French Court Orders Heavy Penalties Against Faurisson for Holocaust Views

New French Legal Assault Against Revisionists and Freedom of Speech

On December 9, 1992, the Paris Court of Appeal (Eleventh Department) rejected Professor Robert Faurisson's appeal of an April 1991 conviction on a charge of “contesting the crimes against humanity” because of remarks about the Holocaust story he made in a magazine interview.

The appeal court imposed penalties of 187,000 francs (nearly $40,000 at current exchange rates) on each of the two defendants in the case: Dr. Faurisson and magazine publisher Patrice Boizeau. Each was ordered to pay 30,000 francs in fines, and 157,000 francs in “damages” to eleven Jewish-Zionist and other organizations. In addition, each must, of course, bear the legal costs of his defense.

In the interview, published in the September 1990 issue of Le Choc du Mois ("The Shock of the Month"), the French professor commented on the extraordinary Fabius-Gayssot law of July 1990 that expressly forbids “contesting the crimes against humanity” as defined by the victors of the Second World War and punished by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. In practice, this law applies only to those who call into question alleged crimes against Jews, and particularly persons who contest the orthodox Holocaust extermination story.

Sometimes referred to as the “Lex Faurissonia,” this law was enacted to criminalize, above all, the work of Dr. Faurisson — Europe's leading Revisionist scholar and a good friend of the IHR.

In his 1990 Le Choc du Mois interview, Faurisson had stated that he would continue, regardless of the recently-promulgated law, to proclaim the results of his research:

  1. There was no German order or plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe.
  2. No homicidal gas chambers ever existed in the concentration camps of the Third Reich. The supposed extermination gas chambers, as described by alleged eyewitnesses and perpetrators, could not have existed for physical, chemical, topographical, and architectural reasons.
  3. The familiar figure of six million Jewish victims is absurd.

In April 1991, a Paris criminal court ordered Faurisson to pay a penalty of 250,000 francs (of which 100,000 was suspended), and the publisher of Le Choc du Mois to pay a penalty of 180,000 francs. (See the IHR Newsletter, May 1991, pp. 1-2, and May 1992, pp. 2-3.)

In the December 1992 decision, the three-judge appeal court (Fran_oise Simon presiding) imposed a total penalty of 374,000 francs on the two defendants, none of which was suspended. Throughout Faurisson's entire testimony, which lasted nearly two hours, Judge Simon ostentatiously averted her gaze from him. She also forbade Faurisson from reading documents, including a portion of the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal (the ostensible basis for the law in question).

But that's not the worst of it. In addition to the fines totaling nearly $80,000 in this single case (not to mention their considerable legal expenses), Faurisson and the magazine face two new cases based on the same 1990 interview. As Faurisson has ruefully explained, it's as if someone accused of having stolen a bicycle were to stand trial three times: first for the theft of the bike, then for stealing the wheels, and finally for taking the handlebars. This sort of double and even triple jeopardy is normally rejected by French jurisprudence no less than it is in America: but because it involves the most sacred icon of our age, the legal situation is anything but normal.

Finally, on January 12, Faurisson received a summons for yet another trial. He is being sued because of a fragment of a sentence in a review by him published in the weekly Rivarol, April 10, 1992.

Not surprisingly, French newspapers and television have generally ignored or minimized the appeal court's December decision against Faurisson and the magazine.

Faurisson has decided not to appeal the December decision to a higher tribunal, citing the cost of such an appeal and because he believes that even should his conviction be overturned he would likely be re-tried on the same charges (and incur further legal expenses), to obtain a verdict that would probably be no different from the first.

At the same time, though, Faurisson remains steadfast in his determination to carry on the fight for the historical truth about the alleged gas chambers, and for the freedom to write and speak that truth in France.

An expression of this continued dedication — and of the growth of Holocaust Revisionism — is a rather lengthy and remarkably fair interview with Faurisson published November 11 in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera. In his replies to the paper's respectful questions, the French scholar provided a clear and concise summary of the Revisionist view.

'Worse Than Stalinist Law'

The Paris court's December ruling is of historic significance. For the first time a university professor has been expressly punished by a judicial body for having made public his research on a subject on which it is expressly forbidden by law to contest the official version.

Over the centuries thousands of professors and other scholars have suffered terribly for having affronted the ruling orthodoxy with their findings. It is to be noted, however, that until now such men and women have been punished on indirect and hypocritical legal grounds. They have been accused, for instance, of attacking religious faith, of endangering the national interest or of undermining a political ideology. Sometimes — as has also been the case with Faurisson — they have been condemned for “defaming” this or that person or group, for “inciting to racial hatred,” or for causing “personal damage.” In the late 1940s, for example, French professor Maurice Bard_che was thrown into prison on the pretext that he “apologized for [Nazi] crimes.”

In Germany, which does not have a specific law against Revisionism, courts have punished Revisionists on the basis of a law that makes it a crime to “defame the memory of the dead.”

France's Fabius-Gayssot law is free of any such hypocrisy. With perfect cynicism, the “Lex Faurissonia” establishes historiographical dogma. Not even Stalin ever proclaimed a comparable law. When, for instance, the Soviet dictator persecuted the opponents of the quack biologist Lysenko (who was also a member of the Soviet commission that “established” that the Germans killed four million people at Auschwitz), it was not in the name of a specific Soviet law declaring Lysenko's theories to be correct, nor was there ever such a Soviet law. The Fabius-Gayssot law is not Stalinist: it is worse.

Other Victims

Professor Faurisson is not the only victim of the legal campaign in France against Holocaust Revisionists. (See also the IHR Newsletter, July-August 1992, pp. 5-6.) Among other recent cases involving such dangerous “thought criminals” have been:

Jewish-Zionist groups are upset that persons charged under the Fabius-Gayssot law have been able to articulately explain in court precisely why they reject the Holocaust extermination story.

Accordingly, an attorney and spokesman for the virulently anti-Revisionist “International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism” (LICRA) recently proposed a revision of the law that would forbid a defendant in a Fabius-Gayssot case from explaining his Revisionist views in court, or even from repeating in court the “offending” statement.

So goes it for Revisionists in “douce France” ("sweet, gentle France").

In Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy and Sweden laws similar to the Fabius-Gayssot law are in effect: a troubling portent of the “new Europe.”

Media Hypocrisy

France's Fabius-Gayssot law, and similar legal measures in other countries, would be universally condemned as intolerable restrictions of free speech and academic expression if they involved any issue other than the Holocaust.

Hardly a word about any of these latest French blows against civil rights and free speech has appeared in the American media, which is normally so quick to sniff out every real or imagined violation of civil rights in China, Burma or South Africa.

Such laws and measures are not only chilling manifestations of the power and bigotry of the international Holocaust lobby, they also strikingly point up the bad faith and desperate fear of the lobby in the face of steady Revisionist advances. Historical truth does not need laws to defend itself.

Faurisson Needs Our Help

In France — as here in the United States — our traditional enemies have used litigation in their ongoing campaign to destroy Holocaust Revisionism. Nowhere is the legal situation worse for Revisionists than in France, where a special law allows private associations, individuals, and the state to target men and women like our brave colleague, Robert Faurisson.

As Europe's leading Holocaust Revisionist scholar and activist, Dr. Faurisson has been the target of judicial and criminal repression since 1979. He has suffered eight physical attacks, including the beating that nearly killed him on September 16, 1989. Now Faurisson, who must support himself and his wife from a single source of income (his now-reduced salary as a professor), must bear the burden of court-ordered penalties (about $37,000), as well as the costs of his legal defense in this and other cases stemming form his commitment to finding and publicizing the historical truth about the “gas chambers.”

Robert Faurisson's fight is your fight. No less than our American forefathers who signed this country's declaration of independent nationhood in the summer of 1776, Faurisson has pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor so that your children and your children's children will live free from the bane of an imposed pseudo-religion.

Once more, Robert Faurisson needs your support. Help brighten his spring with your generous contributions for his legal expenses so that we American Revisionists can say, in word and in deed, “Faurisson, we are here!” (Note: French law does not permit individuals to assist in paying fines.)

Please address your contributions for Professor Faurisson's legal defense to:

Robert Faurisson
10, Rue de Normandie
03200 Vichy
France

From The Journal of Historical Review, March/April 1993 (Vol. 13, No. 2), page 26.