never
admitted to any wrong doing or ever did any wrong. He simply
agreed to be a law abiding citizen (which he had been all his
life) for 2 years more. Even after the 2 years he still has not
broken the law.
Please consider this and restate your description. I am sick of
people misunderstanding what took place in Cambridge
Court.
Fred Leuchter
4/5/99
To The Federal Court of Canada from Galina Buyanovsky. Montreal, March 20, 1997.
Galina Buyanovsky
175 Sherbrook St.West,
Apt. 98 Montreal, Quebec,
CANADA H2X 1X5
FEDERAL COURT
Supreme Court Building Ottawa,
Ontario K1A 0H9
CANADA
Tel.(514)843-8458 See the list of the places where the copies of that appeal are submitted below.
Dear Sirs! This appeal is formal. It composed not by a lawyer but by the refugee claimants themselves. Despite a temptation to treat it as a non-official letter
we want an official response. We claim that a wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel exists, and that Canadian Ministry of
Immigration is manipulated by a foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was denied. The chairman of the immigration committee assigned
to our case was Mr. Jacques La Salle. He is a permanent director of the Informative Committee Canada-Israel, an organization that may be considered as a
shadow structure of Israeli government. Allegations that Mr. Salle systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel with partiality were
expressed several times. In 1996 Federal Court indirectly recognized that. Despite of that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard - Canadian Minister of Immigration [ look
over her anger declaration about the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel: see our BIBLIOGRAPHY in the end, #4, ] - gave Mr. La Salle a new
commissioner's mandate (for the next term). 52% of refugee claimants from Israel obtained their refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it is
0(%). In 1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards refugees from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was terminated* (see
comments). However, his mandate wasn't terminated in general. And this person whose partiality towards the Russian-speaking people was already
recognized is sent now to hear the cases of Russians who flied from Kazachstan. Russians from Kazachstan are too often told that they are not eligible for the
political asylum in Canada - because they could go to Israel, not to Canada. For example, the first hearing of a refugee claimant from Kazachstan was
dedicated to his situation in Kazachstan, when the second - to his refusal to go to Israel. How can it happen in a country that is not a province of Israel, but
an independent state? Why refugees from Israel who face deportation and express a will to go to Russia are sent to Israel anyway**?
Is it true that Mr. La Salle lived in a kibbutz in Israel and holds an Israeli passport? Is that true that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard is his ex-wife and his best friend
now? If only one of these questions can be answered positively - the first paragraph of our message is completely correct! And the last question about Mr.
La Salle. Since he was accused in partiality - does it means that his decision in our case can still be in force? We came to Canada as refugee claimants, not to
Israel, and it's obvious that our right is to be heard by an independent commissioner, not by a person whose whole life and social activity is devoted to Israel.
The translator who worked for our lawyer, Mrs. Eleonora Broder, has also devoted herself to Israel, but in a different way. She sabotaged the cases of all
her employer's clients, distorting the translation of the most important documents and statements: Always in favor of these forces which wants save Israel's
face and to send Russian from Israel back. Being afraid of her angry clients she flied Montreal and disappeared in an unknown direction. Her most favorite
sabotage action was to distort the real indication of nationality or another data in her translations of birth certificates, passports, and other documents. This
trick she used when she "translated" documents of L.M., K.R., L.G., and other people who turned to our lawyer. Commissioners like Mr. La Salle, Mr.
Dorion, and like the immigration officer Mrs. Malka, who have visual partiality to Russian-speaking people, based their rejections of refugees' claims on such
"mistakes". She used to change voluntarily also the meaning of refugee claimants' stories and so called pifs' data. She placed a wrong information about our
nationalities despite our sincere statements. We came from a country with another mentality and different culture. If a Canadian would probably check the
translation using another translator help, we didn't. Then, again, Mrs. Broder did a back translation into Russian for us to show that everything was translated
correctly, but that back translation actually is in contradiction with her French version. Another interesting detail is that the most serious mistakes she did in
official documents' translations were related to the people whose hearing were attended by Mr. La Salle, Mrs. Judith Malka and - probably Mr. Dorion. In
other words, were attended by people whose relations to Israel or to Jewish roots are easy to detect. If you need more detailed and precise proof of Mrs.
Broder's sabotage we can give it to you.
Mr. La Salle based his rejection of our claim generally on one thing. He based it not only on Mrs. Broder's sabotage, but on direct lie and distortion of our
words, too. So, he interpret our words that we were persecuted by Israelis because they treated us as "Russians" as if we said that in our Teudat Zehuts
(internal obligatory passports) we were mentioned as Russians, not Jews***. In reality there were no indication of Teudat Zehuts in our words. It is obvious
that the meaning of our words is that Israelis treat fresh Russian-speaking immigrants as strangers, not like real Jews, and this is the main source of our
problems in Israel. (Another reason is that my husband is not a Jew). But if even there was no distortion of our words: Does Mr. La Salle was legally and
morally correct to base his rejection on "Teudat Zehuts" issue? The indication of nationality in different kinds of ID-s is in deep contradiction with the main
moral norms of democracy. No wonder that no democratic state (we don't speak about Israel now) has such indication. That indication of nationality in
passports in ex-USSR and in South African Republic was accused by the democratic press and by Human Rights organizations****. Canada has no
obligatory indication of nationality in her code. Does it means that Canada doesn't recognizes the obligatory indication of nationality in passports? If so, and
also if we are on Canadian soil, then the investigation about the indication of our nationality in our passports is illegal (at least, morally illegal as minimum). As
a Canadian commissioner Mr. La Salle couldn't make it a key issue in his rejection of our claim. As an Israeli he couldn't ignore this issue because in Israeli
society it is a key issue! Then, I want to attract your attention by the fact that there is an obligatory indication of country of origin in Israel, not only of
nationality. This is the source of conflicts as well. Since the commissioners like Mr. La Salle avoid mentioning it - this is one of the evidences of their partiality.
Let me point out that there are almost no paragraphs in our refugee claim declaration where we mention the indication of nationality (Russian) in my husband's
passport as the source of our troubles. In the same time we name other reasons like social, ethnic and religious ground for persecutions and discrimination in
our life in Israel*****. Why then the "Teudat Zehuts" issue dominates in the Immigration and Refugee Board decision in our claim? Probably, because Mr.
La Salle acts in interests of Israel, and Israel wants to justify her obligatory indication of nationality before other countries. Let me point out also that the
"Teudat Zehut" is not an ID. It is actually a passport. Because it's function is different from Canada's social number or medical insurance card, or any other
ID. Social number in Canada is confidential. Then, another ID can be given to police or to other authorities. In Israel T.Z. is the only ID recognized by the
authorities. To present T.Z. just everywhere - from clinic to school, from employment office to hotel - is an obligatory rule. That fact is also ignored by the
commissioners. We can analyze Mr. La Salle's declaration paragraph by paragraph, but our main point is that the decision in our case was visually based not
on the hearing and not on our refugee declaration, but on the very fact that we came from Israel. We'd only like to give examples of the most ridiculous and
tendentious paragraphs of Mr. La Salle's declaration. This declaration, which is politically and emotionally motivated, has nothing what to do with juridical
documents.
Dear Sirs! You must take into consideration that Mr. La Salle gave identical answers to a number of refugee claimants (to family Z., for example). 4 from 6
main topics in his answers to us and to family Z. are identical. So, he submits a clichй to all his victims. He also doesn't care to deny the credibility of the
events described in our claim by analyzing them. His attitude can be expressed in 2 sentences: It can not be; because it couldn't happen in Israel (in such a
beautiful Middle East country!). That's why he uses such "evidences" of our "insincerity" as "very little inter-community tension had been noted" (p.5 of his
response to our claim, p.3 of his response to family Z. claim). If even such "evidences" were truth (we have evidences that even the members of Israeli
government claim the opposite******), they are not able to explain or reject each event, each personal case. But it can be clearly explained by Mr. La
Salle's motivations. He unconsciously expresses his motivations on p.4 of his decision: "Monsieur Nikitin est de nationalitй russe et les deux enfants, comme
leur mйre, sont juifs"(p.4). In other words, he didn't write "were Jewish in Israel", or "were considered as Jewish in Israel", but he wrote "are Jewish"! That
means that for h i m they are Jewish. So, under which laws he considered our claim: Under the laws of Canada - or under the laws of Israel!?******* Then,
on p.5 he wrote that "Mrs. Buganovky {instead of Buganovsky} was hesitated to answer the questions, she avoided to answer them directly, precisely". We
can comment that phrase very "directly and precisely"! This is an old trick used by Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion and Mrs. Malka. They compose a question like
"are you sure that you did an attempt to lie?" Then they demand to answer "yes" or "no" only. If you answer "yes", that means - you're a liar, if you answer
"no", it means - "I am not sure" or "may be". In a real situation there are much more versions of consequences if you answer "yes" or "not" directly. The
paragraph #6 on p.5 is absolutely identical to the text of a rejection sent to family Z. This paragraph doubts about what happened to our daughter in
kinder-garden and at school because of the claim that there are " no inter-communal tensions in Israel" and because "efforts were made to sensitize school
officials to the new reality...(etc)". Mr. La Salle took these "evidences" from s document he mentions as Exhibit A-1. But we'd like to ask Mr. La Salle next
questions: 1. How can the same document be used as a contra-argument in the matter of two different girls, who lived in Israel in different cities and in
different time? (We mean us and family Z.). 2. How can a document, which must be composed before the events described in our refugee declaration took
place, be used as an "evidence"?! Does it have a license for the future? 3. How cans Mr. La Salle to swear that if Israel claims she "made efforts to sensitize
school officials" to discrimination or violence, the efforts were really made, or were properly made? Then, if even "efforts" were really made (we can swear,
they weren't) it doesn't mean that they met a proper reaction of school officials! My husband and me - we also want to express our deep concern about the
credibility of this Exhibit when it speaks about Israel. We know that this document (Exhibit A-1 (5.4) mentions a "Department of Integration", which doesn't
exist in Israel. It's clear that the real name of Israeli Ministry of Absorption ("misrad ha-klita in Hebrew) was replaced by non-existing "Ministry of
Integration" because it sounds strange for Canadian (or American, European) ears. But the "Ministry of Absorption" is the real name of the organization,
which "takes care" of new immigrants. And the Exhibit A-1 changes it to the "Department of Integration"... In reality the Zionist ideology is against
integration. Look over Ben-Gurion's, Orlosorov's, Bella Katsnelson's, Golda Meir's works and statements! Then you will be convinced that the name
"Ministry of Absorption" expresses their desires completely well. It means that the Exhibit A-1 replaces actually the truth by the lie, not only a real name by a
false name. Then - how can such a document be considered as a credible one? We can present another evidence that Exhibit A-1 is highly contradictory and
strange in itself. On page 6 (p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Mr. La Salle writes (quoting Exhibit A-1), that 80% of Israel population is mobilized to
welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any juridical document! Let's to abstract
from its complete nonsense and suppose it reflects something from Israel's life and reality, and reflects the mentality of Israelis (Mr. La Salle's intention to
choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects his national identity as Israeli). If Israel is a country like other countries, like Canada, so how it
comes that "80% of Israeli population" can be "mobilized" to "welcome new immigrants"? How people can be "mobilized" (or, probably, ordered) to
"sponsor immigrants" and to help them by "giving money, closes and furniture" (p.3, 5-th line of Mr.La Sall's response to family Z. claim). May be something
is wrong in a country where population can be "mobilized"? May be, our troubles have been erupted exactly because people in such a country have to be