Toronto, Ontario
‑‑- Upon resuming on Wednesday, December 16, 1998
at 10:10 a.m.
RESUMED: ROBERT FAURISSON
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. Mr. Christie, please.
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF RE QUALIFICATIONS, Continued
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Dr. Faurisson, when we left off yesterday, we were just about to deal with your selected articles. I take it that these are not all the articles you have either written or published. Is that correct, sir?
A. That is correct.
Q. Although there are a number of titles written in French, I would like you to go down the list and identify those that specifically involve the analysis of text and documents, starting with the first one, "La Leçon de Bardamu."
A. I do not intend to say anything about this one.
Q. You had better say why.
A. Because I don't think with this article I could show anything really related to text and document analysis.
Q. Refer me to the next one down the list ‑‑ we should have numbered these. Count down the list to one that does refer to text and document analysis.
A. The text called "Traduction prosaïque de La Chanson du mal-aimé" from Apollinaire ‑‑ and I would like to comment on it together with "Notes sur Alcools" by Apollinaire also.
Q. That is four farther down.
A. It is more or less the same thing.
Q. To what extent was this an analysis of text and documents and what texts were you analyzing?
A. I was analyzing cryptic text of Apollinaire who is a poet at the beginning of this century; he died in 1918. His poems are rather complicated, and you must know that there is not even punctuation ‑‑ no periods, no commas, nothing.
His reputation is that he is illogical, already surrealist, and all that. By analyzing very carefully his writing, those ones at least, I realized that in fact it was more logical even than anything because, if there were no full stops, no commas and so on, he had to write phrases which could stand on their feet, if I may say so. It is extremely logical, and it is an illusion to say that it is illogical. If you read the words, you can see that it is extremely logical.
That is one first remark which I would make which is: Be careful when you read. Be careful of appearances. Apparently it is illogical. In fact, it is very logical, and even more than something with punctuation.
Q. You said beware of what?
A. Beware of...?
Q. You said just a moment ago, "Beware of...?"
A. Appearances. It looks like it is illogical; be very careful.
Q. Farther down can you refer to other ‑‑
A. I have many things to say about that.
Q. All right.
A. Especially about translation. A part of text and document analysis could be translation, all the problems of translation. For instance, I went to see how those very difficult poems were translated in English or in German and even in Bulgarian. I remember being in Sofia in 1974, and I found a poem of Apollinaire and I wanted to see how the Bulgarians had translated it. This is how I discovered the terrible mistakes that you may do if you do not read very carefully. We specialists of document analysis call this "pathology" of the text, because there is a pathology of the text.
I mean, you take a text and with the time going on people who want to reproduce it change it. I am going to take an example, back to the Latin.
You know that every Latin text that we have from Cicero or anyone ‑‑ we don't have, of course, the manuscript of Cicero. The oldest one that we may have came something like 10 centuries after, so there was a translation from one century to another, with changes. We call this pathology.
Let's take a very simple example. Those people of the 10th century or 11th century or 12th century were Christian people. When in a Latin text they would see the word "dei", it means "the gods." They didn't want to put "the gods", so they put "God" singular. They did it either with bad faith or with good faith but, by doing so, they are changing the text.
I am coming back to the question of translation. I am going to give you one example of a terrible mistake.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, let me suggest to you that what we are involved in here is illustrating what you say is your expertise in the area of analysis of text and documentation. I don't want you to deliver a Ph.D thesis here. I want you to succinctly deal with each of these articles. For those that are pertinent, tell us what the article is about in the most succinct way you can without damaging what you want us to hear from you.
This is a preliminary process, and I wish to have you direct your mind more critically to what we are involved in here and not use any words in your dissertation here that are unnecessary.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I have spoken to you and to your counsel to see if we can't move along without doing any damage to what you want us to hear.
THE WITNESS: I think it would damage what I have to say since ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Well ‑‑
THE WITNESS: If I may give an example.
I understand very well that what you want is for me, perhaps, to say, if I am called an expert, something about, for instance, the texts attributed to Mr. Zundel or the comment of Mr. Prideaux.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me interrupt you for a moment. Listen to what I have to say. You heard what I had to say, and that's it. Your counsel will continue to question you.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. In respect of your processes of analysis, you have described what you did to publish these various works in regard to Apollinaire. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. There is a great deal more you could say about the process; is that true?
A. And about the problem of translation.
Q. We don't need to get into that. What you are going to be speaking about here, if you are allowed to speak at all, will not have anything to do with translation, so we won't get into what processes you were involved in with regard to translation.
A. And about the fact that a text is transformed by an author?
Q. If you are allowed to testify, what you are going to be testifying about is not going to be something that has been translated a number of times or anything like that.
A. The changes of the text?
Q. We might deal with that.
A. One and the same text changing?
Q. Interpretation maybe, but that will be something we will have to deal with later.
In the next article, "El Desdichado" ‑‑
A. I do not intend to say anything about it.
Q. Does it have anything to do with text and document analysis?
A. Yes, but I don't want to talk about it.
Q. And "La Vie antérieure"?
A. Maybe I could say something.
Q. What processes were you involved in in terms of analyzing text and documents there?
A. I discovered something about that. It was said in my viva voce by one of the members of the jury that by analyzing very carefully this text of Beaudelaire, I had brought something new and for him exact.
Q. Exact?
A. Exact, meaning it was the exact meaning that people had not seen because it had not been carefully read. I could be more specific.
Q. We are not interested in those specifics; just the general terms of your analysis is what we are concerned about.
The next item?
A. It is about a very well-known text of Ronsard. I would have been pleased to explain how people used to read this and how I discovered that it was not read carefully, and it changes very much of the meaning of the text.
Q. Where was this published in 1971?
A. It was published in L'Information littéraire, which is a publication of the university. It is very difficult to have something published in it.
I may say something all the same about that. In every one of my articles in L'Information littéraire I avoided to give the name of the author. I mean, I studied the texts themselves as if they were written by an unknown author. Or, when I mentioned the name, it was not to show that this author has written this or that. It was only his name.
Q. And the next item is called "Les Divertissements d'Isidore".
A. I will not talk about this.
Q. Does it have anything to do with text and document analysis?
A. Yes, but I don't intend to talk about it.
Q. And the next is "La Belle Enigme des Deux Amis de La Fontaine."
A. I don't intend to comment.
Q. Did it have anything to do with text and document analysis?
A. Yes.
Q. "Les Faux-monnayeurs" ‑‑ does that have anything to do with text and document analysis?
A. Yes. No comment.
Q. "Lautréamont en perte de vitesse" ‑‑ does that have anything to do with text and document analysis?
A. I would not say so.
Q. You would not say what?
A. I would not say that it is too much related to text and document analysis.
Q. "A quand la libération de Céline?"
A. It has to do, but I am not going to comment on it. The next one is the same thing.
Q. It has to do with what?
A. Text and document analysis.
Q. The next article is "La Clé Chimères".
A. Yes, I could say something. It is about 17 very difficult texts of Nerval. The title means "The Key of" those poems. I pretend that I have found the key of all those very difficult poems by analyzing those texts.
To take the example of those 17 texts, one question was: Is it the real text of Nerval? I had to go and see the manuscripts and so on, and I found something like 100 mistakes ‑‑ little mistakes, of course ‑‑ in the text of Nerval as published in what we call Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, which is the most erudite publication in France of the text.
Q. You found errors in the most erudite text?
A. Yes, but this is not specifically my field of research. I am interested in authenticity, but I am more interested in veracity, which means that ‑‑
Q. We can't talk about veracity; it's irrelevant.
A. Veracity means is it coherent or not?
Q. Coherent meaning what?
A. When I am looking for the meaning of a text, is it coherent or not, which means: Could it be true or not, what is recounted.
Q. We are in trouble now.
A. It means that I take it at face value. I don't say: Is it authentic or not? I say: I take what you bring me.
Q. Do you find any method to establish meaning?
A. Yes, by careful analysis, a logical and grammatical analysis.
Q. The next item is "Céline dans de beaux draps".
A. I am not going to talk about all this.
Q. Was it text and documents analysis that you were involved in in that article?
A. This one not too much.
Q. The next one...?
A. The important one would be "La critique de textes (trois écoles)".
Q. Where is that? The next one down that I have is "Céline en joie."
THE CHAIRPERSON: Go down two more, "La critique de textes".
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.
Q. That did involve text and document analysis; is that correct?
A. Yes. I am not going to go into detail, but it was to explain my method. I took something that everybody could understand. I took this kind of ballpoint pen and I explained it according to the ancient method of critique and then to the new method of critique, and then to my own critique that I call the critique of, I would say, common sense. I tried to explain not a text but something material like that.
Q. Where was that published?
A. It has been published in a book by Serge Thion, the title being "Verité Historique ou Verité Politique?" which means: Historical Truth or Political Truth? ‑‑ the subtitle being the question of the gas chambers and another subtitle being l'affaire Faurisson.
Q. In respect of the block of text that is in French immediately above that, what do you have to say? Is there anything in there that indicates a study of text and documents?
A. Some of them, yes. I think perhaps what we should do is to go to the one entitled "Le Journal d'Anne Frank est-il authentique?"
Q. Where is that?
A. Five or six lines down. We have it in English.
Q. Is that a book or an article?
A. It is an essay. It is in a report that I made for a German tribunal.
Q. A German tribunal?
A. For someone who was accused and who had a trial in Hamburg. This man had been accused of saying that the Anne Frank Diary was not genuine.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Which one is it?
MR. CHRISTIE: It is six down from where you were.
THE WITNESS: "Le Journal d'Anne Frank est-il authentique?"
THE CHAIRPERSON: I have it, thank you.
THE WITNESS: The best perhaps would be to go to page 7. On the fourth line from the bottom you have "Is the Diary of Anne Frank genuine?" This is a translation in English of what I did in French.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. I would like to show you that and ask if this is what you published on the subject. Do you identify that as an article that you published, "Is the Diary of Anne Frank Genuine?"
Did it involve your method of text and document analysis?
A. From the beginning to the end.
Q. Is it a good example of your processes of analysis?
A. I think so.
Q. You published this article in the form in which it is now, which I showed to you? You may not have looked at it that carefully.
A. This is the English translation.
MR. ROSEN: Could we have copies?
MR. CHRISTIE: Actually, I was going to file it if no one objects.
MR. ROSEN: We would like to see it first.
MR. CHRISTIE: It is only a qualification process at the moment.
Q. Did you supervise and prepare this English translation or did you approve of it?
A. Yes, I approved it.
Q. When was it published?
A. It was published in June 1982 in English in the Journal of Historical Review.
Q. Did you publish it elsewhere?
A. In English, no, but I published it in French, in German, in Spanish, and so on.
Q. You said that you prepared this for a tribunal in Germany; is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Was there any outcome to that tribunal?
A. Let me explain. The name of the man was Ernst Römer. This man had distributed a pamphlet at the door of a theatre where they were giving a representation of the diary of Anne Frank. In this pamphlet he said that the diary was not genuine or ‑‑ I don't remember exactly; perhaps he simply expressed doubts about it. He was sued by Mr. Otto Heinrich Frank, the father of Anne Frank, living in Basle, Switzerland. The trial was in Hamburg, Germany.
I made a study of the diary of Anne Frank. Not only that, but part of my inquiry was to go to Amsterdam, I think three times, to do research in a few countries about that. Also I went to visit Mr. Otto Frank in Basle for nine hours.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, do you remember the question?
THE WITNESS: What was the outcome?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Can you answer that?
THE WITNESS: It means result.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Of that case.
A. Ernst Römer was condemned, but there is another outcome which is that the tribunal decided to ask for expertise about the ink of the manuscript. I suppose that, if the tribunal did this, it is because the tribunal considered that my question was a serious one.
There had been many trials before about the same topic, and no German tribunal had decided so.
MR. ROSEN: Could we ask the witness to step outside, please. I have some submissions to make.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Will you step outside for a moment?
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
MR. ROSEN: In my respectful submission, first of all, Mr. Christie owes a duty to the Tribunal to control his witness and to lead him through evidence that is relevant to the issue of credentials.
Second, what the witness has to say now about a trial that took place in Germany and that the person was condemned, and he goes on to say, "I suppose that they asked that the ink be analyzed because they took my question seriously" is, in fact, an indirect comment on German law and fails to recognize the fact that somebody was being charged with a criminal offence and that they were perhaps concerned more about the issue of guilt or innocence than this witness' question about whether it was serious.
The point is that there is a lot of self-help going on here with this witness, a lot of self-serving statements that are completely irrelevant.
The third point I want to make is that this whole thing about Anne Frank ‑‑ I quite frankly don't understand how this has anything to do with his qualifications, but I leave that to you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I suppose it is tendered on the basis that it is part of his credentials as an analyst of text and documents.
MR. ROSEN: Sort of as a sample of his work.
THE CHAIRPERSON: As a sample of his work, I suppose. I have a certain amount of sympathy for Mr. Christie because he is not an easy witness to keep on a strict track. In answering questions, he tends to explain in a somewhat prolix way.
If no one else has any comment, we will call the witness back. Mr. Christie, do you have anything else to say?
MR. CHRISTIE: No.
‑‑- Witness returns to the stand
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, would you listen very carefully to the question and try to answer just the question without wandering off too far to the left or the right or forward or backward. Do you follow me?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. I would like to direct you to the method of your analysis of the Anne Frank diary. I just want to ask you what things you did in order to conduct your analysis. If you wish to refer to the article you wrote about it, I don't think that is improper, unless anyone objects. If it helps you to remember what you did, go ahead ‑‑ if you can identify the specific processes that you used to analyze the Anne Frank diary.
What did you do first?
A. I read it in the French version.
Q. And...?
A. Then I went to Amsterdam.
Q. Why?
A. To see the place where Anne Frank is supposed to have lived with seven other people.
Q. What did you do there? Did you enter the place?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Did you go anywhere else to examine anything about it?
A. I tried to find, and I found, a plan of the place as it was during the war.
Q. Where did you find that?
A. In a special office where you have the plans of all the buildings. When you have to ask permission to build something ‑‑
Q. At the City Hall?
A. At the City Hall, yes.
Q. Then what did you do?
A. Then I went and asked questions of Anne Frank's father near Basle, Switzerland.
Q. How did you get along with Mr. Frank?
A. He received me for nine hours on two or three and a half days.
Q. How did you get along? Do you know what I mean?
A. Yes. I should say very well. He was quite a charming man.
Q. And you had conversations with him?
A. Yes, in the presence of his wife.
Q. For the purpose of identifying your processes of analysis, what questions did you ask him?
A. I said, "Mr. Frank, there are many, many things that I do not understand in the diary of Anne Frank."
Q. Before you go any farther, if you are going to say anything that he said, we will have objections. Confine yourself to what you asked him, to identify your processes.
A. The best thing would be to take page 148 where I give one example ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: We don't have a copy here.
MR. CHRISTIE: And I would like to give you one. I don't know if anyone objects to your seeing it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We haven't heard any objection.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. This is from a booklet that you published on the subject; is that correct, sir?
A. It was an article, and it was then published as a pamphlet.
Q. Can you tell us what questions you asked of Otto Frank to investigate and study the Anne Frank diary?
A. On page 148, paragraph 4, I wrote:
"Internal criticism: the very text of the Diary (Dutch text) contains an inexplicable number of unlikely or inconceivable facts."
Then I said:
"Let us take the example of the noises. Those in hiding, ‑‑"
There were eight of them.
"‑‑ we are told, must not make the least sound. This is so much so that, if they cough, they quickly take codeine. The 'enemies' could hear them. The walls are that 'thin' ‑‑"
I give every time the reference where I find, for example, "The walls are that 'thin.'" It is in a so-called section of 25 March, 1943.
"Those 'enemies' are very numerous:"
I am not going to read it.
"It is therefore unlikely and inconceivable that Mrs Van Daan had the habit of using the vacuum cleaner each day at 12:30 p.m. The vacuum cleaners of that era were, moreover, particularly noisy. I ask: 'How is that conceivable?'"
Q. This is a question you asked of whom?
A. I asked this question to Mr. Frank.
Q. What else did you ask in terms of analysis that you made of the text?
A. I will give some other questions.
"That question could be followed with forty other questions concerning noises. It is necessary to explain, for example, the use of an alarm clock. It is necessary to explain the noisy carpentry work; the removal of a wooden step, the transformation of a door into a swinging cupboard, the making of a wooden candlestick. Peter ‑‑"
Who was a young boy living with Anne Frank.
"‑‑ splits wood in the attic in front of the open window. It involved building with the wood from the attic 'a few little cupboards and other odds and ends.' It even involved constructing in the attic ...'a little compartment' for working. There is a nearly constant noise from the radio, from the slammed doors, from the 'resounding peal', the arguments, the shouts, the yelling, a 'noise that was enough to awaken the dead.'"
Et cetera, et cetera.
Q. You were looking there for the internal consistency of the document?
A. Yes, the internal consistency of this document.
Q. These questions were raised with Mr. Frank personally?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you do with Mr. Frank, other than talk to him? Did you go anywhere?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you go?
A. I would like to say something ‑‑
Q. Go ahead.
A. I want to show many other things which seem to be quite wrong. This is on the next page:
"At the time of their arrival in their hiding place, the Franks install some curtains to hide their presence. But, to install curtains at windows which did not have them up until then, is that not the best means of drawing attention to one's arrival? Is that not particularly the case if those curtains are made of pieces of 'all different shapes, quality and pattern'? In order ‑‑"
I think this is important:
"In order not to betray their presence, the Franks burn their refuse. But in doing this they call attention to their presence by the smoke that escapes from the roof of a dwelling that is supposed to be uninhabited!"
And so on and so on.
I went through very specific material arguments like that.
Q. Did you compare and analyze the various translations of the Anne Frank diary?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you competent in French and German and in Dutch?
A. I would not say competent, at least in Dutch, but I had the help of the French translation which I could check with two Dutch people. The French translation was quite close to the Dutch original. The English version was rather close. The German version was incredibly different. One may say that, when a German reads the Anne Frank diary and meets someone who has read the Anne Frank diary either in Dutch or in French, they don't talk about the same Anne Frank.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you literate in German?
THE WITNESS: I read German well; I have studied German for, I think, 20 years.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you literate in German?
THE WITNESS: Literate means...?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you proficient and literate in German?
THE WITNESS: Do you mean if I can speak German?
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Literate could mean being able to read; it could mean speaking.
A. I can read.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am trying to ascertain the proficiency of your skill in the German language.
MEMBER DEVINS: Are you fluent in German?
THE WITNESS: I would not say fluent, no. I am working on German texts every day; for many years I have done so. If I have the slightest doubt, I consult, I check and double check translation and so on.
In this report for the German tribunal, of course I mention the German text. I gave the references.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. What other subjects did you bring up with Mr. Frank?
MR. FREIMAN: May I just observe that, if we are here to decide the authenticity of Anne Frank's diary, I suppose these would be very helpful questions. If we are here to ascertain the witness' methodology, I am beginning to wonder what the benefit of asking this line of questions might be.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I suppose Mr. Christie is trying to illustrate the analysis he used in connection with this particular item. I would suggest, Mr. Christie, that we try to establish that through prinicple rather than through detail.
MR. CHRISTIE: I agree.
THE WITNESS: Mr. Pensa, may I have a conversation with Mr. Christie and Mr. Zundel?
THE CHAIRPERSON: No. You are under examination now. Just continue. You can speak to him at a break, if necessary.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Over what period of time did you conduct research into the Anne Frank diary?
A. It was in 1977-1978. Then I came back to Amsterdam, I think, later on.
Q. Have you done text and document analysis in terms of the words "final solution?"
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What processes did you use to conduct that research?
A. I found German words and German documents of the Nuremberg Trials, for instance. In some of those documents I saw that the "final solution" had an adjective which was "territorial" which means "territorial final solution." It does not mean an extermination; it is a solution by finding a territory.
Q. Where did you find that reference in the various documents you looked at?
A. In documents about the Martin Luther Office, of the German Foreign Ministry, and so on. They are well-known documents.
Q. When it comes to documents, have you studied the documents of the International Military Tribunal?
A. Yes.
Q. Were have you studied them and for how long?
A. I have at home the 42 volumes of the International Military Tribunal. I have them in French; I have them in German; and I have been working also in the American version of the 42 volumes.
Q. Have you studied and done text and document analysis of the Wannsee Protocol?
A. Yes, I did. May I explain what is the Wannsee Protocol?
Q. It wouldn't do any harm, I don't think.
A. It is a document of 15 pages in German about a meeting that 15 leaders of the Third Reich ‑‑ not big leaders except one ‑‑ had in Berlin-Wannsee, which is a part of Berlin. It was on the 20th of January, 1942. This is the document which was supposed to prove that the Germans intended to exterminate the Jews.
Q. When you say "was supposed to prove," why do you say that?
A. Because, since 1984-85, I see that the historians have renounced ‑‑
Q. When you say "historians," you have to name names of people, someone important.
A. The most important one being, to make it short, Raul Hilberg.
Q. What changed after that date?
A. I must explain that. They used to say that the decision had been taken in Wannsee and that it was in the Wannsee Protocol. I looked at the text, the German text, and in this text I saw that the part which is supposed to mean ‑‑ it is a question of meaning ‑‑ "We intend to deport the Jews and to kill them" did not say that at all.
Q. Can you recall exactly what it did say?
A. Yes, I remember.
Q. Say in German, first of all, what it did say.
A. It said: From now on, the Jews ‑‑ remember that it is the 20th of January 1942 ‑‑ will be deported to the east, men on one side, women on the other side, and that they would have to build roads; that, of course, they will have to suffer and that there will be a natural diminution of the births because men are on one side and women on the other side; and that at the end ‑‑ and this is very important. At the end, we shall have the best of the Jews and "upon release" ‑‑ those two words are very often omitted ‑‑ upon release, those people would be the germinative cell of the Jewish renaissance.
Q. What is the German word that they used in terms of that?
A. Auftbau, even the genitive, which is quite a Zionist idea. It was not at all an extermination. This is an example which tends to show that you have to read very carefully and not omit any word.
Q. In the course of analyzing the Wannsee Protocol, did you publish the results of your analysis?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that indicated in the list of publications?
A. There may be something about Wannsee; I think there is something about Wannsee.
Q. Did you publish that in the ‑‑
A. In the Journal of Historical Review?
Q. Yes.
A. Most probably.
Q. That appears on page 7. That is where the articles in the Journal of Historical Review begin.
A. Perhaps it is in the French list. Anyway, I published it.
Q. Was this a demonstration of the method that you use to analyze documents to determine their meaning?
A. Yes.
Q. In the course of that, was it your business to determine authenticity?
A. No, no question of authenticity.
Q. You don't analyze documents from that perspective?
A. I may do so, but not in that case. I took it as it was given to me, in the same way I analyzed the transcript of the Eichmann trials, the transcripts of so many trials.
Q. How many trials have you analyzed in that way?
A. I cannot tell you.
Q. Are you familiar with the NMT, the Nuremberg Military Tribunal?
A. Yes.
Q. That is not the IMT, is it?
A. It is not the IMT. The IMT is the International Military Tribunal; NMT is the Nuremberg Military Tribunal. In fact, it is 12 trials conducted by the Americans. It was not like in Nuremberg, in French, English, Russian. I had to read carefully not only the transcripts, but the documents, and to compare sometimes the change between the document itself and the document as quoted by the American prosecutors.
Q. And you did that over what period of time?
A. I am doing it every year. Constantly I go back to the Nuremberg trials. It is essential.
Q. What qualities do you use to analyze a document when you look at it? What aspects or qualities do you look for?
A. I try to understand them word by word. If they are in English or in German or in French, I have to compare, of course. If I am quoting in an article ‑‑ let's take an example.
If I am quoting a German saying this or that at the Nuremberg trials, I am not going to put in his mouth English words, although the translation is official; it is supposed to be true. I am going to the German version.
If it is an American prosecutor, I am going to the American version. If it is a French witness or prosecutor, I am going to the French version.
Q. In regard to your publications which followed your "Critique of texts", after April 12, 1978 you published an article in Le Monde. Is that correct?
A. Yes, an article in November 1978, I think.
Q. It says here April 12, 1978.
A. There may be one first; that is possible. The most important one was in November 1978 ‑‑ in December 1978, excuse me, and in January 1979. I can give you the precise dates: 29 of December, 1978 and, I think, 16 January, 1979.
Q. What were these articles? Were they letters to the editor or what?
A. No, articles as such.
Q. They were published by Le Monde at your request, or did they request the articles?
A. No, at my request. I had sent many, many letters to the journal, Le Monde, about a certain topic and I wanted it to be published. Finally, they published something of mine.
Q. In the course of your research, have you attended various concentration camps?
A. Yes.
Q. What camps have you attended?
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am not sure of the relevance of this.
MR. FREIMAN: Of what possible significance is this as a document analyst?
MR. CHRISTIE: I said at the outset that this witness would be tendered as an expert in text and document analysis with a background and experience and special training in the area of Holocaust history. That is relevant to show in context the remarks of Mr. Prideaux. He will be dealing with Mr. Prideaux' analysis.
My intention is to qualify him in this area as an expert in the subject of the Holocaust from extensive study and experience and analysis, to be able to comment on the context in which the Prideaux analysis is in error. That may involve some of the premises that Mr. Prideaux has expressed and would entitle the witness, hopefully, to say what in his opinion is correct and what is incorrect in the assertions of Prideaux. Of course, Prideaux makes remarks about the truth or falsity of some of the remarks ‑‑
MR. ROSEN: Could we have the witness excused, please?
MR. CHRISTIE: Just a minute. Before that happens automatically, let me say that in order to focus the witness' evidence in the area of his expertise, it might be helpful to allow him to know what I am trying to do. He is, after all, an expert we are seeking to qualify in a specific area.
As we progress in the process of eliminating experts, we have to tailor our experts to the remaining territory allowed to us. That may not be clearly understood by the expert at the outset. Unfortunately, we did not know when Dr. Faurisson wrote his curriculum vitae and statement of intended evidence whether he would be qualified or in what area he would be allowed to express opinion.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me suggest this. What we are dealing with is the principles that you seek to elicit from him in terms of the expertise that you hope to establish through the evidence.
One of the principles, it seems, is that in analyzing a text he visits the site. He went to Amsterdam, and now you ask him whether he visited the camps.
Can we not just establish, if it is not already established, that one of the principles in his analysis is that he tends to visit sites of these places. Whatever relevance that might have in the final analysis remains to be seen.
MR. FREIMAN: If that were all that Mr. Christie is trying to do ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: Let's not attribute to me any evil motives ‑‑ attempting to do. I am just attempting to do what I think I am entitled to do. If there is an objection, I would like to deal with one at a time. We have outstanding Mr. Rosen's objection and now we have a new one. Really, it is getting a little difficult.
MR. FREIMAN: I am asking that the witness be excused because there are matters that go right to the substance of his testimony.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, would you please step outside.
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
MR. FREIMAN: As to the nature of the objection, I think I am merely developing what Mr. Rosen quite properly observed. We are now getting into something totally different.
Mr. Christie has candidly and, I guess, fairly stated that he wants to go beyond merely qualifying Mr. Faurisson as an expert in document analysis. He wishes to lay a groundwork which will allow the witness to criticize what he characterizes as historical underpinnings to Dr. Prideaux' conclusions. The reality is that those are imaginary historical contexts, but so it goes.
There is an objection to now going beyond that. It is clear now that it is no longer simply a question of document analysis. He is trying to qualify an expert in the truth about the Holocaust, the very issue that this Tribunal has on numerous occasions indicated is not an area that the Tribunal needs to consider, not an area that is raised by any matter in issue before it. This is only one of a number of circuitous ways that the Respondent has been trying to get around that very clear ruling.
MR. ROSEN: That is basically what I was going to say.
Mr. Christie is attempting to raise the issue not only during qualification but under the guise of expertise to challenge the truth of the historical event referred to as the Holocaust. This is not as it was before His Honour Judge Thomas where he took judicial notice of that historical fact, where the issue was the truth of the statements made in the article, "Did Six Million Really Die?" and he permitted expert evidence on the details to determine truth or not.
This is what Mr. Christie wishes to do under the so-called analysis that this witness says he does of texts and documents ‑‑ to say, "First I look at the words; then I look at the context." The context is that the Holocaust never happened; that there was no extermination policy; that there were no gas chambers, and so on. Therefore, when you go to the Zundel documents, there is no discrimination. That is the chain of reasoning I see developing.
In my respectful submission, there are only two ways to handle that. One is to cut it off at this point because it is not relevant given your previous ruling. The second is to do what I suppose Mr. Christie wishes ultimately to do, and that is to come face to face with the issue of how far you allow this evidence to go and whether you take judicial notice of that historical fact.
MR. KURZ: The area of Mr. Faurisson's expertise, as it were, is very little different from that of Mr. Weber whom you have already ruled on on many of the same points that Mr. Christie wishes to elicit, other than the text analysis part of it and what is described as his methodology.
What Mr. Christie is doing is trying, in effect, to do what he could not do with Mr. Weber by labelling the "historical" aspect of his evidence under the rubric of text analysis. The evidence that he is trying to bring is the same evidence that he tried to bring through Mr. Weber and on which you have already ruled about the propriety of doing it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Christie, please.
MR. CHRISTIE: There is nothing particularly coherent about the various objections raised by all three typically obtuse Intervenants and party to this proceeding. I can't make a great deal of sense out of it, except that they don't like anything that approaches the subject of the Holocaust being raised.
Although the writings in evidence that are the subject of the complaint deal with the issue of the Holocaust, nothing that attributes any knowledge, skill or training to that subject can be allowed to be raised, for some strange reason.
It is, in my submission, not inappropriate to have persons with special training, skill and knowledge in the area of the subject matter of the item being condemned or being attacked by the Complainants to show that in the historical context of debate they are (1) serious, (2) careful, (3) methodical and give rational analysis of the subject. If they, in the course of their opinion, are able to express the view that the contents of the Zundelsite are part of an ongoing historical debate, it is essential to prove that this is not a chimerical debate, such as Dr. Schweitzer said it was.
If Dr. Schweitzer's opinion can stand that it is chimerical ‑‑ and, of course, it was allowed to stand ‑‑ why is it impossible for someone who has developed through careful analysis rational explanation, diligent research, a process of understanding that this is not a chimerical debate, that there is a real debate, that it has genuine substance?
I can well understand why none of the parties opposite would like that to be possible, but I don't think your ruling has gone so far in its determination that truth is irrelevant to make it impossible to say that a rational analysis of the Holocaust subject is not possible in the real world, that it is inherently chimerical simply because Dr. Schweitzer says it is. Dr. Schweitzer hadn't the foggiest clue about anything to do with Holocaust revisionism and, of course, would not have deigned to besmirch his impeccable record with the slightest consideration of it, being, as he was, above and beyond any rational consideration of the subject, having formed what he very clearly did, an a priori opinion that it was thoroughly and completely chimerical, which I understood to mean illusory, imaginary, unrealistic, totally unrelated to reality
‑‑ chimerical.
In the course of qualifying this witness who does text and document analysis in a careful manner, who has in the course of his study gone to the places to determine, to the best of his knowledge ‑‑ and he can be cross-examined on that ‑‑ the degree to which his comprehension of documents is confirmed by real, concrete things in this world, it would tend to show that he is (a) credible, (b) careful and (c) rational.
It should not be impossible to display in the process of qualifying a witness that he has made those inquiries and done those things which a rational human being would be expected to do in reaching whatever conclusions he does. The opposing parties would very much like to have him speak about French poetry and then they could ridicule him and toss him aside like they did Mr. Jacob. Then they could show, or pretend to show, that he has absolutely no conception of reality, that he is a phony expert. I can almost hear the echoes of their sarcastic attack which I am sure will be not too far away.
They would not want it to be known that this phony that they will attack has done more research and knows a great deal more than they would ever hope to find in the remaining years of their lives about the subject which they will ridicule him about. Naturally, they want to cut the inquiry short. They want to stop us from asking the simple question: What have you done in your research?
If they would undertake not to attack his credibility as a result, then go ahead and cut off the question. Then, the issue of credibility not being relevant, one could never say that it should be proven. I suspect, as my learned friend Mr. Freiman said, that everything will be attacked and everything is in issue, including, of course, credibility, honesty, integrity, rationality and anything that approaches intelligent analysis. All will be attacked.
Now they tell you that I should not be allowed to ask him what camps he has gone to, because that might involve something to do with truth. It had never got to that point at this point, and probably never will. That, of course, they hope. That, of course, you have assured them and that, of course, I have not contradicted here. I am simply endeavouring to show that this witness has done careful, systematic, rational analysis of a very emotional topic.
In qualifying an expert, it is inherently necessary to show the basis of his research. To be candid, Mr. Freiman and others have no right to prevent the full exposition of the processes of his research, and that is all I am endeavouring to do. Eventually, he should be entitled to show that there is a genuine, legitimate, realistic, rational debate in this world between people who are not insane, who are not committed, hard-core Nazis, who are not politically fanatical about the subject of the Holocaust. It might come as a surprise to some of my learned friends that even those who are advocates and full-fledged historical promoters of the Holocaust have changed their position.
If Dr. Faurisson, after careful research ‑‑ and if I can reveal that research ‑‑ could show you that indeed there have been developments in the historical theory of the Holocaust that make it a realistic, ongoing debate, not a chimerical debate, not an extension of antisemitism, but a real debate for the benefit of Jews, for the benefit of everyone
‑‑ not that truth has any relevance here, but that truth may be productive in the abstract in a historical debate, not exposing Jews to hatred and contempt, but promoting understanding, tolerance and goodwill between Jews and Gentiles; that even the most sacred issues of Jewish history can be debated and discussed rationally, coherently and respectfully. Sometimes that debate might not be as pure as it should be, but that does not change the character of it nor does it change the effect of it.
If it is a real ongoing historical debate, the effect of it, I could suggest, would be not that which is caught by section 13(1). It might be essentially the answer to a defamation, which produces greater tolerance and understanding and not those qualities that are prohibited by section 13(1).
That is the best I can do to explain why I want to ask the witness the basis of his research. I thank you very much.
If I have not addressed the specific complaints of the various Intervenants and party to this proceeding, it is simply because I cannot exactly comprehend, other than the strategic objective, why they would refuse to allow me to ask the simple question about this witness' research involved in the subjects that he has published on. He has published extensively on subjects related to the Holocaust.
His credibility is in issue, and surely, even if that were the only reason ‑‑ and I suggest that there is more reason than that. If that were the only reason, it would be a legitimate reason to raise with you and with all parties the factual basis of his research. To what extent is he serious, careful, honest and inquiring? Is he just a fanatic? Without explaining the basis of his research, the opposite parties will be able to say, without any contradiction, "Look, he is not a serious man. He just has fanatical beliefs." That would be much easier for them than if he could explain what he has done to research, what he has done to inquire, what he has done to find out why he believes what he believes. He might even have a reason. Heavens, we wouldn't want that to be revealed!
Frankly, if these proceedings are to have the slightest degree of impartiality, the same rules should apply to both sides. Dr. Schweitzer's views of chimerical history have far less basis in any form of empirical research than what I could inquire of this witness. He could demonstrate, if I am allowed to ask the simple question, "What have you done to find out the facts that you think exist? What have you done to research the question you have spent so much time writing about?" That is what I am trying to do.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fromm, do you wish to comment?
We will take our morning recess.
‑‑- Short Recess at 11:28 a.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 11:46 a.m.
THE CHAIRPERSON: The process we are engaged in is hearing of evidence in support of the expertise of this witness. In our view, what is relevant there is evidence as to his formal qualifications, qualifications that may emerge from his own studies and experience.
In that regard, he has been tendered as an expert in analysis of text and documents. As I understood, that was the primary focus of what he intended to give evidence on if he is qualified.
In dealing with this evidence, however, I am suggesting, Mr. Christie, that you should question the witness about his experience and the principles upon which he conducts his analysis of text and documents and not go into the detail of his conclusions about certain matters.
We have heard that, as a matter of principle, part of his methodology is to visit the site. We have heard that. To the extent that it needs repetition, I would suggest that it would only be justified on some clear and rational purpose.
Let us proceed. The witness should observe that his answers should be responsive only to the question, with not a lot of digression.
Mr. Freiman, please.
MR. FREIMAN: Before we proceed, this is probably another instance of locking the barn door after the horse is long gone.
I am somewhat disturbed even by the Tribunal's direction to the witness when he asked to have a conference with Mr. Christie, suggesting that during the break it would be appropriate for them to confer.
My understanding of the rule is that, in principle, it is better not to have contact once a witness has begun to give evidence. If contact is necessary, it has to strictly avoid any topic about which the witness has already given evidence.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps I have not made that clear enough. I have visited that issue many times in my own experience. That issue, as a matter of law, seems quite clear. The witness is yours until he is under cross-examination. Consultation is permitted within ethical rules during examination-in-chief, as I understand it. That is my appreciation of the law, and I have had occasion to argue that at an appeal on more than one occasion.
I understand that it is inappropriate to consult with a witness for the purpose of repairing something that was said, but you can consult with the witness. For example, we have suggested how this evidence should be dealt with. If the witness needs some clarification, he can consult with the lawyer who has called him.
I am mindful of the fact, as well, that we are dealing with an expert witness.
I appreciate what you say, Mr. Freiman, but that is my understanding of the appropriate procedure to follow.
I might say in passing, Mr. Christie, that we did make a ruling last June, and it does not serve anyone's purpose to say anything that might reflect on the integrity of that ruling. The remedy for that ruling does not lie before us, but someone else.
‑‑- Witness returns to the stand
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. When did your study of text and documents first take you into the realm of questioning issues with regard to the Holocaust?
A. In 1960.
Q. Why?
A. Because I read in a German newspaper called "Die Zeit" on the 19th of August, 1960 that finally, according to historian Martin Broszat, there were in fact no gas chambers either in Dachau or in Bergen-Belsen or in Buchenwald.
Q. Have you been studying in the area of the Holocaust since?
A. Yes. I did stop. I worked only on the Holocaust, or nearly only on the Holocaust, since 1974, which means that I was interested in the topic from 1960 to 1974. I made some research, but I had something else to do. From 1974 I could say that most of my time was dedicated to this ‑‑ I say "most."
Q. In the course of your studies, what has that to do with text and document analysis in respect of the study of the Holocaust?
A. It had to do with text, with documents and, therefore, with analysis of text and documents.
Q. In the course of your inquiries of text and documents, your practice apparently was to go to the site referred to in the document and look over the site.
A. This was one part of my research.
Q. In carrying out that research, did you go to Auschwitz?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Auschwitz-Birkenau?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How many times?
A. In 1975 and in 1976.
Q. Are there libraries there?
A. Yes, archives.
Q. Did you study texts and documents from those archives?
A. Yes, I did. I can give the name of the man in charge of the archives.
I found some documents that I was the first to publish. No historian had published those documents. It is extremely important that they are presently published, especially about the crematories.
Q. What were those documents?
A. The plans, different plans of the crematories in Auschwitz and in Birkenau. I was interested in essentially one question: Where are those gas chambers?
Q. So you looked at the plans, and that was the process you used.
A. Yes.
Q. Have you studied in various archives to compare texts and documents?
A. Many, many archives.
Q. Give the Panel an idea of how many and over what period of time.
A. I worked for years and years in the Centre of Jewish Documentation in Paris. I would say the first time I went into the place was in 1964, and for the last time in January 1977. I was chased from those archives.
Q. How often had you studied there?
A. I would say I was the principal reader; I was constantly in this centre, very, very often. I did not meet in this place someone coming back to this place as many times as I did.
Q. How about the archives in Washington, D.C.?
A. Of course, I worked first in the Library of Congress, then in the archives in Washington, D.C. and in the archives in Suitland, Maryland.
Q. What are those archives?
A. They depend from the National Archives in Washington.
Q. They depend?
A. They depend, yes. It is a dependent of.
Q. A subsidiary?
A. I would not say subsidiary; it's a section.
Q. What are those archives about that you studied?
A. World War II, all the part under the responsibility of Dr. Robert Wolfe whom I knew personally.
Q. How many texts and documents did you study in that archives?
A. Thousands, either myself directly or, when back in France, through some American people whom I asked to visit the place and to get for me such and such documents.
Q. Other than the archives in Washington, D.C. and Suitland, Maryland, have you studied in other archives?
A. Many others.
Q. Can you name them, please?
A. Yes. Federal Archives in Germany, in Koblas; in the Wiener Library in London; in the War Imperial Museum in London.
Q. How many documents did you see and analyze in that place?
A. A few documents in those places ‑‑ excuse me. In Germany many, but in the Imperial War Museum few of them. In the Wiener Library, a few.
Q. Anywhere else?
A. Of course, in Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris. I saw documents in the Anne Frank Museum, of course, and I got many documents from many other places through people who helped me with providing all this.
Q. Have you been interviewed on the subjects of your texts and documents research by various media?
A. I have been interviewed, yes, but not very often.
Q. Have you published about the Holocaust and the text and documents analysis you have done?
A. Yes.
Q. In your curriculum vitae you were looking for something about the Wannsee Protocol. Did you find it?
A. Yes, I did. It is on page 6, two articles. The third one from the top is: Three French judges are tampering with the Wannsee Protocol, procès verbal.
Q. Verbal process is what?
A. It means protocol.
Q. And the next article about it...?
A. The next one is three articles after: "Wannsee: Une histoire inepte", Wannsee: A Silly Story. I am going to give the exact reference; it happens that I remember.
"The silly story of Wannsee" was said by Mr. Yehuda Bauer of Yad Vashem, a very famous Jewish historian, totally against the revisionist people. This was said in the Canadian Jewish News on, I think, the 30th of January, 1992: "People go repeating the silly story of Wannsee." In other words, they are still saying that in Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was decided. Those words are not mine.
Q. How did this relate to your own text and documents analysis of the Wannsee Protocol? Did it confirm it; did it deny it; what did it do?
A. It confirmed totally.
Q. When did you first come to the conclusion that the Wannsee Protocol did not verify a policy of extermination?
A. I suppose at the beginning of the 1980s.
Q. When was the comment made by Yehuda Bauer?
A. In 1992. I could give many other examples of things that I have found and which were confirmed. For years and years it was said that I was a falsifier. I had to wait, and then those people came down saying, "Faurisson was right." I can give names and precise references about figures, about facts, and so on.
Q. Did this knowledge come to you through text and document analysis?
A. Yes, by reading precisely. I want to give examples.
Q. Try. Just give one example, and don't give any more. See if you can get away with one.
A. I would like to give two examples.
Q. Just give one.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Your own lawyer says only one, so I am going to allow you one.
MR. CHRISTIE: I am not his lawyer.
THE WITNESS: I am going to give one example.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We have a consensus that you are going to give one.
MR. CHRISTIE: The reason being that we are short of time.
THE WITNESS: "Consensus" is a very interesting word. I would like to use it for something else about Mr. Hilberg. I am going to give one example of Faurisson being a falsifier.
In 1975, when I went to the archives in the Auschwitz Museum, I saw Mr. Iwaszko. I could find, as I told you, the plans of the places supposed to have been gas chambers either in Auschwitz I or in Auschwitz-Birkenau. My conclusion ‑‑ and I am not going into detail ‑‑ is that those places were mortuaries in Auschwitz I and in Birkenau.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Did you come to that conclusion as a result of text and document analysis?
A. Yes. The German words were there, and I am going to give you the two German words. For Auschwitz I it was Leichenhalle. "Leichen" means corpse, cadaver. It is the place near the ovens where you put the bodies, bodies of inmates, bodies of Germans, and so on. The other word for Birkenau was Liechenkeller, which means a mortuary which was built partly under the ground.
Q. What did you do then in your analysis of that document?
A. First I said, "Maybe the Germans are lying; that is possible." According to the Germans, it was a mortuary. What we have to check is: Who is lying in this story? The one saying that it is a mortuary or the one saying it is a gas chamber to kill people?
This is how I made quite an investigation which was scientific. Among the places that I visited you have the Central Laboratory of the Police in Paris where I asked to see specialists of explosions, fire and gas. I can give the name of the specialist of the gas.
Having those documents and with this question, I saw very easily the problem. It could never have been a gas chamber. I forgot to say that I went to the United States to visit a gas chamber. It was in Baltimore.
This is what I found. This is what I wrote so many times, and I was treated as a falsifier. Then suddenly in January 1995 a French historian called Eric Conan wrote a very long article, the title being "Auschwitz: The Memory Evil." On page 68 he said: At the end of the 1970s Faurisson was saying that it was a fake, this gas chamber visited by millions of people, 500,000 a year. We have to say that everything in it is false, and he gives the details of what is false that I had seen.
This historian, this journalist at the same time, went to see a woman of the Auschwitz Museum; her name is Odetski.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you still giving us an example?
THE WITNESS: Yes. The example is that they said that I was right. I had been treated as a falsifier. I had done my text and document analysis‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Later they agreed with you.
THE WITNESS: They agreed with me ‑‑ and I am not finished this. This lady said, "We are keeping the place as it is. It would be too difficult to warn the visitors that it is not true, so we keep it as it is," which means, "Excuse me, we have lied; we are lying, and we are going to continue to lie."
THE CHAIRPERSON: Next question.
THE WITNESS: This is what the falsifier Faurisson discovered.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We have heard your evidence on that.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Why have you been so interested in the gas chambers for so long?
A. Because for me it is not a detail; it is essential.
Q. When you say "detail," did somebody say it was a detail?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. Jean-Marie Lepine said something that actually many, many Jewish people told me when they said, "Gas chamber or not, what is the importance of it?" I consider that it is very important. I could say why, but I am going to be very prudent.
Q. Be prudent, because it won't be allowed.
A. Probably.
Q. Have you been interested in this for a very long time as an issue of documentary analysis?
A. Yes. It is my interest in life. It is to be precise, to be accurate. It is to try not to lie, not to deceive and not to defame. By lying you are defaming. May I take an example?
Q. No, no.
A. Not a revisionist example; the contrary, Mr. Pensa.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Next question, please.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Are you familiar with what effect revisionism has had in France?
A. I was told so many times that revisionism ‑‑
Q. Listen to the question. Are you familiar with what effect Holocaust revisionism has had in France?
A. Yes.
Q. Why are you familiar with that?
A. Because I have been following year after year the development of the revisionist idea in France and the reaction of different people.
Q. So you are familiar with that.
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Have you studied and kept track of the various views expressed by Jewish leaders on the subject of Holocaust revisionism?
A. Yes, surely.
Q. What effect has your revisionist writing and text and documents analysis and publications had on you?
A. I broke my career, my life.
Q. Anything else?
A. Perhaps the life of my family.
Q. That is the only effect then, on your career?
A. Career is one thing.
Q. Anything else?
A. Some things, yes.
Q. What?
A. Personal life.
Q. Are you a Nazi sympathizer or a Nazi?
A. No.
Q. Are you a sympathizer with Ernst Zundel?
A. Yes, very much.
Q. Why?
A. He is my friend, my dearest friend.
Q. Why is that?
A. I find him a very remarkable man. I have met many, many people in my life in many, many countries.
Q. What about Ernst Zundel do you sympathize with?
A. I sympathize with a man who is absolutely not a man of hatred. It is exactly the contrary. We spite him for his ideas; perhaps I do not share his ideas because I am not clever at all in politics. Anyone is entitled to have his own views in political matters. He is not a man interested in money. He is not a man interested in fame. He is an excellent fighter and a man of very big intelligence, I must say.
Q. If you are able to give an analysis of the opinions of Dr. Prideaux, what method of analysis would you use?
A. I would follow what he wrote line by line, word by word. As it would be too long, I would try to take some examples of his way of working.
Q. We won't get into what you have concluded about that, but that would be the process that you would seek to use.
A. Yes.
Q. Have you endeavoured to look at the document known as HR-2 and made an analysis of it?
A. No. I have skimmed through it. It happens, as I receive something which is called "Power", I already read this material some time ago, or some issues.
Q. Have you looked at those parts of HR-2 that are in the Prideaux opinion?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you analyzed them in detail?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have conclusions about the opinion of Dr. Prideaux respecting those passages, do you?
A. Yes. I forgot to say something; is it possible?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Wait for the next question.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. If it was in relation to that question, I don't object if you want to proceed to give the answer.
A. It was about the places that I visited. I thought of one very important one.
Q. In view of the fact that I did ask you that, you might tell us that.
A. The Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Q. In...? Where is it?
A. In Washington, D.C.
Q. When?
A. In 1994. First I had been in April 1993 at the opening of the Holocaust Museum. Then I visited the place in 1994, and I insisted on visiting Mr. Berenbaum.
Q. That is Rabbi Berenbaum?
A. Rabbi Berenbaum who was in charge at that time ‑‑
Q. You had a conversation with him; is that correct?
A. Yes, in his office.
Q. I don't think we had better go into that.
A. I went to the Center of Research attached to the museum, where you have computers and so on to do your research.
Q. In the course of your inquiry, have you any opinions about the importance of truth in historical revisionism? I am not asking you what those opinions are, but do you have opinions on that subject?
A. It could only be true, but I prefer to call it exactitude. Everyone thinks that he has the truth on his side. The question for me is: Is it exact or not?
Q. What you mean by truth is exactitude.
A. Exactitude. Can you prove what you say existed, especially when it is a very serious accusation? Can you prove it? Bring me the proof, and we are going to see them together.
Q. What is your objective when you say "we are going to see them together?" To do what?
A. For a discussion. I may be wrong, so I say to those people ‑‑ Vidal-Naquet, Pressac, Raul Hilberg especially ‑‑ "We should sit at the same table and we should have a conversation."
This happened at least once in 1979 in Lugano, Switzerland where I had in front of me one of the best German specialists of the Holocaust, an Italian historian, a specialist in Naziism, an inmate, a woman from Ravensburg, and a woman from Auschwitz, a Jewess. This was filmed for, I think I remember, two hours and 50 minutes. They did not know that I was coming.
Q. Is there a common denominator to all the articles that you have written?
A. Either in literature or in history?
Q. Yes.
A. I try to understand; I try to be exact. I don't say that I succeed every time, but at least I try. I don't like people who say, "You mustn't try to understand." Even in French literature, many people say, "Don't try to understand." I try to understand.
May I add something about that?
THE CHAIRPERSON: You haven't been asked a question. Just wait a moment, please.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. How many articles have you written between 1974 and 1998, if you have any idea?
A. I don't know how many. What I know is that I am going to publish a book of 2,200 pages, four volumes, the title being "Revisionist Writings, 1974-1998" in French, of course. I think it is a choice of something like 400 articles, essays and so on, going from one page to 60 pages.
I have no right to publish it in France.
MR. CHRISTIE: Those are my questions. Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fromm, please.
MR. CHRISTIE: I got a note from Mr. Fromm during my examination, and I would like to give it back to him; perhaps he can ask the question.
CROSS-EXAMINATION RE QUALIFICATIONS
MR. FROMM:
Q. Dr. Faurisson, some time ago Chairman Pensa asked you whether you were fluent in German, and I think the answer was somewhat inconclusive. If I put to you, "Parlez-vous allemand courant?" could you answer that?
A. Yes. As poor as my English.
Q. Speaking of English, in your biography attached to the document, "Is the Diary of Anne Frank genuine?" we read the following:
"Dr. Robert Faurisson was born in Shepperton near London in 1929 to a French father and a Scottish mother."
At what point in your life did you acquire your ability to speak English?
A. I spoke English only at the beginning of my life. When I was in Singapore, I was five years old; in Kobe, Japan I was in an American school when I was six and seven, and then I got back to France. That is why my English is so bad.
Q. In your curriculum vitae you indicate that in 1950 you received your Licence classique d'enseignement. To get that you had studied French literature, Latin and Greek.
In the course of your studies of Latin and Greek, did you do any work in rhetoric?
A. Grammar, not rhetoric.
Q. In the list of your publications, especially some of the earlier ones, there are, I take it, journals such as L'Information Littéraire and Les Nouvelles Littéraires. Are these what we call peer-reviewed journals?
A. What is the name?
Q. Peer-reviewed.
A. Peer...?
Q. I am told that, before you would be published, it is subject to jugement des collègues.
A. In the case only of L'Information Littéraire, not Les Nouvelles Littéraire.
Q. In one of your writings ‑‑ and I am afraid I don't have a note of which one ‑‑ you refer to the Ajax method of analysis. Could you explain that to us.
A. My students used to say that my method was the Ajax method, which is a kind of joke. It means that ‑‑ it is difficult to say it in English. You have to, in a way, rub the text and make it shine. I am going to give an example of the methode Ajax.
In France, in every college, you have to have in every classroom what we call a cahier du texte in which the professor puts the questions that he is asking to his pupils. For instance, if you are supposed to study one text of, let's say, La Fontaine or Ronsard, the professor, in order to help the pupils to really study the matter, asks two or three and sometimes four questions. We have what we call inspectors. They come into the classroom once a year. When they used to come in my classroom, they would ask immediately for this textbook. They would open it and they would see that Faurisson was not asking even one question.
Faurisson was asking questions at the beginning of his career, but I realized that this is pedagogy. If ever you put questions to the pupils ‑‑ I mean the good ones ‑‑ they are going to try to answer very well your question and they are not going to give enough attention to the text that they are supposed to study.
I said to my pupils in September every year, "You must know something. From the beginning of this year to the end of this year, my question will be always the same. I am going to express it once, not twice. Listen. What does it say?"
Q. And it refers to...?
A. Such and such a text. The inspector could see ‑‑ it was very bad for me, but I had the courage not to put those questions. I would ask a pupil to come to my desk, and I wouldn't say even one word because he knew that the question was: What does it say? Even if it is poetry, theatre, a novel or whatever, this was my method ‑‑ and no right to mention the name of the author or the title.
Q. In the term Ajax method, what did "Ajax" refer to?
A. It's a kind of product to ‑‑
Q. A cleaner?
A. A cleaner, yes.
Q. In your writings, you refer to the story of the golden tooth as being an important object lesson in textual criticism. Could you explain that, please.
A. I mentioned it several times and I made a long comment in the preface of a book by a man called Pierre Marais. The title is "The Myth of the Gas Vans."
In this preface I mentioned the story of the golden tooth, which is a real story by a man called Fontenelle. This is the story.
At the end of the 16th century there was in Silesga, which is the place of Auschwitz, a rumour that a boy of six or seven years old had suddenly a golden tooth. It was a miracle. At least three German professors made books about the golden tooth, and their conclusion was that it was half natural, half miraculous, and so on.
One day a goldsmith came and looked at it, and it was, in fact, something of a fake. As Fontenelle said very well, they began by writing books and then they went to see the tooth.
This is a lesson. What is so difficult in analysis of documents and analysis of anything is to begin at the beginning. People know that they should begin at the beginning in theory, in principle, but in fact they do not do it because it is too direct.
MR. FROMM: Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Freiman, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION RE QUALIFICATIONS
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Dr. Faurisson, before we start, I just noted that in your discussion with Mr. Christie about your familiarity with the documents in HR-2 ‑‑ and you know what I am referring to when I say HR-2?
A. Yes.
Q. You said that you were familiar with them, but that you really didn't have to look at them too closely because you receive something called "Power." Can you explain to us what "Power" is?
A. "Power" is a publication, a mimeograph.
Q. Is this the Power Letters that Mr. Zundel sends out?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were able to identify the content of HR-2 on the basis of your familiarity with Mr. Zundel's Power Letters. Correct?
A. I don't understand your question, sorry.
Q. You were able to identify documents in HR-2 on the basis of your familiarity with Mr. Zundel's Power Letters.
A. I saw that the texts were entitled "Power" and, as I skimmed through this book only, I recognized the title of what I was receiving at home.
Q. Just before we start on more serious issues, can you tell the Tribunal which ideas of your dear friend Ernst Zundel you disagree with?
A. I do not disagree with any idea of Ernst Zundel. He has his ideas about politics, about also things like food. He has some ideas about that. I cannot say I have been into those matters, and really I cannot discuss those matters.
Q. So when you said that you don't agree with some of the ideas of your dear friend Ernst Zundel, you were referring to his dietary ideas?
A. No, no, not at all. I said I might not agree or I do not agree; that is possible. It is a field of ideas in which I have no competence.
Q. In terms of the ideas in which you do have competence and the ideas that you are aware of, you don't disagree with anything that you have read by Ernst Zundel.
A. I do not disagree with his revisionism; that's all.
Q. In a few minutes maybe we will see what that means. Let me go over what I wrote down.
You said that your goal is not to lie. Correct?
A. Right.
Q. Not to deceive. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And not to defame.
A. And not to defame, yes.
Q. Let's see for a minute how that works itself out.
We have had put into evidence a curriculum vitae, and you have been looking at this for the last couple of days. Who put this together?
A. You mean the curriculum vitae?
Q. Yes. Did you?
A. This was done by ‑‑ I sent by fax a draft, and I said, "Put it in good English," and that's it.
Q. You have a concern about your English?
A. What?
Q. You have a concern about your English?
A. I think my English is not as good as it should be; that's all.
Q. Are you satisfied with the curriculum vitae as it was prepared? Is it accurate?
A. It seems to be accurate, yes.
Q. It seems to be accurate? Have you looked over this curriculum vitae?
A. Yes, I have seen it.
Q. It is correct?
A. I think so.
Q. You stand by it?
A. Yes.
Q. This is the history of Robert Faurisson?
A. Yes.
Q. So, Mr. Faurisson, a-t-on lu Faurisson?
A. Yes.
Q. Carefully?
A. Yes.
Q. And you are willing to subject this to the same critical scrutiny that you use?
A. Yes.
Q. Maybe you can explain something to me. You say that in 1995 you retired.
A. Yes.
Q. Retired from what?
A. From the fact that I was a professor.
Q. You had your tenure revoked in 1990.
A. Yes.
Q. You hadn't taught for years before that.
A. No. I had still my salary.
Q. So you were being paid even though you were not working.
A. Yes. I was not teaching, which doesn't mean that I was not working. A professor has at least two things to do. It is to teach and make research.
Q. You are still making research, aren't you?
A. Still, yes.
Q. Let's look at your publications for a moment. The first one, is that a book, "A-t-on lu Rimbaud?"
A. Yes.
Q. And it was published by La Vieille Taupe in 1961?
A. No. The beginning is 1961, and the second edition is ‑‑ I don't remember; perhaps in 1988.
Q. In fact, sir, is it not true that this is an article rather than a book?
A. No, I wouldn't say that. In fact, it is not only this; in fact, it is a book of, I think, 240 pages.
Q. So the essay called "A-t-on lu Rimbaud" is only a few pages long.
A. No, I shouldn't say that. It might be the half of it. Anyway ‑‑
Q. Is it not the case that it was first published in a magazine called "Bizarre"?
A. It was published in 1961.
Q. In a magazine called "Bizarre."
A. Yes.
Q. And it was 120 pages in a magazine?
A. No, I wouldn't say that. It was a magazine like this and very, very tight.
Q. What is "Bizarre?"
A. "Bizarre" was published by Jean-Jacques Beauvert who is a man who promoted books which could be subjects of dispute, of controversy. He would like to have those kinds of controversies. He knew, of course, right at the beginning that there would be an affaire Rimbaud, and there was an affaire Rimbaud.
Q. Why was there an affaire Rimbaud about your reading of a teenage French poet?
A. Why was there an affaire?
Q. Yes.
A. Because it was totally new.
Q. When something is totally new, it turns into an affaire?
A. No. Precisely what is interesting is that, first, being totally new, then there was an affaire. You can have something quite new and no affaire.
Q. I take it that it was very scandalous because you weren't willing to publish your name as the author of the text.
A. I think I explained this. I said that the first time I put my initials, and I am going to tell you why.
Q. I am sure you are.
A. Because I was teaching in a Lycée of young girls. You have my answer.
Q. So you started your career with a scandalous revelation about Rimbaud.
A. Wait a minute. What I discovered in Rimbaud is that he was quite logical. The fact that those texts were erotic is something else; it's a consequence. Of course, some people were interested by the erotic side; other people were interested by the fact that Rimbaud was revealed as someone totally logical.
Q. And you continued with scandalous revelations about Lautréamont?
A. I wouldn't say scandalous, no. It was new, and there was an affaire Lautréamont also.
Q. Wherever you go, controversy follows.
A. No. You have quite a list of things that I have written with no what you call scandal. Why do you call this scandal? This is an appreciation that anyone could contest. You could say "controversy."
Q. Wherever you go, controversy follows.
A. No. I told you not everything ‑‑ I have so many things that I wrote, and there was no controversy.
Q. There were plenty of things that were controversial, like your work on Céline that you didn't want to speak about.
A. I wouldn't say ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: Excuse me, I have an objection.
This is a witness who has acknowledged some difficulty with the English language. He is fairly fluent, but has some difficulty. My friend, who is a very clever cross-examiner, puts into the question two or three suppositions, and it is quite misleading. It is quite obviously a process whereby you introduce into the question a presupposition which is not necessarily directed to the question. When the witness doesn't perceive that, it causes a result which, in my submission, is a distortion.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Put the question again, please.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Your work on Céline, which you didn't want to speak about, caused controversy.
A. I didn't want to talk about it as with many other articles because I could not bring something about text and document criticism concerning Céline. For instance, I didn't want to say anything about La Fontaine.
Q. I am asking you about Céline. That caused controversy, didn't it? Céline is a controversial figure, is he not?
A. Certainly.
Q. He is controversial because of his wartime ideas.
A. For many reasons.
Q. Including those.
A. Including, but not only.
Q. Let's look at page 4. You see about two-thirds of the way down a work by Robert Faurisson, "Le Problème des chambres à gaz."
A. Yes.
Q. It is publié en juin, mille ‑‑
A. June 1978.
Q. Par la revue Défense de l'Occident." What is the revue Défense de l'Occident?
A. It was a review of Maurice Bardeche. Maurice Bardeche was the author of two remarkable books on the Nuremberg Trials. He was a professor and, because of what he had written, he went to jail.
Q. He was more than just a professor and he wrote about more than just the Nuremberg Trials. Am I not right? Did he not write a letter to François Moriaque defending collaboration?
A. Not defending collaboration. This is your interpretation. No.
Q. Your interpretation is ‑‑
A. Wait a minute. It was a remarkable letter to François Moriaque showing how criminal, in Bardeche's opinion, was what we call the big purge in France, with so many people shot, condemned to death and shot, tortured and so on. It was a letter of protest of Maurice Bardeche.
Q. A courageous defence of those who had collaborated.
A. Himself, he didn't ever collaborate, but he has a brother who was shot on the 6th of February, 1945. He was outraged by that.
Q. Besides writing his letter to François Moriaque, he also wrote a defence of facism called "What is Facism?"
A. He said that he was a fascist, and that is why. You don't have it here, but at the top of my article there was a warning. Robert Faurisson warned you that whatever he publishes does not mean that he approves the views of the people publishing him.
Let me tell you, I regret to have done this because I consider that whatever is the opinion of a man, if he publishes me, that's okay. It should go without saying that, if I publish in L'Humanité which is the communist newspaper, it doesn't mean that I am a communist. If I publish in a fascist paper or whatsoever, it doesn't mean anything. It is my own work, my own writing, my own business.
Q. But it does imply who your audience is going to be, doesn't it?
A. Excuse me...?
Q. It implies who your audience is going to be, where you publish.
A. If anyone had agreed to publish my views on the problem of the gas chambers at that time, I would have been too pleased.
This was in June. In December, six months after, I was published for the same thing, exactly the same thing, in Le Monde.
Q. The question I was going to ask you, though, is: You knew who was going to be reading you in Maurice Bardeche's journal ‑‑
A. I did not care.
Q. You don't care at all.
A. Absolutely not. All people are human beings. Even myself, I am a human being.
Q. I am sure you are, sir.
A. I don't care for the political opinions of the people, for the beliefs in God or not. I am an atheist, but I have much respect for the people who believe in God, and whatever god.
Q. I notice in your list here that you go directly from your thing about "Pour une histoire véridique de la seconde guerre mondiale" right to ‑‑
A. Excuse me, where is it?
Q. It is about three up from where we were looking.
A. On page 4?
Q. Yes, page 4, May 25, 1978 ‑‑ to the two matters you published in Défense de l'Occident in June 1978. Somehow you neglected to put in an article that you published in the German press called "There Were no Gas Chambers." Do you remember that article?
A. You mean I did publish ‑‑
Q. No, you had one of your articles published in a German language periodical.
A. Many of my articles were published in German, in Spanish, in Portuguese, in Greek, in Brazilian and I don't know what. I am not going to mention them.
Q. No, and you didn't mention the one that you published in the Deutcher-Arbeitkreis.
A. It was a translation of a French article, I guarantee you. I didn't do anything special for anyone.
Q. Do you know what the Deutcher-Arbeitkreis is? Do you have any idea of what sort of a magazine that is?
A. Maybe they are Nazi; I don't care.
Q. Maybe? They are Nazi.
A. Maybe; I don't care. I don't ask people, "Please give me your opinion." I do not care.
Q. If we go over to page 5, I notice there is a big gap between "Epilogue judiciaire de l'affaire Faurisson" in August 1983 to "Le révisionnisme au Canada" in the autumn of 1988.
A. But the gap is filled, I suppose, in the list of IHR articles.
Q. Right. That is when you began to publish in the IHR. We will get to that.
There is one article that I don't find because it wasn't published in the IHR, and maybe you didn't put it in because it was probably published with your name signed to it, called "Le Mythe de l'extermination des juives" in 1987. Do you know about that?
A. It was the same thing.
Q. The same thing? Isn't that the place where you said that the lie of Auschwitz was born in April 1944 in central Europe and that there are five principal parties who all happen to be Jews who are responsible?
A. I said, yes, that it was born, in my opinion, in April 1944 in Slovakia. The responsible was a rabbi called Weissmandl. Then it was sent to Jewish associations, the famous so-called Auschwitz Protocols sent to Switzerland and to many Jewish organizations. Of course, the people who are promoting this the most are Jewish organizations. It goes without saying. They believe it is true ‑‑ I don't know if they believe, but for me it's a lie.
Q. You choose that word carefully. Right? "It's a lie."
A. I always said "lie," to make it short, but I always say, when I have the time to elaborate, a historical lie.
Q. You didn't have the time a minute ago?
A. Wait a minute. It's a historical lie which means that many people will believe it in the same way you had so many historical lies through history, and I don't say to the people, "Oh, you believe in this. You are a liar". Certainly not.
The fact is that it is a lie.
Q. And the people who talk about it are liars.
A. No. I told you, and I am repeating, that if someone comes and says something about any belief that he has or any fact even, if he says, "This is true," and if I consider it to be a lie, I say, "It is a lie. Now, maybe you believe in it. That's quite possible." Of course. This is belief.
Q. And the people who say they witnessed the genocide in the Second World War, they are liars.
A. No. Wait a minute. I always said, "Bring me not two witnesses, but one. Then we are going to see together what you have been writing. We are going to look at it."
Q. They are liars, sir.
A. In the case of Elie Wiesel, yes. In many other cases, they are not liars. I can give you examples of that. I have the right, I think.
Q. Give me an example.
A. Primo Levi. Everyone says, "Oh, Primo Levi is a remarkable witness." This man wrote a book in Italian which means something like "If this is a man." He published it in 1947. It is remarkable. Then he published a new edition 29 years after, in 1976, and he put a postscript, and the difference is extraordinary.
Q. Is he a liar or isn't he?
A. I don't know. It might be that this man suddenly believes in things ‑‑ and I want to be precise about that. In 1947 he doesn't say at all "gas chambers;" he even presented himself as someone who is called in the text "the Italian who does not believe in the gas chambers."
Q. Is he a liar or isn't he? That is all I want to know.
A. I am going to answer your question. Then in 1976 in his postscript, "There were plenty of gas chambers", plural. It might mean that he is lying. It might be that this man who was a chemist, and I think very sensitive to the chemical arguments of the revisionists, thought to himself, "I have to defend the good code, my good code, so I have to insist on those gas chambers." Perhaps he thought that it was his duty to do so.
Q. But he is lying if he does.
A. No, I don't say that he is. For Primo Levi I wouldn't say that. He is a man convinced that he has to defend his good code.
I am an analyst; I am not a psychoanalyst. That is the difference.
Q. On page 6, two of the articles which you discussed with Mr. Christie have after them the notation "non signé", the third and the sixth.
A. Yes.
Q. That means that you were not ready to put your name to these.
A. No, not at all. It was simply that in this RHR, they chose not to put my name. That is their own business. I put it in my publication and it is going to be in my book, at least one of those texts.
Q. Before we go to other things that may have been left out, I have just a couple of quick notes. On page 7 I have your work on the Diary of Anne Frank, "Is The Diary of Anne Frank genuine?" Do you see that?
A. Yes, I see it.
Q. That is the text that you gave to the Panel.
A. Yes.
Q. You told Mr. Christie that this was done for a German court in the case of a certain Mr. Römer.
A. For a German accused, not for the court. He brought it himself.
Q. He brought it in. The accused was a certain Römer?
A. Yes.
Q. One should give him his military title. He was a General, wasn't he?
A. No, no. This is Römer. You are confusing it with Rémer.
Q. This is not the same General?
A. No, not at all.
Q. I understand ‑‑
A. We have to be clear. My answer is "no".
Q. Okay, he is not.
A. It is a total mistake, total confusion.
Q. He is not the person who supervised the arrest of ‑‑
A. Absolutely not. He had nothing to do with General Rémer.
Q. Let's look at some of the things you didn't put in your CV.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you embarking on a somewhat new area?
MR. FREIMAN: This will finish up the CV.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Go ahead.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. You didn't put in some of your speaking engagements, did you, sir?
A. My...?
Q. Speaking engagements, your public lectures.
A. No, nowhere I think.
Q. If you had, we might see that in 1978 you were a featured speaker at the First Revisionist Convention sponsored by the IHR, and you gave a talk on the mechanics of gassing.
A. That's right.
Q. In which you shared the stage with Alfred Apps. He was also there giving a speech?
A. I don't remember ‑‑ Austin App, you mean?
Q. Austin App, I am sorry; you are right.
A. I met Austin App, but I am not sure that I met him in 1978. Perhaps later on.
Q. Just so that we know it is the same person, this is a man who wrote "Can Christianity survive when the Jews control the media and the money?"
A. I have never read this.
Q. You know that he wrote it.
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You also shared the stage with Udo Wallendy?
A. Yes.
Q. And he is a member of the Executive Committee of the NPD in Germany?
A. This I don't know.
Q. You don't know that he is a neo-Nazi?
A. No, not at all. I know him as a publisher of ‑‑ I could give you the title in German, and I am interested in that, his historical work. His political life I do not know.
Q. You also shared the stage with one Arthur Butz?
A. Yes.
Q. Who wrote a book called "The Hoax of the 20th Century."
A. Yes, and he is a friend.
Q. "The Hoax of the 20th Century" has as its thesis that the entirety of the Holocaust is a hoax perpetrated by the Jews.
A. Wrong. You have not read it.
Q. Who is it perpetrated by, sir?
A. He doesn't say who are the perpetrators, as you say. He doesn't say that.
The most that he could accuse are Zionist people, and he is very careful about that. We even had some discussions with him. You have not read the book, I can see.
Q. We will see. Finally, on September 14, 1978 you gave a lecture to the National Alliance in Washington.
A. Mark Weber told me, "Are you ready to give a conference somewhere?" So I went, and I was told that this man was Dr. ‑‑ I don't remember.
Q. Dr. William Pierce?
A. Yes. I don't care. If someone says, "Mr. Faurisson, are you ready to give a conference?" I suppose it is to human beings, not to animals, and I am ready. I am always ready if I have time enough. I don't care. I am ready to give a conference to the B'nai Brith.
Q. I am sure you are.
A. Invite me, please.
Q. I have nothing to do with the B'nai Brith.
A. B'nai Brith or any Jewish organization. I am ready to go.
Q. Which Jewish organization am I associated with, sir?
A. I don't know. I didn't say. I said "even B'nai Brith." My finger pointed to this man.
Q. You now know who Dr. William Pierce is?
A. No.
Q. You don't.
A. No.
Q. No one has told you?
A. Oh, afterward.
Q. You now know.
A. Yes, I know who is Mr. Pierce. I do not resist at all.
Q. Who is he?
A. I think he is a Russian, and that's all.
MR. FREIMAN: Why don't we continue after lunch.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will resume at 2:30.
‑‑- Luncheon Recess at 1:03 p.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 2:38 p.m.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Professor Faurisson, I would like to talk a bit about your method for a moment. Before I do that, I just want to clarify. Do I understand correctly that, if you are qualified, it is your intention to analyze the study done by Professor Prideaux using your Ajax method?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. It is also your intention to analyze the Zundelsite documents using your Ajax method?
A. No. I intend to stay only on what Mr. Prideaux put.
Q. So you are not going to look at the Zundelsite documents at all?
A. If I am asked to go to such and such a part, I will do it, but my intention is to go to the core of the accusation, which is the choice made by Mr. Prideaux, in the same way I worked in the Centre of Jewish Documentation in Paris. I went to the core of the question, which means I want to hear the accusers.
I went into the file called "Extermination - Gassing, and I went all through this considerable file. In the same way, I am asking the accusers, "What are your principal accusations?"
Q. But it is not your intention to mount a case for the defence by reading the Zundelsite documents with your Ajax method.
A. Maybe I will go it; that is possible. The core will be the Prideaux comments.
Q. Can you read the Zundelsite documents using your Ajax method?
A. Yes, of course. Anyone can.
Q. Anyone can read them.
A. Of course.
Q. As I understand it, it is not your intention to talk about the truth of the Zundelsite documents?
A. If I am authorized to talk about the truth, I don't know.
Q. You are not.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment. Mr. Freiman and Mr. Kurz occasionally talk as if they are the Tribunal, but they are not. My learned friend has no right to say what this witness is not allowed to say ‑‑ and correct me if I am wrong. If he speaks for you, I am happy with the result.
If Mr. Freiman is going to be saying that to this witness, I think he is slightly overstepping his bounds.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps you can go to your next question, Mr. Freiman.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. In terms of the method and in terms of your preparation to give evidence, as you sit here now, your understanding is that it is not part of your assignment to comment on truth, or do you have an understanding of your assignment?
A. I understood that truth was no defence, which is, for me, if I may comment, very surprising. If truth is no defence, how can one defend himself?
Q. Professor Faurisson, in a few minutes we will see just how familiar you are with that concept. Why don't we just hold that thought for a moment.
Going back to your methodology, if I understood correctly, what you do first of all is look simply at the text, without reference to its context and without reference to anything you know about the author or his circumstances or anything similar. Correct?
A. This is the first step.
Q. It is your belief that every text has either one meaning or no meaning.
A. I would say that, yes, at first I may not find the meaning. Two, the meaning might be dubious. Three, there could be, like in irony, two meanings at the same time.
Q. So there can be ambiguity.
A. Of course. For example, someone who expresses himself badly might be ambiguous.
Q. Somebody who expresses himself very well might also be ambiguous intentionally.
A. That is possible, of course. Ambiguity is possible.
Q. You are familiar with the famous Magritte painting, "Ceci, n'est pas un pipe?"
A. Yes. I think I remember something of René Magritte.
Q. You are familiar with that painting?
A. Not familiar, no.
Q. I don't know if this is of any assistance, but maybe it is.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Does the best evidence rule apply here?
MR. FREIMAN: The best effort at evidence rule.
Q. Looking at it now, do you recognize it?
A. I am not sure.
Q. Let's apply your Ajax method. What does this mean?
A. It means that someone has written in a kind of caption, "This is not a pipe." This is what I can say. He said it: "This is not a pipe."
Q. Does it mean anything else?
A. It doesn't mean anything else to me. This is not a pipe, period.
Q. But this is a pipe, isn't it?
A. This looks like a pipe. It could be a joke; it could be anything. It's a story I told you about the fountain pen. You might be very surprised. It looks like a fountain pen; it might not be. You have to go into it.
Q. So what do we do with this? It says it is not a pipe; it looks a pipe. What does it mean?
A. I say that I do not know. I see something which looks a pipe, but I am not sure. Perhaps if I see it in another way. I could see something else than a pipe. This is possible.
It is possible to work on it for perhaps a good time, and maybe I would find something else. That is possible.
Q. What does your Ajax method tell you about this, if anything?
A. It's a statement. I have a phrase of six words with a full stop, saying "This is not a pipe." I have something which looks like a drawing, and the drawing looks like a pipe, but I have to reserve any judgment about this.
Q. And that is the meaning that you get from it?
A. After something like one minute. In two minutes it could be something else.
Q. If I were to say that it has a different meaning, if I were to say that this is a deliberate attempt to provoke the viewer to compare what he sees in the caption with what he sees ‑‑
A. It could be.
Q. How is the Tribunal going to know which of us is right?
A. Sir, the Tribunal ‑‑ I am not going to put words in the mouth of the Tribunal. The Tribunal should be very prudent and say, "We have Mr. Faurisson saying, 'After one minute, this is what I can say.'" The Tribunal would say, "I have someone else saying something else," and the Tribunal will have to make a decision. Most probably the Tribunal would say, "I do not know; I cannot decide" or, if the Tribunal decides, it has to give a reason.
Q. On what basis should the Tribunal decide between us?
A. I don't know on which basis except that the Tribunal would see that there are two versions of one thing, and the Tribunal will have to decide which is, in its view, the good interpretation. This is one Tribunal. Perhaps another Tribunal would decide in another way.
Q. What assistance can you give the Tribunal in making its decision? How can you help the Tribunal? What is it in your background that makes you helpful to this Tribunal in deciding, after one minute or after 10 minutes ‑‑ I will let you think about this for two hours if
MR. CHRISTIE: That is four questions. Which one is he supposed to answer?
MR. ROSEN: The witness was ready to answer.
MR. CHRISTIE: The witness could try to answer all four. I object to the process of asking four questions at one time.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Put the question to him again.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. What is it about your qualifications or background that will help the Tribunal in deciding the meaning of this particular object?
A. I can answer your question. Maybe the Tribunal could do like many people and decide very quickly that we have a pipe and that we have a caption saying, "This is not a pipe." But Faurisson would come and would say, "Now, wait a minute. Be prudent. Don't go so quickly in your conclusion, if this is your conclusion, because you might be surprised by looking at it more. Maybe you will discover something else." That is the only thing I would say to anyone, Tribunal or not.
Q. So your assistance is to give the Tribunal the following words of caution: Be prudent. Don't jump to conclusions. Don't assume that you have an answer. Look carefully at the evidence before you.
A. "Look carefully" to the Tribunal or to anyone. I don't see why I would say to this Tribunal. I would say to anyone, "Be prudent. Are you sure that you have really read?" We have no pipes in the case of Mr. Prideaux, no pipes, but we have words. I would say, "Be careful. Don't go too quickly to the conclusion that you have really read it."
Sir, I am going to tell you something. There might be a play on words, because "pipe" has another meaning in French.
Q. Yes. So...?
A. So, be prudent. Maybe there is a play on words. Maybe there is no play. You have to be prudent. Everywhere in life you are like that. You have to say, "Oh, I would like so much to give a conclusion, to make a comment and so on, but I am not sure. I have to wait."
This is my method. I have to wait. How is it that I have been working such a long time on one controversial subject of history? Why? Precisely because I said, "I must not jump to conclusions. I must go through the file. I have seen 100 documents. That is not enough. I am going to try to find something else."
I have read Mr. Elie Wiesel once. That is not enough. I am going to read it two times, three times, and then try.
Q. That is all very impressive, Professor Faurisson, but I take it that what you are saying is that your expert assistance to this Tribunal is in teaching it a method of reading.
A. No, I don't want to teach. I want simply to take a comment ‑‑ I don't know if I have the right to say it right now. It is about the Prideaux expertise. I don't know if I can answer this question.
Q. I think the Tribunal will tell you ‑‑ and, if I am wrong, they will correct me. I think at this point the idea is not to talk about substance but in general about your approach and your method.
MR. CHRISTIE: What is the question? You have given a lecture. Now what is the question?
MR. FREIMAN: Are you finished, Mr. Christie?
MR. CHRISTIE: If you are going to make lectures and nobody interrupts you, then I will assist by objecting that you are not asking a question.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Christie, Dr. Faurisson is tendered as a professional expert witness. He should be able to look after himself. I don't see any egregious error on the part of this line of cross-examination.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. I suggested to you, Professor Faurisson, that your expertise is in teaching or in demonstrating or drawing to the attention of this Tribunal a method of reading.
A. This is wrong.
Q. So that is not your expertise. Is your expertise, then, in reading things for the Tribunal and helping them to come to a conclusion by giving an interpretation, doing an explication du texte?
A. Yes. What I intend to do is to say, "This is a text supposedly from Mr. Zundel or anyone. A man called Prideaux says, 'This is what this text means.'" Mr. Faurisson comes and says, according to his own method ‑‑ that is something else, "No, I do not agree. Mr. Prideaux did not read correctly what he was commenting on. He went too quickly."
Q. So what you are really going to do is read the Zundelsite documents and provide a better reading that will contradict what Professor Prideaux said.
A. In my opinion, of course, better. The Tribunal will decide it if it is better or not.
Q. I want to be clear. You are not here simply as an expert on the proper approach; you are here as an expert practitioners of that approach. You are a man who can use that approach in order to help the Tribunal get closer to the reality or truth or correct analysis.
A. Exactitude.
Q. Exactitude.
A. That's right.
Q. You will agree with me that, in your view, the Ajax method is equally applicable in literature and in history.
A. Yes.
Q. And it is equally applicable in poetry and prose.
A. Yes.
Q. And you can do all of this. You are competent to do this analysis across the board ‑‑ literature, history, poetry, prose.
A. Whatsoever, and even an object.
Q. You can read an object?
A. Even this. "This" is a bottle of water.
Q. Was that the reading, that it is a bottle of water?
A. Wait a minute. Everything must be checked, of course. It looks like water; it could be something else.
Q. Am I correct, sir, that you are not competent to do an explication du texte in the English language?
A. Of...?
Q. Of works in the English language.
A. I think I am competent in the same way an English man could make comments on a text in Greek, Latin or any language.
Q. But your knowledge of English is not good enough to help you do it.
A. You will decide, or the Tribunal will decide.
Q. I wonder if we can help the Tribunal decide.
May we mark this as an exhibit, simply so that the record can demonstrate what is being talked about?
THE REGISTRAR: The picture of the pipe will be marked as HR-37.
MR. FREIMAN: It is a painting by Magritte called "Ceci, n-est pas un pipe."
EXHIBIT NO. HR-37: Photocopy of painting by René Magritte entitled "Ceci, n-est pas un pipe"
THE WITNESS: Do you know the possible meaning of pipe?
MR. FREIMAN: Yes, I think I do. The Panel can also use its imagination. It is not all that complex to figure it out.
Q. This is an English text. Can you do anything with it?
A. I can tell you right now that we may waste our time because, if I had such a text or any text, I am not going to improvise anything about it.
Q. What will you do?
A. If I am obliged to do something about it, I will go back home and perhaps I will have days or weeks. Even in the French language, if I have something like that, I may need days or weeks. I think I explained this already. When I had those so difficult texts of Nerval at home, I made a big sheet of paper. I wrote everything without the title. I wrote letters that big, 14 lines, and I had to think of it for days or weeks.
Q. So your method is prolonged concentration and contemplation of the object; is that it?
A. It is very long.
Q. When you contemplate the object, what is your purpose in contemplating that object?
A. I try to understand the words. You have one first word ‑‑ the first word is "Call" and the last is "ice-cream." I would go through all those words, one by one, and I would try to find the meaning of each one and the link between all of those words, I would perhaps say, "It seems to me I understand it." Maybe I will say, "I do not understand it. I didn't succeed."
Q. Let's try something a little less complex. This is a complex poem; you will agree with me?
A. I don't know if it is complex. I have not even read it.
Q. We will try something a little easier.
A. The cigars and then the ice-cream, and then what?
MR. FREIMAN: Let's make it an exhibit so that the record will show what the witness is talking about.
THE REGISTRAR: The document entitled "The Emperor of Ice-Cream" will be marked as HR-38.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-38: Document entitled "The Emperor of Ice-Cream"
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. I take it that you don't recognize that poem.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Your answer is "no?"
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Do you recognize it or not?
A. No.
Q. Do you know a poet named Wallace Stevens? Have you ever heard that name?
A. A poet, Stevens. I don't think so.
Q. Have you ever heard of a poet named William Carlos Williams?
A. I don't remember. Maybe.
Q. Do you know anything about North American literature?
A. Very little, I must say.
Q. What do you know about Canada?
A. About Canada?
Q. Yes. Don't worry about this document. Let's talk about Canada.
A. This one?
Q. That is the document I am going to talk to you about, but let's not worry about that for a minute.
What do you know about Canada?
A. Very little about Canada.
Q. What do you know about society in Canada and the way people live in Canada?
A. I would say that, at first glance, it's a country where you have people of different origins. You have European origin, Asian origin, and so on, I suppose with many, many religions and so on.
Q. Is it fair to say that your knowledge of Canada is as a tourist?
A. I don't like a derogatory word like "tourist."
Q. Visitor?
A. Visitor would be better.
Q. You have made no study of Canada or of Canadian society?
A. No.
Q. And you know little, if anything, about Canadian sociology and composition other than what you have told us, that at first glance it looks as though it is composed of many races. Is that correct?
A. I have never studied that question. I would never say anything about Canada myself except that I suppose ‑‑ and I am even sure that Canada is, like many countries, multicultural and so on. the argument being that it seems to be a democratic society. That is what I could say. I wouldn't make very much difference between Canada and other countries.
Q. I take it also that you have no special training in what might be called effects theory ‑‑ that is, the effect of communications or media on human beings.
A. No, I have never studied this.
Q. Let's look at the text. Is there anything that you can do with this text, even sitting here, even taking a minute to look at it?
A. I would never make the slightest comment about something like that. I would have to go back home and think of it. I don't improvise answers like that.
Q. Would you agree with me that ordinary people sitting and reading a text like this are not as prudent as you are? They make an effort to understand what the text means.
A. Maybe, maybe not; I do not know. It is a question of individual reaction. I know people who would very quickly make comments. Some others would be like me. Some would have a look at it and put it in the dustbin; that's possible also.
Q. I want to talk about what real people do in the real world.
A. I don't know what is real people and real world. What does it mean?
Q. You have a theory of reading, don't you? You have a theory of lecture?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you assume that everyone is like Robert Faurisson in the way that they read texts?
A. I assume that anyone should be able to be attentive; anyone should be able to understand; anyone should, in principle, carefully read something and comment after. Experience shows, in my case at least ‑‑ and maybe I am wrong ‑‑ that most of the people go very quickly. They have no time to stop at every word. That is why perhaps we need experts sometimes to say, "You took the time to read this. What is your opinion about that?"
An expert is someone who is supposed to have carefully read something.
Q. Maybe the practice is different in France than it is Canada. My understanding is that in Canada one of the very usual questions on a final examination in literature is to present the candidate with a text that he or she has never seen before, give them a half-hour, and ask them to talk about the text.
A. We don't do that. What we could do is that in a program we could say, "You have to study five works. The question will be about a part of one of those five that you are supposed to know from the beginning to the end."
Q. So the Ajax method doesn't even give you the ability to ask questions of this text, does it?
A. I do not know this text.
Q. Do you have any questions to ask of the text?
A. I have no comment to do on something that I have not even read.
Q. If you took five minutes, would you have questions to ask of the text?
A. No question of five minutes.
MR. FREIMAN: Could we mark this as the next exhibit. The witness finds it difficult to talk about it.
It is a document beginning with the words "Eyes..Medium" and ending with the word "Madness!", and with the number 122 at the bottom.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me, I never said I considered this difficult. I didn't say that.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. You said it was difficult to talk about it.
A. Excuse me, I said I refused to talk about it.
Q. It is easy to talk about it, but you refuse to talk about it?
A. Excuse me...?
Q. Is it easy to talk about it, but you refuse to talk about it?
A. I do not say that. What conclusion are you drawing? I said I refuse to talk; it is clear that I refuse to talk about something that I have not read.
Q. You might want to take it home and look at it.
THE REGISTRAR: It will be marked as HR-39.
EXHIBIT NO.HR-39: Document beginning with the words "Eyes..Medium" and ending with the word "Madness!", with the number 122 at the bottom
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Let's go back to this Ajax method.
You will agree that it is entirely artificial because, in fact, you do know who the author is, you do know what the title of the works that you are reading are, you do know all about the author's life. What you are saying is, "I won't look." Isn't that it?
A. It is absolutely not artificial. If I know someone's name, if I know his beliefs, if I have to judge this man precisely, my effort will be to try to forget and to see the man in such a situation and to say, "In this situation this man that I knew as a coward behaved like a courageous man" or "I thought this man was courageous; he behaved like a coward."
You must always expect something new from someone, and from a text it's the same thing. The author, any author, arrives with his reputation.
Take a painting. You bring the painting and you say, "This is from William Turner." If you insist on that, the people are ready to think, "Oh, if it's from Turner, that's something." Perhaps Turner, at least one day or for one painting, did something which was not good.
I am not impressed at all by this. It's a question once more of respect. I have to respect.
Q. What do you respect?
A. I have to respect the man when it is a man and the text when it is a text. I mustn't come with prejudice and say, "Oh, he is a Frenchman, therefore ‑‑" or "He is a Canadian, therefore ‑‑" and so on.
Q. I go back to it, probably because I expressed myself so badly that we were not able to understand each other.
What I said is that it is an artificial exercise because you know that Rimbaud wrote the poem, you know that Rimbaud was 18 or 19 years old when he wrote it, you know that he was a Frenchman.
A. I have precisely to make an effort and to say to the people what we call "tabula erasa." I think you understand.
Q. Yes, a blank slate.
A. Perhaps blank slate. Forget it. You think that you know the man. Forget it.
Q. How do you forget what you know?
A. It is very difficult, in fact, to forget. But, if you have to comment, you are not going to state anything which is outside the text. Let me explain.
Very often you hear, "Oh, this has been taken out of context." Every time out of context, yes, but what about out of text first? We mustn't take things out of the text or a text. We have to take it. This is the way you find something new. Let me take an example.
Lautréamont ‑‑ when I began reading Lautréamont, I thought that Lautréamont was this kind of romanticist, this kind of already surrealist man. I thought that, and I can even tell you that I was attracted by that because I was interested by that. I discovered something totally different.
In life it is the same thing. No category; you have to take individuals and give them credit.
Have I answered your question?
Q. Not at all.
A. Please, I want to answer your question.
Q. I want to know how you can forget what you know except by pretending that you don't know it. At the end of the day, sir, when you read a work by William Shakespeare, you know it is a work by William Shakespeare. Whether you pretend not to know or you pretend to know it, you know it is a work by William Shakespeare.
A. I know it is from Shakespeare. A good thing about Shakespeare is that, in fact, I think we don't know much about his identity, which is a good thing. I wish it could be the same for many texts.
To forget means, of course, to make an effort. Don't state anything coming from your memory of what the man or the woman is supposed to be. If you write something about it, don't put his name.
I recognize that it is a very difficult method. I always said it, and I even said that it was spartan.
Q. Spartan and, in fact, you could probably approximate that for your students because you select the text and you denature it by taking off the title. But you can't do it for yourself. You can never be fooled as to what the text is, because you are the one who selects the text; you are the one who knows the text.
A. Wait a minute. The students, for instance, in text and document criticism ‑‑ I didn't decide. They came and they said, "This is what I wish to study." I did not decide.
Q. So they take a text by an author. They come to you and say, "I am going to pretend that I don't know what this author said or who he is ‑‑"
A. No. When they come, they think they are going to say, "Oh, this is from Maillot or Jean-Paul Sartre, and so on", and they tend to say something about what they think they know of Maillot or Jean-Paul Sartre. I say, "Stop. Consider the text itself because you might discover a Jean-Paul Sartre or a Maillot that you did not know. It could be a work quite different from every other one of this author."
It is a method; it is a practice; it is a kind of gymnastic; it is very difficult. It means: Try to understand the words.
Q. How do we know whether you have succeeded or not?
A. I don't know, of course.
Q. How will the Tribunal know whether you have succeeded or not when you give them your view of Dr. Prideaux on the basis of your reading?
A. We will see. I am bringing a method, which you call methodology which is pretentious. I say method. I bring it and I give constantly examples ‑‑ at least I try ‑‑ and the Tribunal will decide that this method is not interesting, that those examples are not convincing or are. The Tribunal will decide. That is not my business.
Q. Let's go back to your competence in the English language.
What makes you think that you are competent in the English language?
A. I am competent in the English language like I told you already, like someone thinks he is competent. When anyone says, "I am competent in mechanics," maybe he is and maybe he is not. Maybe I am wrong; I don't know. It is my field of work, of research, for years and years. Perhaps I didn't learn anything; that is possible.
Q. I think you have misunderstood again, and probably it is because I am not expressing myself well.
Your field of research for many years is the study of texts, you say.
A. Yes.
Q. But it is not the study of English texts. You have never taught a single English text to your students at Lyon.
A. It could be an English, a German, a Greek or a Latin text. That is no problem.
Q. You consider yourself competent enough in all of these languages to be able to work your method.
A. If I have enough time. Perhaps, if I learned Chinese, on Chinese texts, on Hebrew texts ‑‑ that is possible.
Q. You had a great deal of difficulty in the first two days of your testimony in understanding certain English words. When the Chairman asked you a question before, you could not answer the question without an explanation of the words.
A. That is possible, yes.
Q. Does that not give you any pause at all?
A. Excuse me, it could be the fact that it is not written. When it is written, I understand much more. It is just a question of accent.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is the word "methodology" pretentious in French?
THE WITNESS: When you are using a method, if you call it a methodology, it is pretentious. If it is methodology, that's okay.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. When native speakers read a text, is it your view that they will read it in the same way as you, a non-native speaker, and they understand it in the same way as you do?
A. Everyone has his own way of reading.
Q. And his own way of understanding?
A. If he wants to understand something, you may say, "No, your interpretation is not correct because there was a mistake on the meaning of such a word," and that's all.
Q. Do you use anything other than a dictionary to do your work?
A. I use many dictionaries.
Q. Besides dictionaries, what do you use to divine meaning?
A. To define meaning?
Q. To divine. Do you know what I mean by "divine?"
A. Yes.
Q. What does it mean?
A. Diviner in French.
Q. Meaning?
A. Signification. Trouver le signification.
Q. What else do you do?
A. I do nothing else on the text, on the words.
Q. You do nothing but consult dictionaries as to the meaning of the words?
A. I consult myself; I consult my habit of reading, and so on. This is my experience.
Q. Let's go back for a minute from your method, not pretentious.
You told the Tribunal a little while ago that you had certain influences on you, as you formed your intellectual outlook on the world. One of the people that I recall you talked about was Paul Rassinier.
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. He was especially useful to you in terms of his book, "The Myth of Ulysses"?
A. Yes. Excuse me, it is in fact "The Ulysses Lie."
Q. It's "The Lie of Ulysses", exactly. It's not "the myth"; it's "the lie."
A. It's "The Lie of Ulysses" in English, yes.
Q. The word is "mensonge".
A. Yes.
Q. "Mensonge" is a word that you are very familiar with, isn't it?
A. Yes, because it is a big lie, of course.
Q. It's the author of many of your misfortunes, isn't it, the use of the word "mensonge"?
A. No. My misfortune, I think, is that, like Galileo Galilei ‑‑ excuse me, but I have to take famous examples. I brought, after Paul Rassinier and other people that I could name, something which was supposed to be a lie. I was treated as a liar, as a falsifier.
Q. You were convicted by numerous French courts because of your use of the word "mensonge."
A. I would say that I was condemned for many reasons.
Q. One of the them was your use of the word "mensonge."
A. I would say that maybe yes they said that I should not have said "mensonge." This is quite possible, yes. But never ever a tribunal found something inexact in my writings. As I told you, no frivolity, no negligence, no deliberate ignorance, and no lies.
Q. And you say that that is what the court found?
A. On the 26th of April, 1983.
Q. I put it to you that what the court found was that it wasn't competent to decide matters of historical truth or not and, therefore, it was not permitted for the court to pronounce anything on those subjects.
A. The court, not me, yes. Excuse me, I am going to make it clear.
This was in 1981, the first instance. The accusations were: Mr. Faurisson is a falsifier of history. This was the accusation. The Tribunal answered something which was good for me and bad for them. The Tribunal said, "We have no competence to decide historical matters." This was in 1981.
Q. In 1983 the Court of Appeal pronounced its judgment on that very matter, using the very words, or close to words that you tried to tell the Tribunal were comments about the excellence of your history. The Court of Appeal used those words in the context of saying that it had no capacity to decide truth or falsehood, that that was a matter for historians.
It did find that you had defamed people and found you guilty.
A. Excuse me, you are mixing up many things.
They said ‑‑ I don't think that in appeal they even said they had no competence in history; I don't think so. They behaved like this. They said, "We are not going to say what is true and what is false in a matter of history, but we are going to judge the method of Faurisson and his arguments about the problem of the gas chambers." They said themselves "problem." They said, "The problem is that we have many people testifying that those gas chambers existed, but Faurisson brings a physical and chemical argument and other arguments ‑‑ historical, topographical and so on. Was he frivolous? No. Was he negligent? No. Was the foundation of my method, of my way of working, a deliberate ignorance? No. And lies, no."
Their conclusion was very clearly: Therefore, the appraisal ‑‑ they used the word "appraisal" ‑‑ of the work of Robert Faurisson on the problem of the gas chambers rests solely on an appreciation of the public, the experts, and the historians.
Q. That is correct, and they found you guilty of defamation.
A. And, as I think I told you, afterward they said, "But Faurisson never showed respect." I think I said "compassion" the other day. The real word was "respect." "Faurisson didn't find one word to show his respect for the dead people." This is what they said. This was very bad for me, since the Tribunal, in fact, had this text in Le Matin de Paris in which I had shown my respect by using one word, "respect."
Q. Excellent. When was the last time you read that judgment?
A. I think I have here excerpts of it. I think I have even the entire text.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you resisting the suggestion that the court found you guilty of defamation?
THE WITNESS: Of defamation, that is correct. They said so and their reason ‑‑ excuse me, it was not defamation. No, no, no. It was damage, not defamation, civil damage. "You are causing a damage."
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. We will do this little by little.
You want to come to testify as an expert, and one of the things that I understand you want to say is that the effect of the Zundelsite is not to promote hatred and contempt. Correct?
A. According to the text quoted by Mr. Prideaux.
Q. But I am right that that is the conclusion that, by use of your expert's theory, you wish to have ‑‑
A. If I have the right to give my conclusion, I don't know.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He is asking you a question. Listen to the question. If you don't understand the question ‑‑
THE WITNESS: I understand the question.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Wait to give your answer until the question is completed.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. At the end of the day you wish to use your expert methodology in order to urge the Tribunal to the conclusion that the documents that appear on the Zundelsite that have been complained against, that the effect of those documents is not to promote hatred and contempt. Yes or no?
A. As commented by Mr. Prideaux.
Q. So you don't have any opinions about the documents themselves, just about what Mr. Prideaux says?
A. Yes. I suppose that he took the best piece of it. I am not going through all those documents; I am taking what he brings himself.
Q. I am having a little difficulty here. What about the integrity of the text?
A. The what?
Q. The integrity of the text. You said: Forget about context; just talk about the text.
A. I am talking about the text of Mr. Prideaux.
Q. I see. I want to suggest to you that what the French courts found ‑‑ not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times, not six times, not seven, eight, nine, ten or eleven times, but twelve times the courts found that your works incite hatred and contempt. Yes?
A. Yes. They said it.
Q. But they didn't mean it?
A. No, but they never said that I was a falsifier. I want to make a point there.
Q. Mr. Faurisson, I have not said that you are falsifier. Nobody has said that you are a falsifier in this Tribunal. I have asked you whether the French courts have come to the conclusion that your work promotes hatred and contempt, and the answer is "yes."
A. The answer is "yes", because I do not believe in the gas chambers.
Q. We will see what the reason is.
I have a very poor photocopy of a decision in French, so we may have to struggle through it, which was handed down on the date you said all these good things happened, the 26th of April, 1983 by the Cour d'Appel de Paris.
A. May I ask if I could perhaps have the English translation?
Q. You want the English translation.
A. I have it.
Q. I was going to give it to you in French, but the English translation would work very nicely. May I see the English translation?
A. I hope I have it.
Q. Perhaps, Mr. Faurisson, you can tell us what you brought for purposes of these Hearings as you go through it. What is in your file?
A. In my file I have many documents about what I thought I would have to say on genocide and gas chambers.
I am afraid it is at home.
Q. We can use the French.
A. Of course. I could bring it tomorrow.
Q. That's fine, but maybe we will stumble through in French today, with your assistance.
A. I can bring it tomorrow.
Q. Let's see what we can do. It is Canada's other official language, and we may be able to do something with it.
Perhaps, Mr. Faurisson, you would like to look at the text.
First of all, could you simply satisfy yourself that this is indeed the Court decision?
A. Yes, I concede.
MR. FREIMAN: Could we make this the next exhibit, please.
THE REGISTRAR: The Court decision will be marked as HR-40.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-40: Decision of Cour d'Appel de Paris dated April 26, 1983
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Just before I start reading, I want to understand your method a little better. I think I have understood the first part of it, which is to look at the text, block from your mind everything you know about the text, and see what it means based on your careful reading with the assistance of dictionaries.
At some point context comes in. When?
A. When I am satisfied that I have carefully read something, then I go to what we call the context. It is not magic, of course. I cannot say exactly when. It depends on the document.
Q. If you want to assist the Tribunal in understanding your method, you can't tell them when to look at the context or what context to look at, or you can give them some idea of when you look at context.
A. For the Tribunal, I can give text and context of this.
Q. I mean in general
A. I am ready for that.
Q. Let's just look at text for a minute.
A. Okay.
Q. If you look at page 3, at the bottom you will see there is a statement of what the words complained of are.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Which page?
MR. FREIMAN: Page 3 of the French text.
Q. At the bottom it says:
"Elargissant de débat malgré les vives contestations qu'il a rencontrées ‑‑"
A. Excuse me, how many lines from the bottom?
Q. About eight, beginning with "Elargissant."
"Elargissant de débat malgré les vives contestations qu'il a rencontrées, il on est venu à affirmer que ‑‑"
And these are the words that are complained of.
"‑‑ 'ce qui est contesté c'est l'existence dans l'Allemagne hitlérianne de camps d'extermination'
‑‑"
So the first thing is: that which is contested is the existence in Hitlerian Germany of extermination camps.
A. That's right.
Q. Then:
"que 'l'intention criminelle que l'on prêts à Hitler n'a jamais pu être prouvée' ‑‑"
The criminal intention that one has attributed to Hitler has never been able to be proved.
A. That's right.
Q. Then:
"que 'les prétendus massacres en chambres à gaz et le prétendu génocide sont un seul et même mensonge' ‑‑"
That the alleged massacres in gas chambers and the alleged genocide are one and the same lie.
A. Yes.
Q."‑‑ et finalement que ...
'HITLER n'a jamais ordonné ni admis que quisonque fut tué en raison de sa race ou de sa religion' ‑‑"
Hitler never ordered or allowed that anyone should be killed by reason of his race or his religion.
A. That's right.
Q. Those are the four phrases that were complained about in this particular case.
A. Many other things, I think, because ‑‑
Q. One moment. Let's not look at the context for a minute. Let's look at the text.
A. No, no, you are taking this. About this you are saying that is the four points. I think there are others.
Q. Those are the points ‑‑
A. That's okay. Take those four.
Q. Based on those four points the court goes over your arguments and the other side's arguments. At page 7 it says the following, where it says "Cela etant exposé. La Cour:
"Considérant ‑‑"
And this is the way the French write their decisions, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. They say "Considering this" and then they come to a conclusion.
A. Yes.
Q."Considérant que les premiers juges ont rappelé avec raison que les Tribunaux ne sont ni compétents ni qualifiés pour porter un jugement sur la valeur des travaux historiques que les chercheurs soumettent au public et pour trancher les controverses ou les contestations que ces mêmes travaux manquent rarement de susciter;"
They say: Considering that the original judges reminded themselves correctly that tribunals are neither competent nor qualified ‑‑
A. Not "reminded themselves."
Q. "Reminded us." ‑‑ reminded us correctly that tribunals are neither competent nor qualified to render judgment about the value of historical work that researchers submit to the public or to resolve the controversies or the contestations that these same works rarely fail to provoke.
A. That's right.
Q. So you will agree with me that the foundation, the first principle in this judgment, is that courts of law have no competence to decide whether a historical work is good or bad, whether it is right or wrong. Correct? That is what they say.
A. That is what they say. The people who were complaining against me wanted the tribunal to say, "We are competent," and the tribunal answers, "We are not competent."
Q. I am not taking the side of those who complained against you. I want to understand the text. I want to understand what the court said.
A. They said, "We are not competent; we cannot."
Q. They say that a court is not competent to discuss the truth or falsehood of historical matters.
A. That's right, of historical works.
Q. Of historical works. And that is the basis, that is the first principle upon which this judgment is built.
A. Yes.
Q. And that is why at page 9 the court refuses to have anything to do with the accusations of lightness or lightheartedness about you.
A. Wrong, totally wrong. Could you repeat your ‑‑
Q. The court refuses to have anything to do with the accusations of taking this matter too lightly against you.
A. No, no. At page 9:
"Considérant qu'à s'en tenir provisoirement au problème historique que M. FAURISSON a voulu soulever sur ce point précis, il convient de constater que les accusations de légèreté formulées contre lui manquent de pertinence et ne sont pas suffisemment établies;"
Please, could you translate this for the court, which is totally the contrary of what you said.
Q. He is talking about the works ‑‑
A. Please, please "qu'à s'en tenir" ‑‑
Q. You tell me what s'en tenir provisoirement ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Where is this?
MR. FREIMAN: In the second paragraph.
Q. "In turning provisionally to the historical problems that Mr. Faurisson would ‑‑
A. Not "turning"; that is not very important. "To keep our attention on the historical problem that ‑‑"
Q. ‑‑ that Mr. Faurisson wishes to raise on this precise point, it is helpful ‑‑
A. To make it understandable by anyone, this precise point is the existence of the Nazi gas chambers.
Q. The precise point is your work, not the existence of Nazi gas chambers. It is your work.
A. You are going to say it, so it is to help you.
Q. Help me, then.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You can help by waiting until he finishes his question.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Translate that for me, Mr. Faurisson.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Begin at the beginning and translate it for us.
THE WITNESS: "Considering that to look ‑‑
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Provisionally?
A. ‑‑ provisoirement, for a moment, to the historical problem that Mr. Faurisson has wanted to rise on this precise point, one should state that the accusations of frivolousness formulated against him lack pertinence and are not sufficiently established.
Q. Keep going.
A. That the logical method, démarche ‑‑ I don't know in English ‑‑ way of ‑‑
Q. Exposition?
A. Démarche, logical démarche.
Q. Whatever.
A. Method, if you want, of Mr. Faurisson consists in trying to demonstrate by an argumentation of scientific nature ‑‑
Q. Ah-ah-ah ‑‑
A. Wait a minute. ‑‑ of scientific nature which is ‑‑
Q. Which is what?
A. Which is typed, and suddenly someone put ‑‑
Q. Who is that someone?
A. A judge. A judge put that he is not consisting in trying to demonstrate by a ‑‑
Q. An argument of scientific nature?
A. ‑‑ an argument of scientific nature. They corrected themselves by an argumentation that "he thinks himself," Mr. Faurisson, of a scientific nature ‑‑
Q. Let's stop for a minute. Let's apply the Ajax method, and tell me what is the difference between "argumentation de nature scientifique" and "argumentation qu'il estime de nature scientifique?"
A. There is a big difference.
Q. What is it?
A. The difference is that the tribunal first attributed to me a quality which is: Mr. Faurisson has a scientific method. Then the tribunal corrected themselves and said that Mr. Faurisson thinks it is.
Q. What did you tell the Tribunal yesterday that the court found about your method?
A. That my method was serious. On the next page you will see that they didn't correct themselves. On the next page they said, "Now, Mr. Faurisson, after having been scientific, is no more scientific" which means that before he has been scientific.
Q. Let's keep looking at the text because it has many more interesting things, many more interesting things, sir.
A. Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I have to receive a phone call in a few minutes, so we will take our break now.
‑‑- Short Recess at 3:45 p.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 4:05 p.m.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Mr. Faurisson, have we read what you want to read in the passage, because I would like to read the next passage with you? You remember that I suggested to you that the court said that it wanted nothing to do with the question of evaluating your argument or your method. Do you agree with that or disagree with that?
A. I disagree because the court judged my method.
Q. Can we read the next paragraph?
A. Yes.
Q. This is a continuation, another "Considérant."
"Que s'il n'appartient pas à la COUR de ‑‑
A. Excuse me, you have missed quite a part.
Q. Read the rest of it. I asked you if we had read as much as you wanted. Read whatever else you want.
A. You have stopped after "an argumentation that he thinks is of a scientific nature."
Q. Let's finish it.
"That the existence of gas chambers ‑‑
A. Excuse me, the court considered that the existence of the gas chambers, according to Faurisson ‑‑
Q. Yes. They say that, according to Faurisson, the existence of gas chambers such as is described regularly or usually since 1945, "se heurte" ‑‑ do you have an English word for me there?
A. Perhaps "stumbles on."
Q. ‑‑ stumbles over an absolute impossibility that would be, by itself, sufficient to invalidate all of the testimonies in existence or at the very least to put them under suspicion."
A. That's right.
Q. Then, having recounted that, here is what the court says:
"Que s'il n'appartient pas à le COUR de 'se prononcer sur la légitimité d'une telle méthode ‑‑"
It is not proper for the court to pronounce itself, to come to a conclusion about the legitimacy of such a method.
"‑‑ ni sur la portée des arguments exposés par M. FAURISSON ‑‑"
Nor about the appropriateness of the arguments set forth by Mr. Faurisson.
"‑‑ il n'est pas davantage permis d'affirmer au égard à la nature des études auxquelles il s'est livré;"
It is also not permitted to affirm in connection with the nature of the studies that he has taken up.
"‑‑ qu'il a écarté les témoignages par légèreté ou négligence, ou délibérément choisi de les ignorer;"
That he relates to testimony ‑‑
A. No, translate écarté.
Q. What is écarté?
A. Put aside. It is not permitted to affirm, when one is considering the nature of the studies that Mr. Faurisson has done ‑‑ it is not permitted to say that Mr. Faurisson has put aside, écarté, the testimony either by frivolousness or by negligence, and it is not permitted to say that he had put all this aside by a deliberate ignorance.
Q. Now let's take the Ajax method. What does the first line say? The first line is the text; it is the start. It says: It does not belong to the court to pronounce about the legitimacy of such a method. The rest, I suggest to you, is an explication of that. Because the court is not ‑‑
A. No ‑‑
Q. Let me finish, sir, and then you tell me what is wrong with what I said.
Because the court has no role to play in resolving historical controversies, it is not permitted for it to discuss the legitimacy of the methods and, if it is not permitted to discuss the legitimacy of the methods, then it is not permitted to say that you were negligent or were lighthearted or didn't take the witnesses seriously, because the court has no way of determining the validity of the method or the correctness of the results.
That is what the text, not the context and not what you would like it to say, but that is what the text says.
A. No, the text says: On the one hand; on the other hand. On the one hand, we cannot say that it is legitimate or not legitimate, this method.
Q. Where is the "on the one hand?" What are the words that you read as "on the one hand?"
A. "Il n'est pas davantage" which is a French tourneur. When you say "si" ‑‑ you say "if not more". If you had to translate it into Latin, you would have to say exactly what I said. The real translation is: The same way the court has no right to do this, in the same way the court says this. It is quite good French, elegant French, to use "s'il n'appartient pas"; il n'est pas davantage permis". It means: on the one hand; on the other hand.
Q. In fact, what it means: If it is the case that ‑‑
A. No, no, you don't know French. You didn't read the book of Butz and you don't know French; that's okay.
Q. Anything else? Any other problems I have?
A. I think that's enough.
Q. We will see who hasn't read what in a minute.
A. That is why you should have a good translation by an expert. It is quite clear that the court ‑‑ it was very difficult for the court. The court said: We have no right to judge if it is legitimate or not. It means "but". "But we have to say that what he has done is, without frivolousness, without negligence, without ignorance" ‑‑ and, if you keep on going, you will see that ‑‑ translate what is coming after: "Qu'en autre, personne ne peut en l'état la convaincre de mensonge ‑‑" This is so important. "Moreover" is very important, moreover.
Q. Nobody can what? Nobody can ‑‑
A. "En l'état." It's a language of judges. It means "things being as they are."
Q. Yes. Nobody can what?
A. Show that he has been lying.
Q. I thought "convaincre" means "convince."
A. No, no, "convaincre de mensonge" is not convince. No, no. I have a dictionary; perhaps I could find it.
"Convaincre de mensonge" is to show that this one has been lying. That's the meaning of "convaincre." It is not to convince. I should have Random or something like that.
Q. "Convaincre: to convince"
A. Of course, the common word is ‑‑
Q. Find it.
A. Wait a minute. We have it there: to convince, of course, is the common sense; then, to persuade, to satisfy, to convict of error.
Q. We will see when you bring your excellent translation.
MR. CHRISTIE: May I make an objection for the record?
We have over the last period of several minutes at the very least heard Mr. Freiman give his expert opinion on various French translations. We have no way of knowing Mr. Freiman's expertise in this regard. It is quite unusual; I was quite impressed with Mr. Freiman's French, but I am not so sure that we should be accepting the opinions of Mr. Freiman as some of expertise.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He is putting it to the witness. If the witness does not agree with the translation ‑‑ it might be of assistance if that particular paragraph, which seems to be in some dispute ‑‑ I wonder if the witness would take us through that paragraph and give us your understanding of what it says, word for word, beginning "Qu'en autre, personne ‑‑"
THE WITNESS: Moreover, nobody can, the things being what they are, show that he has lied when he enumerates the numerous documents that he affirms he has studied or when he enumerates the organizations ‑‑ "organizations" meaning libraries or whatever ‑‑ where he would have made his investigation for more than 14 years ‑‑ at that time.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What are the words after "convaincre?"
THE WITNESS: "Convaincre de mensonge".
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Let's assume, Mr. Faurisson, because your French is far, far superior to mine, that your right. Nobody can ‑‑ what was the word you said?
A. Demonstrate.
Q. ‑‑ demonstrate that he has lied.
A. Tomorrow I am going to bring the translation.
Q. I am going to accept that it says that nobody can demonstrate that you have lied. That is different from saying that you are telling the truth, isn't it?
A. Anyway, those people said that I was lying, and the answer is: At least on that he has not lied for us. That's all. We can extrapolate.
Q. What is the court is saying is that it cannot accuse you of lying or demonstrate that you have lied, not that you haven't lied, but it cannot do it because ‑‑ look at the next sentence:
"Que la valeur des conclusions défendées par M. FAURISSON relève donc de la seule appréciation des experts, des historians et du public;
That the value of the conclusions supported by Mr. Faurisson rests on the single ‑‑
A. No, no, "only."
Q. It's not "sole"?
A. No, that's a mistake. Only on an appreciation, not the single. It's a way of saying seulement sur. "Seul" does not mean single.
Q. It solely rests upon the appreciation of experts, or the understanding of experts, historians and the public.
A. That's right.
Q. Again, where they began is where they ended here. They are not competent to draw conclusions as to truth or error, as to taking lightheartedly or not taking lightheartedly ‑‑
A. No. Once more, you make the same mistake. I said: On the one hand, we are not going to say it is legitimate or not; on the other hand, we have to say that there is no frivolousness, at least no proof was brought of any frivolousness and so on.
Don't mix up the thing. It is quite clear. The court says: We are not going to give a judgment that historians could give, but Mr. Faurisson has been accused of lying, he has been accused of frivolousness, he has been accused of negligence, he has been accused of deliberate ignorance. On those four points we don't have any proof to show that he lied.
Q. We cannot convict him of lying.
A. We cannot convict of lying, and so on. It is so clear.
Q. The proposition I put to you is that there is a difference between not being able to convict someone of lying and saying that he is telling the truth.
A. So what? I am very pleased. If a tribunal with 11 or 12 lawyers against me reached the conclusion, after years and years ‑‑ it was a very long trial. If they say, "We cannot find any lies, frivolousness," it's good for me.
Let me tell you that those people had sent a very famous lawyer who became Minister of Justice after, Mr. Badanterre, and a lawyer called Levy ‑‑ I don't remember his first name. They went to Poland; they went to Israel to try to find something that they could not find in the Centre of Jewish Documentation in Paris.
Q. We may never finish.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Faurisson, the question put to you ‑‑ and I am not sure there is any difference between you and Mr. Freiman on this point ‑‑ is that court, in our parlance perhaps, declined jurisdiction to make a finding. It was not their place to pronounce on this issue, and they also said that they were not convinced or were not able to make a finding that you were a liar, et cetera, et cetera. Isn't that right?
THE WITNESS: No. A finding about what? You should tell me. You say that the court was unable to make a finding ‑‑ did you say that?
THE CHAIRPERSON: That it wasn't the business of the court to make findings about historical facts.
THE WITNESS: About my method and about my arguments. This is precise. About this, the court said, "We cannot judge. But what we can judge is: Was there any lie in 14 years? Was there any frivolousness? Was there any negligence? Was there any deliberate ignorance?" The court, "We have looked and we have not found. It is quite clear.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It's a Scotch verdict.
MR. CHRISTIE: Not guilty is my understanding of it, sir, not proven.
MR. FREIMAN: Not proven.
Q. However, you take this as a great victory. Having won this great victory, the court then turns to what it can discuss and what it can find. On page 10, after enunciating no positions, at the bottom of the page there is its conclusion:
"Considérant que les positions ainsi‑‑"
A. No, no, excuse me, you are doing a terrible mistake, a very serious one. At the bottom of page 9 you have omitted something which is very important.
Q. Mr. Christie will take you through everything that needs to be taken through.
A. No, he cannot. I can, and I am going to do it right now.
THE CHAIRPERSON: No, you are not. You are going to wait for the question to be asked.
THE WITNESS: It is at page 10, but I am going to go back to the bottom of page 9.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will talk about that later.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. At the end of the day, after setting forth its summary of what you did and what you didn't do and what you said and what you didn't say, it says at the bottom of page 10:
"Considérant que les positions ainsi adoptées par M. FAURISSON sont aussi blessantes pour les survivants des persécutions raciales et de la déportation qu'outrageantes pour la mémoires des victimes, dont le grand public se trouve incité à méconnaître les souffrance, si ce n'est à les mettre en doute; qu'en outre elles sont évidemment de nature, ainsi qui l'a justement relevé le Tribunal, à provoquer des réactions passionnelles d'agressivité contre tous ceux qui se trouvent ainsi implicitement accusés de mensonge et d'imposture;"
I will just translate it and then we will ask you some questions.
It says: The positions adopted in this way by M. Faurisson are so hurtful to the survivors of racial persecution ‑‑
A. No, no, no. It's no "so"; it's "as well."
Q. "‑‑ are as well hurtful to the survivors of racial persecution and to the deportation as outrageous against the memory of the victims of which the general populace is found to have been incited to misunderstand their suffering, if not to put it into doubt and, besides, these positions are clearly of such a nature, as the Tribunal correctly found, to provoke passionate reactions of hostility against all those who find themselves in this way implicitly accused of lying and of fraud."
Correct?
A. Correct. But we are going back ‑‑
Q. That is what they said.
A. That is what they say.
Q. So they found that your positions, without regard to the historical accuracy of those positions ‑‑
A. I missed one word.
Q. Without regard to the historical accuracy of those position, without regard to the truth of those positions, are clearly harmful to survivors, outrageous or disrespectful to the memory of the victims, that the public at large will misunderstand the suffering and, besides, they are clearly of such a nature as to provoke, which is more than to simply expose to ‑‑ to provoke passionate and aggressive reactions against all those who are thus implicitly accused of being liars.
That is what they found, that your words provoked hatred and contempt of Jews.
A. I don't think they said "contempt". You used three words. You said "hatred;" you said "contempt"; and you said "Jews." Where do you find those three words?
Q. What do you see?
A. Please, where do you see ‑‑
Q. I was trying to paraphrase. They provoke passionate, aggressive responses against all who find themselves implicitly accused of lying and of fraud or of posture. Those who are implicitly accused are those who earlier on the page ‑‑ you said "no Jewish victims."
A. No.
Q. That is what they say.
A. I never said so.
Q. Yes.
A. I never said so. I said exactly the contrary. Where did I say that there were no Jewish victims? Show me.
Q. I am sorry, you are right. You claim that you never said there were Jewish ‑‑
A. You have made already four mistakes, but that's nothing compared with what you have done by omitting the bottom of page 9.
Q. An example of the Ajax method which you are now applying.
A. You are very bad. I could give you a very bad mark. Something like four out of twenty.
Q. Why so generous?
A. Why so generous? I wonder. Four mistakes right now.
Going back to the bottom of page 9 ‑‑
Q. I have no questions about the bottom of page 9, and I have no desire to have you read to me from the bottom of page 9.
MEMBER DEVINS: Please remember to answer the questions.
THE WITNESS: Yes. I have answered the question, but do I have the right to say that ‑‑
MEMBER DEVINS; Sir, please wait for the next question.
MR. CHRISTIE: I object to this process. What is going on is preventing the witness from making a full and complete answer by denying him the opportunity to reveal the text in its entirety. It is a very unfair and distorted way to proceed. It would not be done against Professor Prideaux. It wouldn't be done against Professor Schweitzer, and I object to it being done here.
MEMBER DEVINS: Mr. Christie, I think all the witnesses have been reminded to be responsive to the questions asked.
MR. CHRISTIE: That is right, but when a question involves a text and the witness is clearly of the view, because he speaks and reads the language, that it is unfair to exclude a part that has been excluded. It is my submission that a full answer entitles him to put it in the proper textual framework.
THE CHAIRPERSON: The witness does tend to be ‑‑ he knows how to defend himself. We are not here to have argumentative answers. If it is necessary for him to qualify his answer in some way, I am sure you will draw that out in your re-examination. That is what it's for.
In the meantime, get on with your next question.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. You impugned me and impeached me with being unfair because I talk about the effect of your words on Jewish people. Correct? You say that is totally unfair.
A. No, I said that the three words that you were used were not in the text.
Q. I am putting to you the proposition that you are impeaching me; you are saying I am very bad and awarding four out of twenty, which is probably 20 per cent?
A. Four is one-fifth of 20.
Q. Twenty per cent, better than zero.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It's not a pass mark.
MR. FREIMAN: I am afraid one thing I am not going to do with this witness is pass. We have already seen that.
Q. I am putting to you that by the time additional courts looked at more of your writings, it became clear and it was explicit in the text of both the French courts and of the higher courts to which you appealed that the judgment was that your words provoked improper attitudes toward Jewish people ‑‑ we will see the exact words.
Let me not be impeached with misleading you. I am now talking about your appeal to the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Do you remember that?
A. You mean in Geneva?
Q. Yes. Do you remember that?
A. Yes. I have so much to say about this.
Q. Mr. Christie will ask you every question that he can think of to help you.
A. You are jumping from one page to another. You are omitting very important things in it. You are taking pieces. Are we going with Mr. Christie over all this?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just wait for the next question.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. In 1993 you complained to Geneva, to the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that one of you many convictions violated the obligations of France under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Do I have at least that right?
A. This is right.
Q. I get 100 per cent for that question.
A. Yes, and we can do it very quickly. I totally agree with what you say with the answer of Geneva, totally. We should not waste any time about that.
Q. You will have to permit me to waste a little time.
Let me give you the decision. I have a copy that I downloaded from the University of Minnesota web site. I also have a copy that Mr. Rosen has kindly given me of the official document from Geneva.
I will keep my questions to the text as I have it. Maybe I will give you both. I think the official text is probably better for your purposes, so there will be no question.
Can you satisfy yourself, sir, that this is indeed the judgment that you are familiar with?
A. Yes.
MR. FREIMAN: Could we make that the next exhibit, please.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Your copy?
MR. FREIMAN: I think A and B would be good. I apologize to the witness and to the Tribunal. I think the pages are relatively easy to navigate, but there is a couple of pages where there are not paragraph numbers.
THE CHAIRPERSON: HR-41(a) will be the unofficial copy and HR-41(b) will be the official copy.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-41(a): Unofficial copy of judgment of Human Rights Committee in Geneva dated July 19, 1995
EXHIBIT NO. HR-41(b): Official copy of judgment of Human Rights Committee in Geneva dated July 19, 1995
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Sir, if I am correct, the complaint against you was based ‑‑ and you can see this at paragraph 2.6 ‑‑
A. Of which document?
Q. Whichever you prefer. Why don't we both work from the same one, which is the University of Minnesota one. It is page 3 of 21, paragraph 2.6.
They cite that the conviction was based, among other things, on the following Faurisson statements:
"...No one will have me admit that two plus two make five, that the earth is flat, or that the Nuremberg Tribunal was infallible. I have excellent reasons not to believe in this policy of extermination of Jews or in the magic gas chamber..."
The second statement is:
"I would wish to see that 100 per cent of all French citizens realize that the myth of the gas chambers is a dishonest fabrication ('est une gredinerie') ‑‑"
A word that I do not know..
"‑‑ endorsed by the victorious powers of Nuremberg in 1945-46 and officialized on 14 July 1990 by the current French Government, with the approval of the 'court historians'."
That is what was complained about against you. This was under a new law that had been passed in 1990 that made it an offence to deny crimes against humanity.
A. Les Faurissonia.
Q. You call this a law that was directed entirely at you ‑‑
A. It's not me. I didn't call it myself lex Faurissonia. It is the name given in the Court of Paris among the lawyers and people and judges. They called this lex Faurissonia.
Q. I can't comment on that, but certainly here it is called the Gayssot Act in this judgment.
Just looking at the two statements that were complained about, the words "I have excellent reasons not to believe in this policy of extermination of Jews or in the magic gas chamber," am I correct, sir, that the reference to "magic gas chamber" is a quote from Céline?
A. That's right. It's a novelist's word.
Q. So you maintain. The basis for your complaint, or one of them, is set out at paragraph 3.1 at page 4 of 21:
"The author ‑‑"
That is you.
"‑‑ contends that the 'Gayssot Act' curtails his right to freedom of expression and academic freedom in general, and considers that the law targets him personally ('lex Faurissonia'). He complains that the incriminated provision constitutes unacceptable censorship, obstructing and penalizing historical research."
That is what you said?
A. Yes, and I want to explain.
Q. You will have your chance when Mr. Christie re-examines you. I am going to ask you to confirm that the State party ‑‑ that is, France ‑‑ at 4.2 responded by saying ‑‑ we will read the whole thing so that no one will accuse me of leaving things out. We will start at 4.1:
"In its submission under rule 91, the State party provides a chronological overview of the facts of the case and explains the ratio legis of the law of 13 July 1990. In this latter context, it observes that the law in question fills a gap in the panoply of criminal sanctions, by criminalizing the acts of those who question the genocide of the Jews and the existence of gas chambers. In the latter context ‑‑"
A. Excuse me, there is something wrong in my paper.
Q. It is page 4 of 21.
A. "Freedom of expression is ‑‑" and then ‑‑ is it 4.3?
Q. No, 4.1. I am going to read the whole thing so that nobody says that I omitted a very important part.
A. Okay.
Q. Continuing:
"In the latter context, it adds that the so-called 'revisionist' theses had previously escaped any criminal qualification, in that they could not be subsumed under the prohibition of (racial) discrimination, of incitement to racial hatred, or glorification of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
4.2 The State party further observes that in order to avoid making it an offence to manifest an opinion...the legislature chose to determine precisely the material element of the offence, by criminalizing only the negation ('contestation'), by one of the means enumerated in article 23 of the law on the Freedom of the Press of 1881, of one or several of the crimes against humanity in the sense of article 6 of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal. The role of the judge ‑‑"
And this is what I meant for the Tribunal and I ask you to confirm that it is an accurate reading.
"The role of the judge seized of allegations of facts that might be subsumed under the new law is not to intervene in an academic or an historical debate, but to ascertain whether the contested publications of words negate the existence of crimes against humanity recognized by international judicial instances. The State party points out that the law of 13 July 1990 was noted with appreciation by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in March 1994."
Will you agree with me, sir, that, as was the case with the Cour d'Appel, that France, in justifying its law, starts by saying that it is not part of this law to have the court intervene in an academic or a historical debate?
MR. CHRISTIE: Could I interrupt for a moment.
Is Mr. Freiman asking this witness to give his interpretation of the judgment, which clearly speaks for itself? I thought he was objecting to the witness giving legal opinions in earlier testimony.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand that what he is putting to him is what is written here. Are you asking him to acknowledge it?
MR. FREIMAN: Yes, that's all.
MR. CHRISTIE: That wasn't the question I objected to.
THE WITNESS: May I answer?
MR. FREIMAN: Yes.
THE WITNESS: Of course, when you are going to condemn someone for his opinion, the first thing that you do is to say, "I am for freedom of expression," and this is what the tribunal does. They do that. "We are for freedom; we don't want to enter into that debate," but that is what they do. There is an academic debate, in fact.
I never hide that I am an arch-criminal; of course I am. Why? Because I do not believe in the magic gas chamber and in a policy of physical extermination of the Jews of Europe.
They say, "Oh, you are very serious, but you are dangerous. Even I would add, it is precisely because you are serious that you are dangerous."
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Can you explain to me with your Ajax method where this comes from? I don't read that. The text doesn't say that.
A. Wait a minute. I said that I am summarizing all my condemnations, not this one especially. If I make the total, I have to put it in a nutshell. If I must put it in a nutshell, it is very simple. Mr. Faurisson is serious, but dangerous. You find it nearly everywhere, sometimes clearly said and sometimes it is implicit. This is not a discovery; we know that.
Galileo Galilei‑‑ the church said to Galileo Galilei, "You have the right to say that the earth is not flat, but do you realize that you are harming people who believe that the earth is flat? Do you realize that, Galileo Galilei? Do you have a heart? What about the feelings of the people who are hurt by what you think is a discovery and which is perhaps a discovery, but you should think. You should limit yourself."
My complaint was to this court: I understand very well that the freedom of speech is something quite relative. It cannot be absolute, of course; you have to limit the freedom of speech, but you have no right to limit the freedom of research. There is no limit to research.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Next question, please.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Your little discourse about Galileo Galilei, how does that relate to the Ajax method of discounting context?
A. No, I never said that I didn't take into consideration the context. Constantly I repeated: Slow down. See the text. After we will see the context.
I am not someone living like that, in a kind of a void.
Q. You are aware, I take it, that the Government of France also relied, at 7.8 at page 9 of 21, on a Canadian case, J.R.T. ‑‑ which I understand is John Ross Taylor ‑‑ and the W.G. Party ‑‑ which I understand is Western Guard Party ‑‑ v. Canada.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What page is that?
MR. FREIMAN: This is page 9 of 21, 7.8.
Q. Mr. Christie says that it speaks for itself, but will you confirm to me that the court recounts that the Government of France relied on a previous decision by the same committee which held, in the case of a complaint by J.R.T., that:
"the opinions which Mr. T. seeks to disseminate through the telephone system clearly constitute the advocacy of racial or religious hatred which Canada has an obligation under article 20(2) of the Covenant to prohibit"
I take it that it was the case that there was argument about positive duties to prevent racial or religious hatred.
A. What is your question?
Q. Was there argument in this case leading to the judgment about there being a positive duty on the part of the state ‑‑
A. I don't know at all this judgment.
Q. All right, we will leave it alone.
A. You mentioned the name of Taylor, did you?
Q. Yes.
A. I have not read, I think, one line of Mr. Taylor. I think his name is John Ross Taylor. I know his name, but I have never read anything.
Q. Then I won't ask you any questions about it.
Your argument you do recall, and that is at 8.3 on page 10 of 21. You will agree with me that this is central to your claim of being an interpreter of documents and texts, because you told the court:
"‑‑ that the State party has failed to provide the slightest element of truth that his own writings ‑‑"
That is, your own writings.
"‑‑ and theses constitute a 'subtle form of contemporary anti-semitism' or incite the public to anti-semitic behaviour."
A. What am I supposed to have said?
Q. You said that the State party ‑‑ that is, France, the party defending the judgment ‑‑ had not provided the slightest element of proof that your writings constitute a subtle form of contemporary antisemitism or incite the public to antisemitic behaviour.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have the document in front of you?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I have.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Is that an accurate summary of what you said or what was said on your behalf by your lawyer?
A. I think I said ‑‑ and we should go back to the transcript. I think I said that I didn't have from anyone, not only from the tribunal but from anyone, the proof that my thesis harming anyone. That is what I said.
If such an accusation is made, I am waiting for a proof.
Q. This may be a convenient point to ask you ‑‑
A. When people say "a subtle form," I would like to have a study of this subtle form, so subtle that it is not even described.
Q. This may be a convenient time for me to ask you: When you say "proof," what do you mean?
A. What you would mean.
Q. What do you mean by "proof?"
A. When someone asks me what I call proof, I would say I am ready to accept what you will decide to call proof, and we will look at it. Do you understand?
For instance, when Mr. Michael Shurmer, the American, said ‑‑ when I asked him, I said, "Bring me one proof of the existence of one gas chamber." He said, "But what do you call a proof?" My answer was, "I am ready to take any proof, what you will decide to call a proof."
I am not giving a definition of what a proof is. It would be what you will decide.
Q. I am asking: What is your definition of "proof?"
A. I have no definition of "proof" about this. It would be anything that you will bring to me. If you put an accusation, I ask, "What are your proofs?" You come and you say, "Those are my proofs." I will have a look at it, and I may say, "I do not consider this as a proof" or "I consider this a proof, a good one," and so on.
Q. But you won't tell us in advance what constitutes a proof.
A. I am going ‑‑
Q. You will criticize the proof that is offered to you, but you will not participate in the definition of "proof."
A. Certainly I don't want to be theoretical. I ask the people, "Bring the pudding. You bring the pudding, and we will see if it is a pudding or not." I am not going to give the definition of what a pudding is. You say you have a pudding. Bring it. We are going to look at it.
I cannot be more open to people.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think he has covered the point.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. I take it that is also the method ‑‑ not methodology but the method ‑‑ that you propose to apply to Professor Prideaux' writing in order to assist the Tribunal.
A. I am not sure I understand your question.
Q. That is the method that you will require of Professor Prideaux, to present proof of his statements, but you will not provide a prior definition of what constitutes proof.
A. What I may do is to say, "Oh, I see that Mr. Prideaux says about why an essay is pseudo-scholarly." Of course, my question will be: You said pseudo-scholarly, which is a very serious accusation. What kind of proof do you bring to me to say that it is pseudo, which means lie? Bring me something. Don't affirm in the void. Don't say "pseudo-scholarly." Show me the difference for you between scholarly and pseudo-scholarly. It is too easy to say, "Oh, it's pseudo-scholarly."
For instance, perhaps you would give me one argument which is that there are no references. I can bring you books of a professor in Princeton, Arno Mayer, "The Final Solution." You don't have the slightest reference or source.
Sometimes I put so many references that people say, "Oh, Faurisson constantly references and sources," which is not the same. Sometimes I write something, but there is not one source, not one reference.
Q. And your references are always quoted correctly. Right? You always cite your references correctly?
A. I might make a mistake; that is quite possible, certainly. When somebody brings me the proof that I have done a mistake, believe me, I am very pleased because my new edition will be better than the first one.
Q. The proof is whatever they bring you, and you decide whether it is the proof.
A. We decide together. You are going back to this; I thought it was proven. You are going back, so I am going back.
If somebody brings me what he calls a proof, we are going to look at it together. Until now I have never found somebody bringing me one proof of one gas chamber, saying "This is a proof", a bad or a good. I can't find, and I know perfectly well why I cannot find; it's because it is magic. Remember Elie Wiesel.
Q. Will you agree with me that at 9.5 the court comes to the conclusion that your conviction did not encroach upon your right to hold and express an opinion in general ‑‑
A. Excuse me, 9...?
Q. 9.5. I will read the whole thing. That is the sentence I want to stress, but let's read the whole thing, so that you don't think that I am trying to trick you.
A. As you did.
Q. That's right.
"The restriction on the author's freedom of expression was indeed provided by law i.e. the Act of 13 July 1990. It is the constant jurisprudence of the Committee that the restrictive law itself must be in compliance with the provisions of the covenant. In this regard the Committee concludes, on the basis of the reading of the judgment of the 17th Chambre correctionnelle du Tribunal de grande instance de Paris that the finding of the author's guilt was based on his following two statements: "...I have excellent reasons not to believe in the policy of extermination of Jews or in the magic gas chambers...I wish to see that 100 per cent of the French citizens realize that the myth of the gas chambers is a dishonest fabrication'. His conviction therefore did not encroach upon his right to hold and express an opinion in general, rather the court convicted Mr. Faurisson for having violated the rights and reputation of others. For these reasons the Committee is satisfied that the Gayssot Act, as read, interpreted and applied to the author's case by the French courts, is in compliance with the provisions of the Covenant."
The first conclusion was that the law did not encroach upon your right to hold and express an opinion in general.
A. That is what they say, of course, because they are going to violate my rights. The first thing they are going to say is, "We are not people violating any right." Of course.
Now, about this Gayssot Act, perhaps you would interested to know that in France most of the intellectuals ‑‑ you can go and see and check ‑‑ are against that. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, my worst enemy, is against the Gayssot Act.
Q. We will not get into a debate whether the French Parliament should repeal the Gayssot Act.
A. I don't debate. I expand my answer.
THE CHAIRPERSON: There is a minute to go, and I think we will use it by leaving one minute early.
MR. FREIMAN: I estimate about an hour tomorrow, but that is just an estimate.
‑‑- Whereupon the Hearing was adjourned at 4:59 p.m.
to resume on Thursday, December 17, 1998
at 10:00 a.m.