Toronto, Ontario
‑‑- Upon resuming on Thursday, December 17, 1998
at 10:08 a.m.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Good morning.
RESUMED: ROBERT FAURISSON
Cross-Examination re Qualifications, continued
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Mr. Faurisson, before we get back to the Human Rights Committee decision, I want to clarify something about your proposed method in analyzing Professor Prideaux' work.
How long did you spend looking at Professor Prideaux' work?
A. It is difficult to say. Perhaps 100 hours.
Q. Am I correct, sir, that you are not a linguist?
A. I am not a linguist.
Q. And you have not studied linguistic analysis?
A. Linguistic analysis, no, but I have learned how to read French, Latin and Greek texts. I have been trained in grammar.
Q. For instance ‑‑ and the Registrar may not have this, but I am going to give it to you. HR-3 is a copy of a document that I think you are familiar with. It is called "The Commission's Brief of Materials for Prof. Gary Prideaux." Have you seen this before?
A. This is the part, I understand ‑‑ a very long list of publications of Mr. Prideaux.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He has just asked you a simple question. Have you seen this document before?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Could you give it back to me for one minute.
We are looking at HR-3. At tab 2, page 4 ‑‑ maybe we can look at this together.
A. When I say that I have spent so much time, it was only because I didn't want to know who was Mr. Prideaux, what were his titles, his theories and so on. I mean ‑‑ I am going to tell you ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, wait until you hear the question. Don't tell us things that pop into your mind. You are here to answer questions. If there are other areas that need to be brought out, counsel for the Respondent will do that. Just confine your answers to the questions.
MR. FREIMAN: One of my colleagues has given me an extra copy of HR-3. It might be useful for you.
Q. I am asking you to look at page 4 of tab 2. Do you have the list of references?
A. Yes.
Q. Which of those have you read?
A. I have not even read this page 4. My‑‑
Q. Let me ask you the questions and maybe you can give me answers to them.
I am not asking whether you read them in preparation for reviewing Professor Prideaux' work. I want to know: Have you read any of these books?
A. None of those books.
Q. Tell me what you have read on linguistic analysis?
A. Nothing in linguistic analysis. What I have read is what you could find in a French, very thick book which is called "L'Histoire et ses méthodes" (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade), in which you have all sorts of analysis of historical matters, literary matters and so on, which is something quite different.
I want to achieve my answer. My work was precisely from page 5, beginning with "Discourse Analysis of Selected Passages", and I didn't want to know who was Mr. Prideaux, what kind of reading he had, what kind of publications, et cetera. I worked only from page 5 where he begins his analysis of some Zundelsite notes.
Q. We have established so far that you have never studied linguistic analysis; you have not read any of the books cited by Professor Prideaux. I take it you are not familiar with the French works on linguistic analysis either, are you?
A. No, we could not say that. I am going to give you what we call the real reference book which is "Manuel de Critique Verbale" of Louis Havet, which is about especially analysis of text, the way the texts are transformed, and so on.
Q. You have read one book on analysis of text by M. Havet. I take it you have studied Saussure?
A. Saussure, no, not even Saussure.
Q. Not even Saussure. Saussure happens to be the founder of linguistic analysis who wrote in French, but you have not studied him.
A. I have not studied this because it is not my method. It is not my way of doing. I have been reading many other things ‑‑ practically, not theoretically.
Q. So your knowledge of linguistic analysis is practical, not theoretical. You are not capable of commenting on the well-foundedness or not well-foundedness of any theories that we might find underlying Professor Prideaux' work.
A. Really, in history, in life, in anything, I am very suspicious about theories. I need to see, for example, text of anything. I want to see someone who is supposed to have read many, many books, who is supposed to be very literate, and I say, "Come. I don't care about this. You are going to read this. I am going to watch you, whatever your food has been. Perhaps your food is not mine; I do not know. We are going to see." No theory.
Q. No theory at all.
A. No.
Q. You also, I take it, did not consider it useful to read the passage on "Discourse Analysis."
A. No. I began, I told you, on page 5.
Q. So you know nothing at all about the theory that Professor Prideaux takes toward linguistic analysis.
A. No, not at all.
Q. Not a word.
A. Not a word.
Q. How many hours did you spend analyzing the Zundelsite texts?
A. I took only the parts, as I said repeatedly, only the parts quoted by Mr. Prideaux.
Q. Did you analyze those separately from what Professor Prideaux says? Did you apply the Ajax method to the Zundelsite excerpts?
A. Commented by him, yes.
Q. I am not asking on his comments. Did you independently ‑‑
A. No, commented by him.
Q. Fine, the ones that are commented on by him. You applied the Ajax method as well, did you, or not, on those passages?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. You did that separately from your analysis of Professor Prideaux?
A. No. I took, for example, on page 5:
"More recently, Jewish historian Walter Laqueur 'denied established history' by acknowledging in his 1980 book, The Terrible Secret, that the human soap story has no basis in reality.'"
Which is a little more than two lines.
Q. You analyzed that?
A. I analyzed that.
Q. How?
A. You will see.
Q. How? How did you do it?
A. By reading carefully. I didn't even want to state that I know very well the book of Walter Laqueur, "The Terrible Secret."
Q. So you pretended that you didn't know the book, "The Terrible Secret." That is the first thing you did.
A. No, I don't pretend. I am fighting against this as I am fighting against prejudice, which is difficult. I say, "I am not going to state in my analysis of this ‑‑ I am not going to say, 'Oh, I know how and when Mr. Walter Laqueur in his book put those two lines.' I am not going to say, "Oh, but the context is different." No, I am not going to do it. I am going to take it at face value.
This is what Mr. Prideaux brings. Mr. Prideaux is extremely brilliant, perhaps; I don't know. He says, "I am going to analyze those two lines." Robert Faurisson comes and says, "I am going also to analyze," and I am not going to say I have done those kinds of studies, certainly not.
This is an experience of life. A professor might be totally stupid. We have a saying in France which is: There is nothing worse than a donkey with a charge on it." You have a simple donkey and you have a donkey who has been to university. If they have been stupid at the beginning, at the end most probably they will be as stupid.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, do you remember what the question was?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am beginning to forget myself.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. What was the question?
A. I forget.
Q. I thought so.
The fact is, sir, that you know you Ernst Zundel is.
A. I know who he is.
Q. You know who Walter Laqueur is.
A. Yes.
Q. You know whether he is a Jewish historian.
A. It happens that I know, but I do not care.
Q. And you have no linguistic theory that you apply to these; you are just reading them in a common sense way.
A. I try to read it in the common sense way. Common sense is something rare.
Q. The real talent you bring to the analysis is your common sense.
A. We will see. Common sense is a way of saying things. We could perhaps say it another way.
If I am qualified, I will be judged on the way I will explain what Mr. Prideaux explained. It will be a kind of competition; that's all.
Q. Would you agree with me, then, that one of the things that the Triubnal should do in deciding whether you are qualified is perhaps analyze your common sense as you manifest it?
A. Analyze my common sense if you want.
Q. Let's get back to what we were doing yesterday. By the way, did you bring the English translation with you today?
A. Yes.
Q. We will look at that in a minute. I would like to finish with this text, and then we will go back and look at the previous text as well.
You will recall we were looking, I believe, at ‑‑ let me check my notes. I want to look at a passage with you and ask if you would agree that, from your perspective, this is the ratio decidendi. You know what that word means.
A. Yes.
Q. This is what you understood was being said about you, about your work and about why your conviction was just. It is at page 15 of 21 ‑‑
A. Sorry, of which document?
Q. Of this document, the one we were looking at yesterday, the Human Rights Committee.
A. Is it the one of 8 November, 1993?
Q. That is the very one.
MR. CHRISTIE: There is HR-41(a) and HR-41(b).
MR. FREIMAN: It is HR-41(a), the University of Minnesota.
THE WITNESS: Could you give me a copy, please? Thank you.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. At page 15 of 21, paragraph 10 at the bottom, the court says:
"the French courts examined the author's statements in great detail. Their decisions, and the interview itself, refute the author's argument that he is only driven by his interest in historical research."
I understand that to mean ‑‑ and tell me if I am incorrect ‑‑ that the Committee here is saying that the decision of the French courts and the Human Rights Committee's reading of the passage complained about negate your statement that you are only interested in historical research, that in fact they find that you are interested in something else and that you go beyond historical research.
A. That is what they say.
Q. That is what they say.
A. May I make a comment on the first sentence? You have two sentences. The French courts examined the author's statements in great detail.
Q. And you disagree with that?
A. That is what they say.
Q. I am only looking at what they say.
THE CHAIRPERSON: There is no argument at this point about that. He is quoting to you what they say.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. I just want you to confirm that your understanding is the same as mine as to what the court found.
A. Yes.
Q. I believe that in the first part what they are saying is that the French courts correctly found that your argument is not only driven by interest in historical research.
A. That's correct.
Q. Then they go on to explain that;
"In the interview the author demanded that historians 'particularly Jewish historians' ('les historiens en particulier juifs') who agree that some of the findings of the Nuremburg Tribunal were mistaken be prosecuted. The author referred to the 'magic gas chamber' ('la magique chambre à gaz) and to 'the myth of the gas chambers' ('le mythe des chambres à gaz), that was a 'dirty trick' ('une gredinerie') endorsed by the victors in Nuremburg."
MR. CHRISTIE: Excuse me for interrupting, but my paragraph 10 is this, and it is obviously not the paragraph.
MR. FREIMAN: It is at page 15 of 21.
MR. CHRISTIE: There is more than one paragraph 10 then.
MR. FREIMAN: I am sorry. I am very sorry. I think Mr. Christie is correct. I am reading from a concurring opinion. I will get to that concurring opinion because it is very interesting, but we were, in fact, on page 12 of 21. This is the majority decision. I thank Mr. Christie for bringing this to my attention.
Where we had stopped was at page 12 of 21 at paragraph 9.6. What the majority said, the decision of the Committee itself, at 9.6 ‑‑ and I am looking at the sentence beginning "Since the statements made by the author ‑‑". They say:
"Since the statements made by the author, read in their full context, were of a nature as to raise or strengthen anti-semitic feelings, the restriction served the respect of the Jewish community to live free from fear of an atmosphere of anti-semitism."
Would you agree with me that on this page in this paragraph the Committee is finding that your statements, read in their full context, were of a nature to raise or strengthen antisemitic feeling?
A. What is the question, please?
Q. Do you understand, as I do, that what the Committee is saying is that your writings, read in their context, are of a nature that raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings?
A. That is what they say, and they say "in their full context."
Q. In their full context.
A. Of course, I wonder what is the full context.
Q. We don't have them here, so we can't ask them, can we?
A. There is a question there.
Q. That is the basic finding, that your works raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings and that ‑‑
A. No, "were of a nature as to raise", which is not the same.
Q. That is correct. They have a tendency; their quality is such that they can raise antisemitic feelings or strengthen antisemitic feelings. Is that what you understand?
A. They are of a nature as to raise ‑‑ exactly the words. We have not to change those words.
Q. What does that mean to you?
A. To me, it means that those people affirm that, read in their full context, which is something that I do not understand, my statements were such that they could provoke or strengthen antisemitic feelings, which means: You have the writings of Faurisson here, and you think that from those writings there might be a consequence in antisemitism, animosity perhaps, feelings. We have the writings of Faurisson and we know what they are. They have so many words.
Then we have something which is "full context." What is that? Then we have "feelings". Three things. They put a link between those three things.
Q. So that is your understanding.
A. That is my understanding.
Q. Am I correct, sir, that you or your lawyer argued that this was incorrect, that your writings were not of a nature to raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings?
A. This is my absolute conviction, yes.
Q. And you argue that fully before the Human Rights Committee? Your lawyer was able to argue whatever he wanted on that basis, was he not?
A. Sir, I had no lawyer.
Q. You argued it yourself in the terms ‑‑
A. I don't remember what I said in the paper I sent. I had no lawyer.
Q. This is the same argument that you presented, or your lawyer presented, when you had one, to the French courts, that your works were not of a nature to raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings.
A. I wouldn't say that.
Q. You never argued that?
A. I think so, but we always insisted on the fact that the question is to see if what I say is exact or not. What we have said many, many times in court is this: I am not going to think now ‑‑ must I write down something that I think is exact. Am I going to worry if Peter or Paul ‑‑ and this is the example that we take very often ‑‑ if Peter or Paul are pleased or displeased with what I am going to write.
The question is: Is there a gas chamber in this place, in Auschwitz, in Majdanek, in Dachau, and so on? If I conclude that there is one, I am not going to say, "Oh, this would be very bad for many people that I know" or "This will be good for some other people."
This is what in French court my lawyer said repeatedly. Sometimes maybe he has said, "And what about antisemitism? Bring us the proof that the writings of Faurisson have done anything to develop antisemitism."
Q. I don't want your conclusions because we have not had you qualified as an expert. If you were qualified as an expert, would you be giving an opinion about the qualities of Mr. Zundel's writing based on the same sort of theory that you enunciated here?
A. I would take the pieces quoted by Mr. Prideaux and, of course, I would answer the question: Is it against the Jews? Of course, I will answer this question, because we can say the conclusion of Mr. Prideaux is precisely that the writings of Mr. Zundel or any one of the Zundelsite ‑‑ I do not know ‑‑ are of a nature as to raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings, of course.
Q. What I am trying to get at is whether the argument or the way you are going to develop your ideas, if you are qualified as an expert, is different from what you just told us now, which is that your only concern is for historical truth and that consequences don't enter into your publication.
A. No.
Q. It will be totally different.
A. It will be different because I have been told ‑‑ is it right, is it wrong ‑‑ that truth is no defence. If it is not a defence, I cannot use it.
Now, be careful. I told you that in French court I used all the same this argument, which is that it is not antisemitic. But afterward ‑‑
Q. Afterward, and every time you used it it was rejected.
A. As long as I have been condemned ‑‑ sometimes I have not been condemned. It happened, yes.
Q. And 12 times you have been convicted, or is it 13 now?
A. More than that probably. Quite recently I have been once more condemned on Friday.
Q. On November 13, was it?
A. No, no, in December in Amsterdam. You should go and try to get the judgment. I did get it already. I have been condemned in Amsterdam.
Q. Who condemned you in Amsterdam?
A. A court. I didn't send any lawyer, nothing. A court about the Anne Frank diary.
Q. And they condemned you for what? What was the charge?
A. I have not the judgment.
Q. I don't care about the judgment. I want to know what the charge is.
A. I am going to tell you. A Jewish foundation, the Anne Frank Foundation, in Amsterdam and the Anne Frank Fonds in Basle, Switzerland, were fighting each other and got united to lodge a complaint against Faurisson. Why? Because they say, as you have yesterday, that "Is the Anne Frank genuine?" was translated into Dutch, was distributed by a Belgian, I think, at the beginning of 1991. This is the complaint.
The complaint is that Mr. Faurisson is doing harm to the Anne Frank institution of Amsterdam because ‑‑ there are two reasons. Number one, the number of visitors might decrease after reading Mr. Faurisson, and it will be what we call a reduit des financiers; it will be bad for their money.
Number two, we are obliged to train our guys, which costs money, to answer visitors asking them questions asked by Faurisson. This costs money also.
Q. That, I understand, is the nature of the damage they suffered. What were you accused of? What did you do wrong? What do they say you did wrong?
A. I don't know. I received by fax a copy of an article in a newspaper saying that I had been condemned. I do not know ‑‑
Q. You don't know what they found ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: Could you allow him to finish?
MR. FREIMAN: I have allowed him to finish.
MR. CHRISTIE: He was speaking when you interrupted him. Is that how you signify the next question?
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Dr. Faurisson, you received a copy of the complaint against you at some point, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. And you read it?
A. Yes.
Q. What did it say?
A. I told you.
Q. That's all it said? It didn't say you did anything else wrong, other than you caused financial prejudice to these institutions?
A. Of course, they said it was antisemitic and things like that. Of course.
Q. That goes without saying.
A. Of course. Or perhaps they didn't say even antisemitic. I would need the text here. Perhaps they said that it was bad for the memory of Anne Frank, without talking about antisemitism; I am not sure.
Q. You take these matters so seriously that you don't pay any attention? You don't know what it is that they ask.
A. I have a difficult life. I have many, many trials. I receive many papers, many complaints. I received this perhaps in 1992. I don't remember. I would need to have those papers.
So I brought you a piece of news.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Was this a hearing before a tribunal in Amsterdam?
THE WITNESS: Before a tribunal, meaning in front of a tribunal?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Was it a court?
A. It was a court, yes. I had the visit of the French police at home, and they served me a paper saying, "There is a complaint against you", and that's it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: And did you appear before the tribunal or the court?
THE WITNESS: No. I have no money; I have no time. I cannot go to Amsterdam. The next morning perhaps it will be in Lithuania ‑‑
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Or Toronto.
A. Or Toronto. For my friend I am ready to do anything.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So you did not appear.
THE WITNESS: No, I didn't appear.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You didn't' appear and you didn't ask anyone to appear for you.
THE WITNESS: No. My publisher, to answer more completely ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: You have answered it. This is not a debate. We are just trying to get answers.
THE WITNESS: My publisher, of course, when he had to defend himself ‑‑ I don't know if he went to Amsterdam. Perhaps he said something for my defence; that is possible. I wrote one letter, I think, to the lawyer of my publisher saying that my argument was only this one, that my work on the Anne Frank diary had been made for someone who had to appear in a tribunal in Hamburg 20 years ago.
I cannot understand how something which has been made for a tribunal or for someone accused, how it could be possible to sue me 20 years after. That's all.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Next question, please.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. While we are on the topic of Anne Frank, when you were discussing with Mr. Christie your work on Anne Frank, I didn't hear you refer to the fact that the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation published a 250-page refutation of everything that you said.
A. But I am totally ready to talk about that.
Q. That did happen, did it not?
A. I didn't ‑‑
Q. Did it happen or not?
A. It did not happen, but I am totally ready to do it at any time. I would be pleased, because I know very much about that, I can tell you.
Q. I am sure you know an awful lot about it. I just want the fact that the Netherlands State Institution for War Documentation ‑‑ that is a government institution. Correct?
A. It's an institution for war documentation.
Q. It's a government institution?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And it conducted a study.
A. Yes.
Q. And its conclusions were opposite to yours.
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. Now let's get back to ‑‑
A. I have something to add.
Q. So this is not a debate about ‑‑
A. How is it that I cannot put any precision. You ask me: Do you agree with something? I agree, but do I have the right to say back.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You agreed with the proposition that your view differed from the government's findings. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: But in this book my views were summarized in a totally stupid way. That is what I wanted to add.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Can we now get back, then, to the decision of the Human Rights Committee? Could we look at page 13 of 21.
You will notice that after the opinion of the Committee, there is a number of concurring opinions. You know what a concurring opinion is. Before we get to the concurring opinions, there is one member of the Committee who excused himself. Can we look at the "A" on page 13 of 21 ‑‑
A. I remember very well.
Q. You remember. This is Mr. Thomas Buergenthal, and he says:
"As a survivor of the concentration camps of Auschwitz and Sachsenhausen whose father, maternal grandparents and many other family members were killed in the Nazi Holocaust, I have no choice but to recuse myself from ‑‑
A. To recuse.
Q. Yes, recuse.
"‑‑ myself from participating in the decision of this case."
Is Mr. Buergenthal a liar?
A. I would never say that he is a liar because I do not know this man. I do not have the list of the people that he said disappeared or were killed ‑‑ he said "killed", not "disappeared." I have no means to go and check what he says. I have not to believe or disbelieve what he is saying.
My duty as a scholar in such cases would be, if I was free to do it, to go and check, and I can tell you exactly where.
Q. Exactly where?
A. Exactly.
Q. You could tell me.
A. Yes.
Q. Let's look at some of the concurring opinions now.
A. And I am ready to tell you where.
Q. That's fine. You are not ready now to say that he is a party to a dishonest fabrication, Mr. Buergenthal.
A. He is a party to...?
Q. To a dishonest fabrication when he talks about his grandparents and many other family members being killed in the Holocaust.
A. I repeat that I do not know if he says something which is exact or not, so I am not going to judge the man.
Q. On the whole, though ‑‑
A. On the whole, though, I would say something. I find all the same very surprising that an American citizen doesn't take the defence of freedom of speech in that case since in the United States it's absolutely permissible to say what I say, and this man comes and he says, "I have suffered so much that I am not going to say, as an American representative, that Faurisson should have the right to speak his mind."
Q. I see. Looking at the concurring opinions which is really where I was looking before ‑‑ and I apologize for not pointing out that it is a concurring opinion. If you look at "C" on page 13 of 21, you find that these are concurring opinions by Elizabeth Evatt, David Kretzmer, Eckart Klein. Then if we look farther on at page 16 of 21, we also find a Cecilia Medina Quiroga concurred with that opinion. So we have four members of the Committee agreeing with the decision and giving their explanations.
This is their declaration. I would like to read with you a couple of the passages and see if they conform to your understanding of what the Committee had decided.
At paragraph 6 they say:
"The notion that in the conditions ‑‑"
A. At page...?
Q. 14 of 21. We will get back to page 15, but I want to be fair and read the whole thing insofar as it bears on paragraph 6.
"The notion that in the conditions of present-day France, Holocaust denial may constitute a form of incitement to anti-semitism cannot be dismissed. This is a consequence not of the mere challenge to well-documented historical facts, established both by historians of different persuasions and backgrounds as well as by international and domestic tribunals, but of the context, in which it is implied, under the guise of impartial academic research, that the victims of Nazism were guilty of dishonest fabrication, that the story of their victimization is a myth and that the gas chambers in which so many people were murdered are 'magic'."
I understand that to mean that these members of the Committee find that Holocaust denial, such as practised by you, can constitute, may constitute, a form of incitement to antisemitism because they see that under the guise of impartial academic research the victims of Naziism are being accused of being guilty of a dishonest fabrication.
Is that your understanding as well?
A. Absolutely. This is what they say.
Q. And you disagree; I understand. You disagree entirely.
A. I disagree especially with the beginning. We have to begin by the beginning, which is:
"The notion that in the conditions of present-day France, Holocaust denial may constitute a form of incitement to anti-semitism cannot be dismissed."
I disagree totally, since there is, according to Pierre Vidal-Naquet, quite recently ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment, Witness.
THE WITNESS: ‑‑ absolutely no antisemitism.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment. We are not going to debate the two sides of the issue represented in this paragraph. We know that you disagree with the findings of this tribunal.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. I want to direct your attention to that paragraph in order to get back to paragraph 10, which I had improperly put to you before without noting that it is the decision of four members of the Committee.
Having said that, they go on ‑‑ and let's read it again and I will ask you the question I asked before:
"the French courts examined the author's statements in great detail."
And you have talked to us about that.
"Their decisions, and the interview itself, refute the author's argument that he is only driven by his interest in historical research."
A. Only driven.
Q. "He Is only driven by his interest in historical research."
The first conclusion they come to ‑‑ and this follows up, I put to you, from what they said in paragraph 6 ‑‑ is that the decision of the French court, as well as their reading of your work, the interview that was complained about, leads them to conclude that you are not only driven by historical research; there is something else that drives you. Correct?
A. That's right.
Q. They go on to illustrate that:
"In the interview the author demanded that historians 'particularly Jewish historians' ('les historiens en particulier juifs') who agree that some of the findings of the Nuremburg Tribunal were mistaken be prosecuted. The author referred to the 'magic gas chamber' ('la magique chambre à gaz) and to 'the myth of the gas chambers' ('le mythe des chambres à gaz), that was a 'dirty trick' ('une gredinerie') endorsed by the victors in Nuremburg."
They conclude:
"The author has, in these statements, singled out Jewish historians over others, and has clearly implied that the Jews, the victims of the Nazis, concocted the story of gas chambers for their own purposes. While there is every reason to maintain protection of bona fide historical research against restriction, even when it challenges accepted historical truths and by so doing offends people, anti-semitic allegations of the sort made by the author, which violate the rights of others in the way described, do not have the same claim to protection against restriction."
As I understand it, their conclusion is that the antisemitism in your work surpasses or goes beyond anything that should be protected in bona fide historical research and goes on to violate the rights of others. That is their conclusion, is it not?
A. That is their conclusion, yes.
Q. Again, I understand that you disagree with that.
A. Of course.
Q. Yesterday you objected and, in fact, gave me a very failing grade for refusing, as you said, to look at certain passages. I thought that, in fairness, we would look at some passages, because I am going to put to you the proposition that, when we
look ‑‑
A. Passages of what?
Q. Of the decision of the 26th of April, 1983. I am going to put to you the proposition that, when we look at those passages, the Court of Appeal comes to exactly the same conclusion as the members of the Human Rights Committee, namely, that your work goes beyond the bounds of history and into polemical antisemitism. That is correct, is it not?
A. That is correct. We don't even need to read. I totally agree.
Q. I want to be fair to you; I don't want to be unfair to you. I want you to understand that I accept your translations that you gave yesterday, that you were correct. You are the expert in French; I am not. "Convaincre" means to condemn or convict or to lay at the feet of, and I accept that that is correct.
I still put to you that at the end of the day the Court did not find that you were a careful historian who was serious. What they found was, as the Chair said, a Scotch verdict ‑‑ that is, it was not proven the opposite. They were not able to come to a conclusion for the opposite proposition.
A. I do not agree, because they came to a conclusion by saying, "Therefore, it is permitted to say that the gas chambers did not exist," which is a conclusion.
Q. Where do they say that?
A. I will show you.
Q. Show me.
A. You take your French text, and I am going to read the English translation.
Q. Fine. Just tell me where it is.
MR. CHRISTIE: Do you want a copy of this?
MR. FREIMAN: Sure. I would like to make this an exhibit.
THE CHAIRPERSON: This is a translation of HR-40, is it?
MR. CHRISTIE: May I, for the record, identify that we are providing a translation prepared of the 26th of April, 1983 judgment of the Court of Appeal in Paris. The translation is into the English language.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Do we know who made the translation?
A. Yes, I can tell you. I remember the name. Must I give the name or say who is the man?
Q. Say who is the man.
A. It is a German who was a translator in the American army. His name is Hans Rudolf van der Heide.
THE CHAIRPERSON: For what purpose was this translation made?
THE WITNESS: It was made, I think, for the ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: May I answer?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR. CHRISTIE: This was provided to the District Court in Ontario in 1985, before His Honour Judge Locke. I believe it was accepted as the translation at that time.
THE WITNESS: I have the original, if I may read the signature.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment.
MR. FREIMAN: My position on this is that I am glad to let it in as something that the witness has prepared. I don't accept its authenticity or its reliability as a translation. There is no ordinary attestation; there is no jurat. There is nothing to it. It is simply someone's version of what this is. If it is of assistance, that's great, but it has no special status.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you suggesting that we mark it for identification?
MR. FREIMAN: It can be marked for identification only.
THE REGISTRAR: This translation will be marked for identification as "C".
EXHIBIT NO. "C" (for identification: English translation of Exhibit HR-40
MR. FREIMAN: I just note that one of the reasons that it is important to do that is that there is a number of notations which are properly recorded as having been inserted by Mr. Faurisson himself. It is this witness' translation, for better or for worse.
Q. Tell me where it is said.
A. You will remember that I said that there was a "therefore" and this was a conclusion by the court.
Q. Yes.
A. I am going to it. It is on your page 9 of the French version, paragraph 5, line 2. You have "donc" which means "therefore." I am going to give the translation of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5.
THE CHAIRPERSON: On page...?
THE WITNESS: In the translation it is page 8. On the original it is page 9, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5. In the translation it is page 8, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5. I am going to read ‑‑ Mr. Pensa, do I have a right to read?
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. You tell me where it says that it is all right to deny the gas chambers.
A. It's paragraph 5.
Q. "Therefore, the value of the conclusions defended by Mr. Faurisson rests solely with the appraisal of experts, historians and the public."
A. Yes. It must be quite clear. It has been so unclear up to now; I wanted to be quite clear.
Q. Let me stop you for a moment. This is an example again of your Ajax method, is it? You are now going to give us an explication du texte of ‑‑
A. I am going to read the translation.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, don't talk while the lawyer is speaking.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Is that what you are going to do? You are going to give us an explication du texte of this paragraph?
A. Not at all. I want to read the translation of this so important part of the judgment to show that it is not a court who said, "Maybe yes, maybe no." On the problem of the gas chambers, the court was so clear, so clear. I want only to read the translation.
Q. Read the translation.
A. I begin at "Considérant qu'à s'en tenir provisoirement ‑‑".
Q. Read what you like. I am waiting to hear the defence of denying the gas chambers.
A."Limiting ourselves," says the court, "for the time being to the historical problem that Mr. FAURISSON wanted to raise with this precise point, it is proper to state that the accusations of frivolity made against him are lacking in pertinence and are not sufficiently proven; FAURISSON's argumentation (that he thinks is) of a scientific nature, ‑‑"
Please, a detail. First it was typed "argumentation of a scientific nature" and then in the margin someone put in a handwritten addition "that he thinks is of scientific nature.
"‑‑ that the existence of the gas chambers such as they have usually been described since 1945 runs into an absolute impossibility, which would be sufficient by itself to invalidate all of the existing testimonies or, at least, to make them suspect;"
Next paragraph:
"It is not the job of Court to speak up on the legitimacy of such a method
or ‑‑"
Q. Let me just pause to note that just reading this English translations informs us of how accurate it is likely to be. But continue. "It is not the job of court to speak up on the legitimacy of such a method ‑‑"
A."‑‑ or on the full significance of the arguments ‑‑"
Which means that there are arguments.
"‑‑ set forth by Mr. FAURISSON, nor is it any more permissible for Court, considering the research to which he has devoted himself, to state that Mr. FAURISSON has frivolously or negligently set the testimonies aside or that he has deliberately chosen to ignore them."
Next paragraph:
"Furthermore, this being the case, nobody can convict him of lying when he enumerates the many documents that he claims to have studied and the organisations at which he supposedly did research for more than fourteen years."
This was in 1983.
Q. May I stop you there for a moment, sir?
A. Yes.
Q. The way that I read that is that the court comes to a conclusion that you cannot be called a liar when you say that you read a number of documents and you cannot be called a liar when you say that you did research at a number of organizations for 14 years. Is that the way you read it as well?
A. Yes, because the accusation was frivolousness in this, negligence in that, deliberate ignorance in that, and lying when I was enumerating, and so on.
There we have the conclusion:
"Therefore, the value of the conclusions defended by Mr. FAURISSON rests solely with the appraisal of experts, historians and the public."
So I was right when I said that there was "therefore", that it was a conclusion and that the conclusion was clear.
Q. You were right because you translated the word "Que" as "therefore."
A. No. It's "donc."
Q. You see "donc"; I see "Que."
A. No. Considérant que ‑‑
Q. Monsieur, would you look at page 9 in the French, the second-last paragraph. Read the second-last paragraph, the one before the paragraph that says "Mais considérant ‑‑"
A. "Considérant qu'il ressort ‑‑"
Q. No, no, no.
A. Which one? Tell me the French words.
Q. "Que la valeur ‑‑."
A. Yes.
Q. Read it.
A."Que la valeur des conclusions défendues par M. FAURISSON relève donc de la seule appréciation des experts, des historiens et du public."
Q. So you say that the "donc" ‑‑ what do you say the "donc" proves?
A. Excuse me...?
Q. What do you say the "donc" prove?
A. That it is a conclusion. It is "therefore." Therefore, from all this the court concludes by saying ‑‑ it seems extremely clear: Considering this and this and that, the court decides that you will have the right to say that the gas chambers did not exist, or did exist, as you like it.
Q. That is what you read.
A. It is crystal clear. I want to go back to what you said about "Que."
Q. Fine.
A. No, no. You made one more mistake.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness ‑‑
THE WITNESS: One more mistake. So many mistakes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, stop. When the Chair or a Panel Member asks you to stop, you stop.
MR. CHRISTIE: May I raise an objection?
My learned friend has put to the witness that the word "Que" is at the beginning of the paragraph rather than the word "donc." The word "donc" appears in the middle of the paragraph. With Mr. Freiman's interpretation, it doesn't appear to have any significance.
Therefore, I wonder if it is possible to allow the witness to explain why the presence of the word "donc" in the middle of the paragraph could, in translation, move that to the beginning of the paragraph. I don't think there is a fair opportunity ‑‑
MR. FREIMAN: I am willing to allow the witness the conclusion that it is a "therefore." I withdraw my objections; it is not worth the time.
MR. CHRISTIE: It is worth the time. If there is a suggestion that it is a matter of time, I think we should allow the correct answer.
MR. FREIMAN: I am allowing the "therefore."
THE CHAIRPERSON: He is conceding the witness' interpretation, as I understand it.
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Monsieur Faurisson, can you tell me how that differs in any way from what the court began by noting at page 7, under "Cela Etant Expose . La Cour"
"Considérant que les premiers juges ont rappelé avec raison ‑‑"
A. Excuse me, page 7 you said?
Q. Page 7, at the beginning of the Reasons.
A. And I am going to give you the page of the translation. Which paragraph, please?
Q. The very first one under "Grounds for the Court's Decision".
A. I am going to find the translation.
Q. Page 6.
A. It's page 6, paragraph 3:
"Grounds for the Court's Decision
The previous judges have rightfully recalled that the courts are neither competent nor qualified to give judgment on the value of the historical work submitted by the researchers to the public and to decide on the controversies or disputes which such research work seldom falls to bring about."
Q. Now tell me how that differs in any way from your conclusion, even with the "donc" in it. Isn't that exactly the same thing as they said at the end? Is anything different? Does it say anything different ‑‑
A. In this place ‑‑
Q. In this place ‑‑
A. And the other one.
Q. ‑‑ and the other one, yes.
A. Let's look at it carefully.
They say that they have no right to give judgment on the value of the historical work submitted to them, but later on they are judging my method and my arguments. They are looking not for the value in itself of my work, but is there anything that the accusations ‑‑
Q. You have misunderstood my question.
MR. CHRISTIE: No, unfortunately, he did not misunderstand the question. He is directing an answer to it. My friend cuts him off because he does not like the answer, and I object to that.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. The question that I asked, sir, was: Is there any difference between that paragraph and the paragraph which states:
"Que la valeur des conclusions défendées par M. FAURISSON relève donc de la seule appréciation des experts, des historiens et du public"?
Is there any difference between what is being said in that paragraph and what was said in the very first paragraph of the court's Reasons?
A. I think that there is. It's a complement; it's not a difference. They begin the decision by saying, "We have no right to judge the value," and then they judge method, arguments and so on.
Q. That is what you say.
A. That is what they say, unless you find something else. That's okay. It's so clear.
Q. Let's continue, then, with what they say after what you call this ringing endorsement of your work ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: He didn't use those words, and I object to those words being put to him.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. After the important victory that you talked about yesterday ‑‑ and you did talk about an important victory ‑‑ can we look at the next paragraph?
A. In the French version?
Q. In the French version or the English version. I prefer the French because at least we can see what the actual words were.
A. At page...?
Q. At page 9:
"Mais considérant qu'une lecture d'ensemble des écrits soumis à la COUR fait apparaître que M. FAURISSON se prévaute abusivement de son travail critique pour tanter de justifier sous son couvert, mais en dépassant largement son objet, des assertions d'ordre général qui ne présentent plus aucun caractèrs scientifique et relèvent de la pure polémique; qu'il est délibérément sorti du domaine de la récherche historique et a franchi un pas que rien, dans ses travaux antérieurs, n'autorisait, lorsque, résumant sa pensés sous forme de slogan, il a proclamé que 'les prétendus massacrés en chambres à gaz et le prétendu génocide sont un seul et même mensonge.; que par delà la négation de l'existence des chambres à gaz, il cherche en toute occasion à attinuer la caractère criminel de la déportation, par exemple en fournissant une explication personnelle mais tout à fait gratuite des 'actions spéciales' mentionnées à quinze reprises et avec horreur dans le journal du médecin KREMER;"
A. May I give the translation?
Q. Let me give my translation, and we will see if it is at all close to what is there.
"But, taking into account that a reading of the totality of the writings submitted to the Court makes it appear that M. Faurisson has taken advantage in an abusive manner of his critical work in order to try to justify under its cover, but going beyond its object or its goal, assertions ‑‑
A. Your forgot "largement". largely.
Q. "‑‑ assertions of a general order that don't present any scientific character ‑‑"
A. No, a very serious mistake.
Q. "‑‑ no longer present ‑‑
A. No longer.
Q. "‑‑ no longer present any scientific character: ‑‑ and what would you say for relèvent", "relèvent de la pure polémique." How would you translate "relèvent?"
A. I will tell you.
Q. Your friend translated it as "are." I would say "and rise to pure polemics."
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is that fair?
THE WITNESS: No; "are nothing but polemics."
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. You are reading the translation.
A. And the translation is quite correct.
Q. What does the word "relèvent" mean?
A. It is of the nature of. The translation is quite good.
Q. "‑‑ and that he has deliberately left the field of historical research and taken a step which nothing in his previous work authorizes when summarizing his thought in the form of a slogan. He has stated that the alleged massacre in gas chambers and the alleged genocide are one and the same lie. By this means, the denial of the existence of gas ‑‑
A. No, not "by this means", not at all.
Q. Then what?
A. I will tell you. "In addition to".
Q. I am not sure that that is what "par delà" means, but if you want to say "in addition
to" ‑‑
A. What?
Q. I am not sure that is what "par delà" means.
A. "Par delà" means "in addition."
Q. All right.
"‑‑ and in addition the denial of the existence of gas chambers" ‑‑ it is "par delà", by means of the denial of the existence of gas chambers is what it should say ‑‑
A. No, no, delà. I think it would be much better to read this translation.
Q. I don't trust your translation, sir.
A. Okay, so you could say "I do not agree." In the same way I am saying, "I do not agree," this gentleman could say, "I do not agree."
THE CHAIRPERSON: He is not a witness, and you are. Let's get on with it.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Do you wan to say "In addition to?" All right.
"In addition to the denial of the existence of gas chambers, he tries at every occasion to mitigate the criminal nature of the deportation, for example, by providing a personal explanation or explication" ‑‑ what would you say is "tout à fait gratuite?"
A. I have to go back ‑‑
Q. Totally gratuitous, totally unfounded.
A. "He avails himself of every opportunity to mitigate the criminal nature of the deportation, e.g. by furnishing a personal, but altogether unfounded explication of those 'special acts' mentioned on fifteen occasions and with horror in the diary of Dr. Kremer."
Q. Then he goes on:
"Que sans doute il proteste dans ses dernières conclusions contre les 'falsifications' de sa pensée qui lui prêteraient l'opinion 'qu'il n'y a pas eu de victimes juives' de l'Allemagne nazis;"
It says: Undoubtedly, you protest in your last submissions against what you call the falsification ‑‑
A. Not "last;" "recent."
Q. "‑‑ recent publication against what you call the falsification of your thought which attributes to you ‑‑"
A. There is no "you."
Q. It's "he". I am saying "you"; the "he" is you.
A. Yes, but, if you read it, don't say "you."
Q. Put me down to three instead of four.
A. I agree.
Q. We will see if I can escape with one by the time we are done.
A. We will see.
Q. "He" meaning you, "protests in his recent submissions against the falsification of his thought that attributes to him the opinion that there were no Jewish victims in Nazi Germany, but nevertheless ‑‑
A. "Of" Nazi Germany.
Q. All right. I think it probably is "in," but that's okay.
A. No, it's de l'Allemagne.
Q. "However, his wording" ‑‑ is that what you say "propos" is?
A. "His wording," yes.
Q. You would like to go with that translation? Is that okay?
A. It's okay.
Q. "His wording leads the reader in a more or less ‑‑"
A. You missed "However."
Q. "However, his wording leads the reader in a more or less insinuating manner to this idea that gas chambers and genocide are the same, are confused with each other, are mixed up with each other ‑‑"
A. No, "are one and the same thing."
Q. "There were certainly Jewish victims, but the massacre of Jews is an exaggeration ‑‑ that is, a rumour of war ‑‑"
A. No.
Q. Read it for me, then.
A. I will read the translation. I think it is better. We should have done this right at the beginning.
Q. Read.
A. "‑‑ nay even a 'war rumor', for it appears that, when reading Mr. FAURISSON, the deportees of Auschwitz died above all from typhoid, and that moreover the term 'genocide' would be, strictly speaking, incorrect, that the figure of six million Jewish victims is evidently an approximate figure and that, by the way, a written order by Hitler laying down the decision to 'exterminate the Jews' has never been found."
Q. Would you agree that what all this says is that you have gone beyond your role as a historian and become a polemicist?
A. I went beyond ‑‑ I am going to tell you exactly. This is what yesterday you missed. I told you yesterday that the bottom of page 9 had been missed ‑‑ beyond my critical work which is of a scientific character, and that is what I meant yesterday. It is said here that my work was of a scientific character about the gas chambers, and they say very clearly about the gas chambers, but afterwards Faurisson went too far.
Q. Let's just read the sentence where they said that. They say:
"‑‑ pour tanter de justifier sous son couvert, mais en dépassant largement son objet ‑‑"
A. Excuse me, page...?
Q. Page 9, last paragraph. This is what you are reading from. Let's go right back.
"Mais considérant qu'une lecture d'ensemble des écrits soumis à la COUR fait apparaître que M. FAURISSON se prévaute abusivement de son travail critique ‑‑"
They do call your work critical work.
A. Yes, and understand what it means in French. "Travail critique" means work of analysis.
Q. Fine.
"‑‑ pour tanter de justifier sous son couvert, mais en dépassant largement son objet, des assertions d'ordre général qui ne présentent plus aucun caractèrs scientifique ‑‑"
You say that, because it says "which no longer possesses any scientific character", they are saying that your work does possess a scientific character.
A. On the gas chambers.
Q. Fine. We understand your position.
A. I want to read it.
"But when reading the full content of the paper submitted to Court, one gets the impression ‑‑ that is very important, the impression ‑‑
Q. Mr. Faurisson, "gains the impression." Can you tell us the French words?
MR. CHRISTIE: He is giving a translation.
MR. FREIMAN: He is giving somebody's translation.
MR. CHRISTIE: He is giving his understanding of it, and he is giving his translation. Why should this constantly deny him the right to explain as he understands it?
THE CHAIRPERSON: We are going to take our morning break now.
‑‑- Short Recess at 11:30 a.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 11:50 a.m.
MR. FREIMAN: I am going to try to shorten this. When we broke, you were frustrated with me. I am going to let you read what you want to read to demonstrate that the court finds that you are a scientific historian.
I just want you to tell me what the words "fait apparaître" mean.
MEMBER DEVINS: Precisely where are you reading, Mr. Freiman?
MR. FREIMAN: We are looking at the last paragraph on page 9.
Q. I don't want you to look at your translation. I want you to tell me, as a linguist or as a ‑‑ can you put down the translation, sir? No, you can't.
A. Excuse me...?
Q. Can you put down the English translation?
A. Okay.
Q. Can you tell me, as a French speaker and as someone who wants to be qualified as an expert in reading documents in English, what does "fait apparaître" mean?
A. "More or less shows."
Q. "Makes it appear."
A. "Makes it appear" could be better, yes.
Q. You were going to show us where it says that your works are scientific.
A. When it says that, when you consider the total of Faurisson has been writing, Faurisson takes advantage of his critical work, which means his work of analysis, and he is making assertions of a general order who no longer offers any scientific character. So it is no longer, ne plus.
Q. I see. From that, you take it that previously it did have scientific character.
A. If you say, "It does not rain any longer," it means that it was raining.
Q. I suggest to you that what it means is that it no longer has any pretence of science.
A. What do you say?
Q. I am suggesting to you that what it really means is that the polemical work no longer has any pretence of science.
A. No.
Q. That's fine; we disagree.
A. But we have to read it carefully. It is not to disagree; we have to see who is wrong and who is right.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You gave an answer, and he has put another proposition to you.
MR. FREIMAN: And he has disagreed; that's fine.
Q. We are agreed, however, that both the Human Rights Committee and the French Court of Appeal have characterized what you do and what you have done as going beyond science, beyond history ‑‑ they don't say beyond document analysis. In fact, were you presented as a document analyst to any of these courts?
A. I stated that I was a document analyst, and that's all.
Q. They state ‑‑ and let's just see if we agree. They state that in their estimation your work goes beyond the boundaries of scientific research and becomes polemic, and therefore, in the view of the Human Rights Committee, is antisemitic or tends to encourage antisemitism and, in the view of the Court of Appeal, tends to harm victims of the Holocaust.
Do you agree or disagree with that?
A. I disagree. Not my work; a part of my work.
Q. The lines complained of.
A. What?
Q. The lines, the specific words complained of in those passages, that part of your work.
A. That part of my work ‑‑
Q. The subject of your complaint ‑‑
A. Excuse me, we cannot both speak.
There is a part which is supposed to be scientific, which is about the gas chambers. The court said "the problem", and defined it very well. The court said, "There are so many testimonies,
but this is serious" and then after, "Mr. Faurisson is polemical and dangerous."
This is why, when I have to summarize this judgment, I say: The court decided that Faurisson was serious, but dangerous, and perhaps even more dangerous since he is serious.
Q. And that is how you read the judgment.
A. When I want to summarize ‑‑
Q. Is that the Ajax method?
A. No, no, this is a summary. This is something different. We could have other summaries, and I could even give you right now two other summaries. May I?
Q. No, I am not asking you for it.
A. Okay ‑‑ not made by me. Summaries made by people who have put a complaint against me.
Q. If Mr. Christie wants you to read it ‑‑ I am sure you have had a chance to discuss what is going to happen ‑‑ then you will.
I suggest to you that your writings all partake of that very same character, that in fact if ever you had a claim to be a disinterested, dispassionate expert, you don't have that claim because your work is now entirely polemical.
A. No. Part of it, once more.
Q. Part of it is polemical now. Correct?
A. No, no, I am talking about those people.
Q. Forget about those people for now.
A. I do not agree at all that it is polemical, if that is your question.
Q. That's my question.
A. Could you repeat your question.
Q. I am putting to you that, whatever claim you may once have had to be a dispassionate researcher, you are now a mere polemicist.
A. Absolutely not. Even those people who criticize me, who convict me, they don't even say that. It is quite clear.
Q. I would like to show you something that I believe appears in your selected bibliography of articles.
On page 6 of your curriculum vitae you list this as "Faurisson, Robert. Faurisson still waiting for 'exterminationsts', [Lettre], North Shore News. You thought to put this into your bibliography as an example of your historical writing or as an example of your expertise?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you confirm to me that this is the article that you are referring to in your bibliography?
A. Yes.
MR. FREIMAN: May we have that marked as the next exhibit, please.
THE REGISTRAR: It will be marked as Commission Exhibit HR-42.
EXHIBIT NO. HR-42: Article entitled "Faurisson still waiting for 'exterminationists'" from North Shore News, December 3, 1993
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. HR-42 deals with your response to a person from University of British Columbia who had written a previous letter to the editor about a column by Doug Collins. Are you familiar with Doug Collins?
A. Yes.
Q. Is he a friend of yours as well?
A. Not a friend, a relation.
Q. A relation?
A. We call this in France "un rélation."
THE CHAIRPERSON: An acquaintance?
THE WITNESS: Acquaintance.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Someone you know.
THE WITNESS: Someone that I know, that I have met, with whom I corresponded.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. In fairness to you, it is short enough and I would like to entire letter, although I only want to concentrate on one paragraph:
"In his letter of Nov. 7, Mr. Leonidas Hill of UBC took issue with a column on the Holocaust written by Doug Collins.
In doing so, he claimed that evidence given by me and other defence witnesses at the second Zundel trial 'collapsed under the scrutiny of historians.'
That is nonsense, and so is his further claim that 5,750,000 Jews were exterminated.
A reading of the transcript of the trial suffices to show that there was no order to exterminate the Jews, no plan (not even at Wannsee), no budget, no expert report stating 'this was a homicidal gas chamber' and no autopsy report stating 'this was the body of an inmate killed by poison gas.'"
Before we go any farther, I just want to ask you: According to those who still believe in poison gas and gas chambers, what happened to bodies after they were gassed?
A. They were not gassed.
Q. According to those who believe that people were gassed in homicidal gas chambers, what happened to their bodies after they were gassed?
A. Some of them could be cremated. Some of them could have been buried. You have both of them.
Q. According ‑‑
A. According, yes, because the witnesses are not in agreement about that.
Q."On the contrary, proof was delivered that the alleged homicidal Nazi gas chambers could not have existed."
That is proof by you. Correct?
A. No. My opinion ‑‑ and it is an opinion ‑‑ is that Fred Leuchter brought the proof in his report. This is my opinion, my estimation.
Q. This is the itinerant executioner, Fred Leuchter, who after the trial admitted that he was not an engineer and not an expert.
A. Is it? What is the question? There is too much there.
Q. Is there anything wrong in what I said about Fred Leuchter?
A. What is the question?
Q. This was the itinerant executioner, Fred Leuchter? That is who he was?
A. He was a specialist of execution gas chambers. That is what I would say. I would not say "itinerant." I would say all those words that you used after.
Q. We are not going to get sidetracked.
A. Well, you gave an opinion.
Q."After the trial, Arno Mayer, history professor at Princeton and of Jewish origin, wrote: 'Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable ... Besides, certainly at Auschwitz but probably overall, more Jews were killed by "natural causes" than "unnatural" ones,'"
Then you go on to talk about Jean-Claude Pressac.
A. No, no, I give the reference.
Q. Yes, you give the reference although not the page.
A. I can give you the page.
Q. I take it your view is that this is an accurate citation of what Professor Mayer said.
A. Yes, it is accurate.
Q. Do you agree with me that what this passage appears ‑‑
A. There are two passages.
Q. No, this passage in your letter. The first thing it says is "After the trial." Would you agree with me that that suggests that there is some connection between the trial and what Professor Mayer subsequently wrote?
A. No. Anyone could make this kind of addition, which is quite possible. It is chronology.
Q. So this is just chronological.
A. It was after.
Q. So we are just to take it literally. There is no connection.
A. There might be a connection; I do not know.
Q. Arno Mayer you call a history professor at Princeton and of Jewish origin.
A. Yes.
Q. You found it important to note that he was of Jewish origin.
A. Yes, it's on the jacket, on the dust jacket of his book.
Q. You found it important to mention it as well.
A. It is extremely important to know ‑‑ if someone is debating about the gas chambers, it is extremely important to know in that case, only in that case, if it is someone from a Jewish organization, from a Jewish origin, or if it is a German, for example.
If I hear a German saying something about that, I am very attentive to what he is going to say. Then I will listen to the other part in the same way. I will try to be totally independent. Then, afterward, I will say, "It's a man of Jewish origin; it's a man of German origin. He was here during the war." This is the context, after the text.
It says on the dust jacket, if I am not wrong.
Q. This Jewish professor at Princeton wrote: "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable."
A. Yes.
Q. Would you agree with me that the impression intended for the reader is that Professor Mayer is conceding that there is doubt about the gas chambers?
A. I don't know the impression; I cannot judge the impressions of the readers. Their impressions are not always the same.
What I say is that this professor in Princeton from Jewish origin ‑‑ and it is said, now I remember, on the dust jacket, "Born in Luxembourg" ‑‑ in 1988 finally wrote, "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable."
I suppose that readers like me could be very surprised since we have always been told before that sources for the study of the gas chambers were at once numerous and reliable. So this comes really as a surprise.
Q. Dr. Faurisson, the impression you intend to create is that Professor Mayer casts doubt on the existence of gas chambers. That is why you quote it. Correct?
A. I am quoting him because he said that the sources for the study are at once rare and unreliable. Of course, I want the people to think of it. See, this is a professor and he says "rare and unreliable."
Q. Professor Faurisson, the impression you wish to create is that Professor Mayer had doubt on the existence of gas chambers. Yes or no?
A. I do not know because ‑‑
Q. Your intention, sir ‑‑
A. My intention is to report exactly what he said, and I say to the people, "Think of it." It is not a question of Mr. Arno Mayer. I am not interested in Mr. Arno Mayer. I am interested in the fact that someone came and said that. Now draw your own conclusion, because Mr. Arno Mayer is a man who says that the gas chambers existed. He says it repeatedly ‑‑ not very repeatedly, I must say.
He said ‑‑
Q. But ‑‑
A. Don't interrupt me, please.
This man who said that the gas chambers existed is the same man who says, "Sources for the studies of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable." That is why it is so interesting.
Q. Can you show me where it says that Professor Mayer believes in the gas chambers?
A. In other places.
Q. No, in this article. You didn't bother to say that.
A. I didn't bother.
Q. It's not important.
A. It's not important. I am saying that this professor is saying that sources for the studies of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable.
Listen. I wrote quite an article about that ‑‑
Q. I am sure you did.
A. Yes. In this article I mentioned that, of course, he believed in the gas chambers.
If someone comes and says, "I do not believe in the gas chambers" and if he says that sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable, I am not interested. If someone comes and say, "I believe, but the sources are so and so," I am very interested.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Go on to your next question.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. We have established that you didn't think it was important to add that.
Next you write:
"Besides, certainly at Auschwitz but probably overall, more Jews were killed by 'natural causes' than 'unnatural' ones."
Would you agree with me that the tenor of this is to say that there is a difference between natural and unnatural causes and that the natural ones are not blameworthy, that no one is to blame for deaths by natural causes?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. There is no ‑‑
A. No. Read it. Natural causes and unnatural ones. If you go and see the text itself, it says quite clearly that "unnatural" means gas chambers and "natural" causes means ‑‑ you have four words that you have to find in another place in Mr. Arno Mayer's book to understand what it means. I remember something like starvation, disease, and two other words like that.
Natural causes means those four things, and unnatural ones means gassing.
Q. And you do not agree that the impression created by your quotation is that there is no moral blame for natural causes, only for unnatural causes.
A. I am quoting Mr. Arno Mayer. He is the man who said "natural"; it is not Robert Faurisson who said "natural."
Q. But in the very next paragraph he said: "But no one should make too much of a difference between natural and unnatural causes."
A. Bring it. Where does he say that, please? Show me.
Q. Do you deny that? Mr. Faurisson, the expert ‑‑ you deny that he says that?
A. That there was no difference?
Q. That no one should make too much of a difference, that it is just as culpable.
A. Wait a minute. He said, of course, against the revisionist people, "Anyway, natural or not natural, it's a crime." Of course, he said it.
Q. Of course. Where do you mention that?
A. I didn't mention it. It's a letter.
You should go to my study of the book. Maybe I said it; maybe not. Maybe I thought it was not worth it. Anyway, we know that Mr. Arno Mayer is very hostile.
You see this everywhere nowadays. The people more and more say, "Gas chambers or not, what's the difference? Those revisionist people are absolutely disgusting. We don't care if it's a detail or not and even if it existed or not."
Q. So you expected the readers of the North Shore News not to stop with the reading of this particular article, but then to go and to check out Arno Mayer and to check out Robert Faurisson.
A. I don't expect anything from the readers, sir. What would I expect? I do not know the readers. I am quoting Mr. Arno Mayer, and the question is: Did he say that or not? Are those quotations right or not, correct or not?
There are things that you have not read of this article, many other things.
Q. I asked you questions about the things that I was interested in. If Mr. Christie is interested in matters, he will ask you questions about them.
I have another article I would like you to have a look at, your recent publications. This is one that for some reason doesn't appear in your bibliography. It is called "The Horned Visions of the 'Holocaust'" Do you remember that?
A. This is not from me.
Q. It is not from you?
A. This is not from me. This is not a text of mine. What's that? No, no, this is not a text of mine. No, not at all. Where did you get it?
Q. I got it from CODOH. Do you know who CODOH is?
A. It is an Internet site, you mean"
Q. Do you know who they are, who CODOH is?
A. I know.
Q. Who are they?
A. It's Bradley Smith.
Q. Who is Bradley Smith?
A. Bradley Smith is a revisionist who lives in California or Mexico, I don't remember. This is not from me.
Q. You did not write this?
A. No, no, I didn't.
Q. So Mr. Smith is forging your name.
A. I don't know; I don't know. I see "Translated from French".
Q. You will notice it is 16 January 1997.
A. But it is not from Robert Faurisson, I am sorry. It is not from me.
Q. Someone put your name on this document?
A. Yes, as I see it, yes. I must say that more and more often today I find texts with my name. Yes. In German, and I have never written those ones. I should put complaints, but how could I put a complaint against something which is, I suppose, on the Internet?
Q. You could complain to Mr. Smith.
A. Yes, but I am discovering this.
Q. You never heard this before?
A. Oh, yes, I heard the story, but I didn't know that it was coming from Mr. Smith. I heard about that.
Q. You heard about this article.
A. That is why instantly I told you that it is not from me.
Q. Now you know it is Mr. Smith who is doing it. Is Mr. Smith ‑‑
A. Believe me, I am going to take care of this.
Q. Would it surprise you to know that this is also on the web site for Radio Islam? Do you know about Radio Islam?
A. Very well. I know very well Arnett Rami.
Q. Whom you describe as your friend?
A. It's a friend, yes.
Q. You know that Mr. Rami, among other things, posts on his web site the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Were you aware of that?
A. Maybe he does it. I consider it as a fake.
Q. Have you told Mr. Rami that maybe he should think twice about posting a fake?
A. I didn't know that he was posting it.
MR. FREIMAN: Let's put this in as an exhibit for identification so that the record will show what the witness doesn't acknowledge as his own.
MR. CHRISTIE: I assume it would be of some relevance if my friend is undertaking to prove that the witness is lying.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is not going into evidence. It is not part of evidence unless it is proven.
THE REGISTRAR: It will be marked as "D" for identification.
MR. CHRISTIE: If it is never going to be proven, how can it be relevant? If my friend says that at some point he is going to prove it ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: If it is not proven, then the Tribunal will disregard it.
EXHIBIT NO. "D" (for identification): Article entitled "The Horned Visions of the 'Holocaust'"
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Did you remember something about that article?
A. That's okay.
Q. Did you remember something?
A. I will talk about this to Mr. Christie.
Q. Oh, no, you won't talk to Mr. Christie.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You can't do that.
THE WITNESS: That's okay. I have nothing to say.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. You said that you had heard about this. Who told you about this article before?
THE CHAIRPERSON: You can answer that, Witness.
THE WITNESS: I was sued for this article, and that is how I discovered it. In fact, it was by accident the first time I discovered it. It was in a place in my town where you had something on the Internet. I asked the gentleman to see what you could find if you put the name of "Faurisson" and suddenly I had this.
THE CHAIRPERSON: When was that?
THE WITNESS: I think it was at least one year ago.
THE CHAIRPERSON: What did you do about it when you found out that someone was apparently ‑‑
THE WITNESS: I thought it was on the Internet and what could I do?
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Have you ever written to anyone to say, "This isn't me. Don't accuse me of having written it" Have you ever posted any denial anywhere in the world that this is yours?
A. Yes. I told you that I have been sued for this, and I won my trial.
Q. Where did you publicize the fact that it's not yours?
A. I didn't publicize it. It was done recently. This is one trial that I won. It is quite recent.
Q. And you won it on the issue of identification of you as the author?
A. Yes. I said, "I am not the author. This is a French text." I think we had it in French.
Q. Do you want to have a quick look at it and see if it is the same text that you were sued on and that you won the lawsuit?
A. I think there were those 10 points, yes.
MR. FREIMAN: Could we have it marked as an exhibit.
THE CHAIRPERSON: How has it been elevated since we marked it for identification?
MR. FREIMAN: It has been elevated to the point where Mr. Faurisson recognizes it as a text for which he was sued, whose authorship he has denied.
THE CHAIRPERSON: But it is still not his text.
MR. FREIMAN: It is not his text, and I am not alleging it to be his text.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It will still be marked for identification.
THE WITNESS: The court decided so.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Let's talk about courts for a moment. You talked to the court about your experience as an expert in a number of trials. Correct? You talked to Mr. Christie. You have him some information about your experience as an expert in a number of cases. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Two occasions were in the Zundel trials.
A. Yes.
Q. And you also said that you gave evidence in some German trials?
A. No.
Q. On behalf of five German boys; you gave names?
A. Never. I don't remember that. Five German boys?
Q. You gave the names of four or five individuals ‑‑
A. It was in France, not in Germany.
Q. I am sorry, I thought it was in Germany.
A. One more mistake; that's okay.
Q. Can you give us the names so we will see how I made that mistake? What were the names?
A. The names were quite French: Reynouard ‑‑ we should go back to the ‑‑
Q. Do you remember?
A. Some of them. René Pontier; Alain Guionnet; Pierre Guillaume ‑‑
Q. I apologize. I thought they were German, but they are obviously French.
A. I even said the places. I said Paris; I said Maux near Paris; I said Nanterre near Paris.
Q. What were these individuals accused of?
A. Of revisionism.
Q. And your evidence was to what purport? What did you testify? You weren't qualified as an expert because you told us that they don't do that in French courts. What was the nature of your testimony?
A. The nature of my testimony was that those people were right when they were saying that there were no gas chambers.
Q. You also testified as an expert in England at the trial of Nick Griffin. Right?
A. Nick Griffin, yes.
Q. What were you qualified as an expert in?
A. Not as an expert. I was taken as a witness.
Q. I thought you were an expert.
A. Wait a minute. In London?
Q. You weren't an expert?
A. In France I wasn't an expert.
Q. Not in France; I am talking about England.
A. And not in England.
Q. Can you look with me at page 2?
A. Could you show me, please, because I don't have it here.
Q. Can we look at page 2 of your curriculum vitae? Do you see the words "expert testimony?"
A. This is totally wrong. It was not as an expert.
Q. Aah! When Mr. Christie asked you if you had testified as an expert in England ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: I didn't ask him that. I asked him if he gave opinion evidence. Court-appointed experts are something different. That is what the witness is talking about.
THE WITNESS: It was not as an expert.
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Did you give opinion evidence in England?
A. What does it mean?
Q. Did you give your opinion as opposed to fact?
A. Yes.
Q. So you were qualified as an expert or not?
A. Not as an expert.
MR. CHRISTIE: Could the witness leave the room.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, please step outside for a moment. We have to discuss a matter here.
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
MR. CHRISTIE: In France, I think the witness earlier attempted to explain that experts are appointed by the court. There is such a thing as a court-appointed expert.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Yes, as there is here.
MR. CHRISTIE: I am unaware of that. My ignorance is overwhelming at times.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are people in this country who are allowed to testify as experts or to give opinion evidence for either the defence or the Crown who are not appointed by the court.
It is my understand from the witness' earlier evidence that there is a confusion in his mind as to whether he means expert, which I take him to mean court-appointed, or if he is allowed to give opinion evidence on behalf of the defence, which I would say is resulting from a difference of understanding about the legal process.
I say that to endeavour to clarify what I think is a confusing question. To be fair to the witness, I think that should be at least explored so that we can determine whether he understands that or not.
MR. FREIMAN: Mr. Christie is undoubtedly taken aback at this turn of events. We will continue a little further and see just how much confusion there is. If I have been unfair, if I have been misleading, he, of course, has re-examination to rehabilitate his proposed expert entirely.
Could we please have the supposed expert back.
MR. CHRISTIE: I take it the ruling is that there will be no clarification.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Just a moment. I think he is entitled to pursue this in an appropriate way in his questioning without attempting to mislead the witness. I am going to allow him to continue to explore this issue.
‑‑- Witness returns to the stand
MR. FREIMAN:
Q. Mr. Faurisson, let's take this slowly.
You told us that you had submitted to your friend Mr. Zundel an outline in French of your CV and it was translated, that you checked it and it was okay.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you read the CV after it had been prepared?
A. Yes.
Q. So it is not a case that you had never seen this passage saying "Expert Testimony: Testified at the trials of Ernst Zundel in 1985 and 1988 as an expert witness in World War II history, of the treatment of Jews by Nazi Germany, and in England in 1988 at the trial of Nick Griffin on the same topic."
A. But no more as an expert witness.
Q. Is this correct or incorrect? Is this text ‑‑
A. I think the type of expert testimony is incorrect since it makes the reader believe that I was an expert witness in three trials. In fact, I was an expert witness in two trials and I was a witness in England.
But it seems to me ‑‑ and I may be wrong because I do not know the Anlgo-Saxon rights. It seems to me that in London I had the right to express an opinion. I thought it was something more than an ordinary witness. Am I right or wrong?
I do not know the Anglo-Saxon right.
Q. Let's see what you knew or didn't know. First of all, let me confirm that you made no objection to this, you made no attempt to correct the heading "Expert Testimony" or this text.
A. No.
Q. You did not.
A. No, I didn't.
Q. You did not.
A. I did not.
Q. Why?
A. I didn't see this "Expert Testimony." I didn't see that it could imply that I was an expert witness in London, because I was not an expert witness in London.
Q. You certainly were not. There is also no confusion, is there, because you were tendered, you were offered, as an expert witness, were you not?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Where?
MR. FREIMAN: In London.
Q. Mr. Griffin wanted you to testify as an expert.
A. I cannot tell you. I do not remember if he said, "I want Mr. Faurisson" because I don't remember any kind of examination like this one. I don't think that he wanted me to be an expert witness. I suppose he wanted me to be a witness.
Q. Mr. Faurisson, do you remember the trial of Nick Griffin? First of all, who is Nick Griffin?
A. Nick Griffin is the British leader of something which is called the British National Party.
Q. And it is what is known colloquially as a fascist party or a neo-fascist party, is it not?
A. That is possible. I do not care, as you know.
Q. He was being prosecuted under England's race laws.
A. Yes, because in England you have not yet a law against so-called denial of the Holocaust, so that' right.
Q. It was under the race law, and that is a law under which truth is no defence. Correct?
A. This I don't know.
Q. You were not told that as part of your preparation to testify?
A. I don't remember. It seems to me that truth is no defence for the first time I heard it here in Canada. I don't think that before I heard that truth could not be a defence. I don't think so.
Q. Mr. Faurisson, I put to you that Mr. Griffin's defence or attempted defence was identical in every respect to the defence that your friend Mr. Zundel is trying to mount here. He said that he wanted you to testify not about the truth of the Holocaust, because truth was no defence, but, rather, in order to make the jury understand that Mr. Griffin had genuine reasons for his skepticism, thereby proving that he was not simply making things up in order to incite hatred. Do you remember that?
A. It seems to me that I remember the last part, yes.
Q. That's right. That is what Mr. Griffin said.
A. I was asked by Mr. Griffin, "Could you help me by testifying in court to show that it is not stupid to say that the gas chambers did not exist." And that's it.
Q. And, when you got there, it was a jury trial. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And at some point the judge told the jury to leave the room.
A. I don't remember that.
Q. You don't remember that you were questioned in the absence of a jury?
A. I don't remember.
Q. And that at the end of that process the judge, without even bothering to give reasons, said that you were not to be qualified as an expert.
A. I don't remember that.
Q. I am putting it to you that, if you read the Internet site of the British Nationalist Party, you will get the following statement:
"More judicial bias was apparent when the next defence witness took the stand. World-famous historian, Professor Robert Faurisson, called to show the jury that Mr. Griffin's apparently unorthodox opinions on certain aspects of the history of the Second World War were in fact soundly based on the evidence and the facts, the prosecution argued that such evidence was inadmissible, pointing out that under the repressive and unjust race laws truth is no defence. Nick accepted that this is the 'law', but argued that he was not seeking to introduce Professor Faurisson's evidence on that basis, but in order to make the jury understand that he had genuine reasons for his heretical skepticism, thereby proving that he was not simply making things up in order to incite hatred."
Then it goes on.
"The point was argued for a total of more than an hour at different times when the jury was not in court, with the prosecution being totally unable to answer the point and the judge giving no reason for his final decision to refuse to allow the evidence."
Does that refresh your memory?
A. I was outside.
Q. When that decision was being made.
A. I didn't even appear in the court room. This was a discussion, I suppose, a discussion between the lady prosecutor, Nick Griffin and the judge. I was outside the court. I never went into the court before. When I went into the court, I was asked to say something. I said something. I don't remember the judge saying to the jury ‑‑ I don't remember that.
To make it clear, I was waiting; I was wondering if I could testify or not, and someone said, "Yes, you can go into the court," and that's it. I think it is clear now.
Q. No one ever told you that you had been rejected as an expert witness?
A. No, not at all.
MR. FREIMAN: Well, Mr. Faurisson, on that bit of textual explication, those are my questions.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination.
MR. FREIMAN: Just one very small point, just to clarify.
Q. When you testified, sir, is it not the case that you were told ‑‑
A. Where?
Q. In England ‑‑ that you were told, "You have three minutes to say what you want to say?"
A. At the beginning ‑‑
Q. That's what the judge said. Right?
A. At the beginning he said something like ‑‑ I don't remember, but a very short time. It went on and went on; I don't remember how much time it lasted, but quite a time.
Q. Those of us sitting here can't possibly imagine how a three-minute time limit would be extended, but maybe we can use our imagination.
A. No, please. I say that the judge first said this, and then perhaps I was asked questions and I answered for perhaps 40 minutes at least. It seems to me.
In France, it is even shorter. In Canada it is very long, and you have transcript. In France we have no transcript. It is very expeditious. It's guillotine in France.
MR. CHRISTIE: We have Scottish verdicts and guillotine laws. I have some questions.
RE-EXAMINATION RE QUALIFICATIONS
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Were you asked to speak on text and documents analysis in the Griffin case? Were you asked to analyze text and documents in the Griffin case?
A. Yes, the text of Mr. Griffin himself in his magazine.
Q. Did you express an opinion on that in your evidence?
A. Yes.
Q. In the court?
A. In the court.
MR. FREIMAN: Before Mr. Christie proceeds, I wonder if we could get the CV back.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. In the Human Rights Committee judgment of the 8th of November, 1996, in paragraph 8.3 ‑‑ I am looking at Exhibit HR-41(b) which is the version from the original source, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It says in paragraph 8.3 ‑‑
A. I don't have it. I have this one.
Q. Look in paragraph 8.3, third line, second sentence:
"He accuses the State party of
hybris ‑‑"
Did you ever accuse a State party of hybris?
A. Never.
Q. Have you ever heard of such a thing?
A. I know the word, of course.
Q. What word?
A. Hybris. I know the meaning of the word, but I never used it.
Q. In your evidence about the text that you wrote in your book, you mentioned the subject of Noam Chomsky in cross-examination as the writer of a foreword to your book.
A. Yes.
MR. FREIMAN: I have to object. I submit that the only time that name was heard was in examination-in-chief when Mr. Christie led Mr. Faurisson through his credentials, and Mr. Faurisson noted that perhaps the word "preface" wasn't exactly correct to describe what Noam Chomsky had said or done. The name Noam Chomsky was never raised in cross-examination and, therefore, is not a proper subject matter of re-examination.
MR. CHRISTIE: In the cross-examination Mr. Freiman put to the witness that he had no French linguistic analysts who agreed with his position and he had no study of French linguistic ‑‑
MR. FREIMAN: May the witness be excused?
MR. CHRISTIE: Oh, for goodness sake! I am just about to raise an answer to your submission.
How come it is that during the submission Mr. Freiman doesn't have any concern about the witness' presence, but the moment that I reply the witness must leave. It seems to me that it implies that it is okay to ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, let's stop the speechifying. The witness can leave for a moment, to see whether it is indeed a matter that should be spoken to in his absence.
‑‑- Witness Withdraws
I confess that I don't recall whether the question was raised or not; I don't know if my colleague remembers or not.
MR. CHRISTIE: I agree with what Mr. Freiman said. The words "Noam Chomsky" were not mentioned for the first time in cross-examination, and probably was not mentioned in cross-examination at all.
I agree that that was the situation. I was endeavouring to lead the evidence pertaining to that in answer to the allegations raised for the first time in cross-examination that the witness has no knowledge of French linguistic analysis and the name of a French linguist was mentioned and the text "Manuel de Critique Verbale" was mentioned.
Perhaps the question was phrased improperly, and I submit that it was probably leading to the issue of who was Noam Chomsky.
When the suggestion is raised in cross-examination that there is no support for Faurisson's work or he has no knowledge of linguistics, the argument probably will be made ‑‑ certainly I will make the argument later that linguistics is not necessarily exclusive in terms of its ability to assist in the understanding of text, but text and documents analysis is really analogous to linguistics and very much analogous to the processes of Dr. Prideaux.
I wanted to attempt to ask who was Noam Chomsky and does he have any specific, to this witness' knowledge, experience in the field of linguistics.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You almost lost me, but do I detect that what you want to do is, under the subject of linguistics on which he was cross-examined, to ask him about Noam Chomsky?
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: For what purpose?
MR. CHRISTIE: Noam Chomsky, I understand, is to linguistics was Einstein was to physics. He is a very famous founder of linguistic analysis.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Are you going to ask him whether he studied linguistics? The answer is "no."
MR. CHRISTIE: Whether who studied linguistics, Dr. Faurisson? He says "no."
What I am entitled to do, I hope, is to show that Noam Chomsky who wrote the foreword to his book was familiar with his work and was supportive of his work and that he is a linguist. Although you cannot say that ‑‑ I didn't quite catch the argument. Mr. Rosen should speak louder so ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: I didn't hear Mr. Rosen, so don't worry about it.
MR. CHRISTIE: I did. It's very hard not to hear Mr. Rosen most of the time.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am having a little difficulty seeing the connection here.
MR. CHRISTIE: Let me make it a little clearer, I hope.
If Noam Chomsky, who is a famous expert in linguistics, confirms the analysis and the textual work of Dr. Faurisson by writing a foreword to his book in which he congratulated his work, then it shows that this distinction between the English word "linguistics" and the French version of text and documents analysis is really an irrelevant one, that the process is similar, that an expert in linguistics writes with approval of the work of Dr. Faurisson.
That is the objective, to show that this distinction between the English version of linguistics and the French concept of text and documents analysis is merely a semantic difference and that there is support of that.
MEMBER DEVINS: Is that what is said in the foreword to the book?
MR. CHRISTIE: That is a second question. We haven't got that far. Mr. Freiman is ready to give the answer. He has all the evidence, he thinks.
It really doesn't matter whether ‑‑
MEMBER DEVINS: It is a point for argument.
MR. CHRISTIE: It would be. If the question is directed to me, my answer would be that Professor Chomsky's knowledge and involvement with Dr. Faurisson and his work could be restricted to the civil liberties aspect ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: That was not touched on in examination-in-chief, it seems to me. It seems to me it is an entirely new area.
MR. CHRISTIE: I agree. To the extent that the contents of the letter were raised, it would be a new area.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You had the opportunity to qualify him. Whether it would have been admissible in-chief in the first place to say that Noam Chomsky approves of his work, in any event haven't you missed the opportunity to do that if, indeed, it were admissible in-chief? You made specific reference to Noam Chomsky in your examination-in-chief and, indeed, specific reference is made to it in HR-40, but you didn't explore that in-chief. The significance of Noam Chomsky's name, both mentioned and written, was not gone beyond the fact that, I guess, generally everybody knows who Noam Chomsky is.
It mentions a foreword, but there is no mention of what the foreword said.
MR. CHRISTIE: Until the allegation was raised in cross-examination that he is not qualified in linguistics. Clearly, the reason for that is to discredit him as an expert in text and documents analysis.
THE CHAIRPERSON: But it is really not an issue, is it? He does not claim to be qualified in linguistics, does he?
MR. CHRISTIE: He doesn't claim to be qualified in linguistics. The English word "linguistics", in my submission at the end of the day, is a semantically different word but of no substantial difference from text and documents analysis.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I suppose there is an opening for you, is there not, to explore that in terms of his evidence elicited in cross about the significance of the term "linguistics"?
MR. CHRISTIE: Maybe I see your point. I accept that, and I won't refer to Noam Chomsky.
MR. FREIMAN: May I simply note that the reason why it was objectionable to do at this point is that, of course, being in re-examination rather than at least attempting it in-chief, I had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness on what Noam Chomsky really said, what I say he really said, or any of those things.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I confess that there was some curiosity in my mind as to what Mr. Chomsky might have said.
In any event, rather than call the witness back now, we will recess now and come back at 2:15.
‑‑- Luncheon Recess at 12:52 p.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 2:20 p.m.
‑‑- Witness returns to the stand
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. In your evidence, the Human Rights Committee judgment of November 8, 1996 was put before you. Opinion "C" which was referred to, the individual opinion of Elizabeth Evatt and David Kretzmer, co-signed by Eckart Klein.
Paragraph 6 was read to you, and you were asked ‑‑ it is Section "C", paragraph 6. You were read the entire paragraph and you were asked if you disagreed.
A. Which one, please.
Q. Paragraph 6. If you would like to read that to yourself for the moment, then you will understand what I am asking about.
A. Yes, I read it.
Q. You were asked if you disagreed, and you said that you disagreed.
A. Yes, I do.
Q. I would like to ask you why you disagree.
A. Because I see:
"The notion that in the conditions of present-day France, Holocaust denial may constitute a form of incitement to anti-semitism cannot be dismissed."
It is dismissed by the facts. I mean that there is no antisemitism in France, and this has been recognized by at least two of our opponents quite recently.
Q. Who?
A. The first one is Pierre Vidal-Naquet. I wrote something which was ‑‑
Q. What are we talking about? Don't tell us what you wrote, but what he said.
A. Pierre Vidal-Naquet, I have something about him.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I a little bit taken aback by your categorical statement that there is no antisemitism in France.
THE WITNESS: I understand that you may be surprised.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is there not even one person who is guilty of antisemitism among 50 million Frenchmen?
THE WITNESS: I am going to answer right now.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: You have my answer here.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. What do you have there? Please tell us what it is.
A. It is an interview of Pierre Vidal-Naquet which appeared on the 23rd of August, 1998, and Pierre Vidal-Naquet says that in France antisemitism is dead.
MR. ROSEN: What is the context of the article? Could I see the article, please?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it in Spanish?
THE WITNESS: It is in Spanish.
THE CHAIRPERSON: It is in Spanish, Mr. Rosen.
MR. CHRISTIE: Goodness, it must be invalid, I guess.
THE WITNESS: The title is: "En Francia ha muerto el antisemitismo."
THE CHAIRPERSON: The point was that I didn't think Mr. Rosen would profit from reading it in Spanish.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Where was that reported?
A. It was reported in an Argentinian newspaper called "La Nacion."
Q. Was it reported anywhere in France?
A. Not that I know, but I have something else.
Q. Who is Pierre Vidal-Naquet?
A. Pierre Vidal-Naquet is a historian who wrote many things against me, so on my side I had to answer Pierre Vidal-Naquet in a book whose title is "Réponse à Pierre Vidal-Naquet." This was published in 1982. I suppose it is the list of my publications.
Q. I am not interested in your publications. I want to know who Pierre Vidal-Naquet was, and you told us he is a historian. Does he have any prominence in the Jewish community?
A. Really, yes. Everybody in France knows Pierre Vidal-Naquet who very often publishes articles in Le Monde or elsewhere. He became famous at the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s when he wrote a book denouncing the French army in North Africa.
Q. Are there any other prominent Jewish spokespersons who have indicated anything that you say is the reason why you disagree with paragraph 6?
A. I have another one.
Q. By whom?
A. It is in a text about ‑‑ I am going to give his name ‑‑ Henri Hajdenberg. He is the President of something which is called CRIF which means Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France.
Q. Can you summarize from it what you say, first of all giving the date?
A. This was in L'Evenements de jeudi ‑‑
Q. What does that mean in English?
A. The events of Thursday.
Q. When was it published?
A. In the week of the 3 to 9 of December, 1998, page 30.
Q. Just summarizing, what does it say that gives you reason to disagree with the statement that you quoted from paragraph 6?
A. Since I have to summarize it, may I stop for one minute? I want to be exact.
‑‑- (A short pause)
I am ready to summarize in my English.
This man is the leader of a Council of Jewish Institutions in France. He had to give his opinion about a Gallup poll on antisemitism in France. He says that the results are surprising and he is happy with those results because it shows how much antisemitism is diminishing in France. He is not a man who says there is no antisemitism; Vidal-Naquet said this. He says that it is decreasing, that those results are surprising by their magnitude. The exact words are: Those results are surprising by their magnitude.
Interesting enough, because they talk here about the entire revisionists ‑‑ a blow against myself especially in France ‑‑ he says, "We are glad to see that 80 per cent of the people agree with this blow against the revisionists.
It happens that I know the question which was put in the poll. We should be very prudent because the question was: For you, is it normal that one could say anything about the Holocaust? Of course, with such a question, the people who do not know what the revisionists are saying ‑‑ many people think that revisionists are denying the existence of the concentration camps. The people think it is normal to punish the people who say just about anything bad.
Moreover, this Mr. Henri Hajdenberg ‑‑ we have his photo there ‑‑ says that now we have, of course, to still fight against racism and xenophobia because, if the Jews are now out of question, there are other categories of people ‑‑ he means, I suppose, Arabs and so on. The fight of this CRIF would be against this form of racism, not antisemitism.
I have something else. May I?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Is it part of the same article? All we intended to do is give the essence of the article. Have you completed that?
THE WITNESS: I think I have given the essence of this article.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Are there any other reasons why you disagree with paragraph 6 of the judgment ‑‑ actually, I would call it a dissenting opinion. It concurs in the results, but differs in its analysis of the law itself.
A. I have a third name. We have Pierre Vidal-Naquet; we have Henri Hajdenberg, and now we have Alain Finkelkreut.
MR. FREIMAN: I sat by because this is neither here nor there in terms of evidence. At some point one has to deal with the law of evidence.
This does not appear to be within any known basis for admissibility for the witness to come armed with statements that he says support his opinion and to put them in evidence.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I have not said anything, Mr. Christie, but I thought your question was directed to the basis of his opinion in disagreeing with the proposition contained in paragraph 6, from his own knowledge and perhaps from his own research.
He seems simply to be quoting from articles and introducing it as if it were admissible.
We know that he disagrees, and perhaps you can take what I say as an indication of whether you should continue along this line. I don't see the utility of this effort. We are not bound by the strictest of rules of evidence, but we are trying to conduct this Hearing on the basis of accepted rules of evidence, up to a reasonable point.
MR. CHRISTIE: At the instance of the learned counsel for the Commission, questions were asked as to whether he disagreed or agreed with a provision of a judgment of the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That, in itself, was bizarre. To ask someone whether they agree or disagree with a judgment, who is neither a lawyer nor an expert in law, would seem to be rather far-fetched, but no one seemed to object to that. I have objected to some things, but I didn't object to that. Certainly the Panel didn't ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me for interrupting, but isn't it on the basis that he is being asked about his own personal beliefs and views about what is contained in paragraph 6. He made it clear that he disagrees with it. I think it is a legitimate area of inquiry by you on re-examination to explore the basis of his disagreement. It may be on the basis of research from other writers, including the ones he has mentioned, that he has come to his own conclusions about it. He can describe the research he has done in coming to a conclusion to justify or bolster the credibility of his views in opposition to the view expressed in paragraph 6.
I think that sounds reasonable.
MR. CHRISTIE: It certainly does, and I think I understand it.
Q. Without going into any great depth as to what the other persons may have said, what other persons did you have as a reason for your disagreement with paragraph 6 ‑‑ just the names?
A. Names and what they say.
Q. I don't think we need to go into what they said.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You have looked at views of other persons to support your own belief that you disagree with what is said in paragraph 6.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Counsel for the Respondent is asking you what names or what research or what study you have made to support your view.
THE WITNESS: I understood this.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He is asking what other names that you have read?
THE WITNESS: A name I gave, which is Alain Finkelkreut, very well-known in France.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Who is he?
A. He is a professor of philosophy at the élite Ecole Polytechnique outside Paris. He is a man who in 1981 already published a book against us. The title was "The Future of Immigration."
It would be interesting to know what today Mr. Alain Finkelkreut thinks about antisemitism. It was published in the journal Le Monde quite recently. May I quote it? I have a translation in English. It is very short.
THE CHAIRPERSON: All you are saying is that it is consistent with your thesis that there is no antisemitism in France. Is that right?
THE WITNESS: That's right. The choice of words is perhaps very interesting. May I?
THE CHAIRPERSON: Very briefly.
THE WITNESS: I am quoting it:
"How sweet it is to be Jewish at the end of this 20th century. We are no longer accused, but it is 'darling.' The spirit of the time, love, honour, watches over our interests. It even needs our imprimatur. Journalists drool at ruthless indictments against all that Europe still has in the way of Nazi collaborators or those nostalgic for the Nazi era. Churches repent ‑‑"
THE CHAIRPERSON: Witness, I don't see how that quotation thus far has anything to do with what you were asked about.
THE WITNESS: May I answer?
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. How does that support your opinion that it is wrong to say that, in the conditions of present-day France, Holocaust denial may constitute a form of incitement to antisemitism and that that notion cannot be dismissed?
A. I say that the facts as described by those people, who would be the first to say, "See this antisemitism; see how miserable are the people of the Jewish community in France" ‑‑ those people from the Jewish community, especially Hajdenberg who is a leader, say it is absolutely different from what it was. Some say there is no more antisemitism; some others say it is going down and down, and another
says, "We are really happy people in France."
As France is the fatherland of revisionism, I can see that in this country, which happens to be France, you have a strong school of revisionism and you have no antisemitism. I don't see an increase because we are there, especially when I consider that I have been defended by Jews ‑‑ I mean in a tribunal and especially in the 26th of April, 1983 trial. There were many of them who went on my side.
Q. When you say "of them," who do you mean?
A. I could give the names by taking the document that this gentleman handed us.
On the first page, Cour d'Appel de Paris, première chambre, section A ‑‑ those are the people. First there is Robert Faurisson, but also ‑‑ and I am going to count ‑‑ seven people intervening on my side voluntarily. I could go through those names ‑‑ they are on this page ‑‑ and explain who they are.
Q. Were some of them Jewish spokespersons or members of the Jewish community?
A. Yes.
Q. Who?
A. A man called Gabor Rittersporn. He is a researcher in history and sociology in the C.N.A.S. which means National Centre of Scientific Research. He is among those who toke my defence even in a trial.
Q. Was he Jewish?
A. He is Jewish. Recently his name back in the journal because Rittersporn was in Berlin; he was in a centre called Centre of Mark Bloch as a historian or sociologist. Suddenly someone from the outside said, "But Rittersporn is this man who was on the side of Faurisson in 1981-82-83.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Next question.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. The next person?
A. Redlinski told us he was not Jewish; I don't know. Jean-Gabriel Cohm-Bendit is the brother of Danny the Red. Cohm-Bendit was at that time a professor in Brittany, and he wrote on the 5th of March, 1979 in Libération, a leftist newspaper: We have to fight to destroy those false gas chambers which have never existed. So he was on my side.
Q. Did he identify himself with the Jewish community?
A. Yes.
Q. Any others on your side?
A. Jacob Assous. Jacob Assous ‑‑ I don't remember his profession ‑‑ even testified in court. It was not in this trial, but in another one in 1982, and he said, "Faurisson is right. There were no gas chambers ‑‑"
THE CHAIRPERSON: That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the basis of your opinion against the finding of the tribunal that denial of the Holocaust constitutes an incitement to antisemitism.
You are now telling us people who generally supported your opinion that that is not a good finding. Would you just move on with that?
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. What made you say that he was Jewish? That is the next and last question I have on that subject.
A. You mean Jacob Assous?
Q. Yes.
A. He said himself that he was a Jew, but other people weren't on my side. I am not an anti-Semite. I am not feeding antisemitism. I am trying to be exact, and that's it.
We have another Jew in France, Roger Guy Domaird, and he publishes very much.
Q. You were asked about paragraph 10 in the same part of that judgment, Part C. The entirety of it was read in full by Mr. Freiman. You were asked if you agreed and you said you disagreed. You were not allowed to say why, and I want you to tell us why you disagree with paragraph 10.
Read it to yourself and then tell us why.
A. Yes.
Q. Did you say you disagreed with that paragraph?
A. I say that I disagree with the way my opinions are presented by the tribunal, this way of taking some words and saying, "You see, Faurisson says they were magic, those gas chambers." Of course, it could look offensive if you don't have the explanation of it. This epithet doesn't come from me.
I would like to explain why those pieces put in as quotations, "particularly Jewish historians"; "who agree that some of the findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal were mistaken"; "Faurisson asked for them to be prosecuted". I want to give an explanation of that. "The author referred to the magic gas chamber."
Q. This is your opportunity to give an explanation of that line, so would you do that.
A. That is exactly what I would like to do if I am permitted.
Q. We are going to see if you are permitted. I am asking you to do it, and we will see what happens.
A. When I say that the historians, particularly Jewish historians ‑‑ the simple fact that I say "particularly Jewish historians" I want to justify that. I think that in this controversy it is very important to see what is the opinion of the Jewish representative, people of organized Jewry, Jewish associations, who were suing me, Jewish historians who disagreed with me. They always said, "We are Jews," and I say, "I am pleased that you give this detail that you are a Jew," and I say that especially Jewish historians should, for their own cause, try to get back to the truth in their own interest. I have been saying this for years and years.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to repeat it because you have said it here as well. If I understand your evidence, you are a propounder of the view and you are convinced that there were no such things as gas chambers.
THE WITNESS: That's right.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You don't have to tell us about that again.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. What I would like to ask you is this, if I may ‑‑ sorry to interrupt, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Don't waste the time of the Tribunal going into argumentative and philosophical transports. What we want to hear from you is succinct answers to questions. Mr. Christie has put a question to you, and why do you not simply answer the question. He asked you the basis on which you disagree with No. 10.
MR. CHRISTIE: I will be more explicit, if I may.
Q. Did you, in our submissions to this Committee, demand that historians, particularly Jewish historians, be prosecuted?
MR. FREIMAN: Mr. Christie is always rising on the issue of misleading. It doesn't say in his submissions; it says in the interview ‑‑ that is, the interview complained of.
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.
Q. In the interview ‑‑ I take it that is the interview where you made the offensive quote ‑‑ did you demand that historians, particularly Jewish historians, be prosecuted?
A. Yes, with me.
Q. With you?
A. Yes.
Q. Why?
A. Since I am prosecuted for revising a story and especially the Nuremberg Trial findings, I think that everyone who does the same kind of revision of the findings of the Tribunal of Nuremberg should be prosecuted. They should be on my side.
THE CHAIRPERSON: They should agree with you?
THE WITNESS: No.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. When you say on your side ‑‑
A. Those people who agree.
THE CHAIRPERSON: So they should be prosecuted as you are.
THE WITNESS: Yes. If I am, they should be.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. For what?
A. For revising Nuremberg. The Gayssot Act says that you have no right to contest crimes against humanity as defined and furnished in Nuremberg.
Q. Do Jewish historians dispute the Nuremberg findings?
A. I can give you many examples of that, course.
Q. They do?
A. They do.
Q. So you say they should be prosecuted like you.
A. If I am prosecuted, they should also be prosecuted.
Q. I see. So you weren't asking for them to be prosecuted in a different way from yourself.
A. Of course not.
Q. It says:
"The author referred to the 'magic gas chamber' and to 'the myth of the gas chambers', that was a 'dirty trick' endorsed by the victors in Nuremburg."
Was that an accurate reflection of what you said?
A. It is exact that I said "the magic gas chamber"; it is exact that I said "the myth of the gas chambers"; and it is exact that I took a word of Paul Rassinier, une gredinerie, a dirty trick. It is exact.
Of course, if you bring this on the table and if you say, "In this judgment he said "magic," I didn't say only "magic." I explained this strange word. How is it that I could say "magic"? I gave explanations about that. I don't see them here, of course. It is very important to know why I said "magic".
Q. And that is what you complain about in this judgment?
A. I complain, yes. I find it offensive to say, "Faurisson is a man who said it was magic." Of course. If you put it so shortly, people wonder why, why such a word. What kind of explanation could he have? An explanation I gave, but we don't have it here in court.
Q. Then you find the paragraph saying:
"The author has, in these statements, singled out Jewish historians over others, and has clearly implied that the Jews, the victims of the Nazis, concocted the story of gas chambers for their own purposes."
Do you have an objection to that sentence?
A. Total objection. I never said so. I never said that the Jews, the victims of the Nazis, concocted the story of the gas chambers for their own purposes. I never said so, never.
Q. They don't cite an example of that in the interview, do they?
A. No, they don't.
Q. I said in Le Monde and elsewhere that there was a rumour. You know what is rumour. Some people believe; others do not believe. The rumour increases, and it begins to be a myth.
There are people who are trying to get from this profits. If I may give a name, Mr. Edgar Bronfman. It does not mean that Mr. Edgar Bronfman concocted the story. I don't believe, myself, in conspiracy. I don't believe in either conspiracy against the Jews or conspiracy from the Jews. I don't believe in this. This is an idea that I refuse. I believe in power, which is quite different.
I protest because it makes me look like a ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let Mr. Christie ask his next question.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Then the paragraph goes on:
"While there is every reason to maintain protection of bona fide historical research against restriction, even when it challenges accepted historical truths and by so doing offends people, anti-semitic allegations of the sort made by the author, which violate the rights of others in the way described, do not have the same claim to protection against restriction."
Why do you disagree with that sentence?
A. I disagree because I have never been explained why those restrictions were put to revisionism. I understand very well that restrictions might exist, but why in this case? Why exactly? I would like to have an explanation. I see that the people say: No, don't because it is going to be bad. I would like to know why it would be bad.
Q. The phrase that explains that is "anti-semitic allegations of the sort made by the author". Why do you disagree with that statement?
A. Because I never made antisemitic allegations myself.
Q. And the reference to those in the previous sentence you have dealt with; is that correct?
A. Excuse me...?
Q. The reference to antisemitic allegations made in the previous sentence you have spoken to.
A. Right.
Q."The restrictions placed on the author did not curb the core of his right to freedom of expression, nor did they in any way affect his freedom of research; they were intimately linked to the value they were meant to protect - the right to be free from incitement to racism or antisemitism; protecting that value could not have been achieved in the circumstances by less drastic means."
Why do you disagree with that sentence?
A. Because it is impossible to say that those restrictions do not curb my freedom of research, since the Gayssot Act says, "This is the truth. You have no right to change it." Maybe you are a historian; maybe you are not. Those are forever the conclusions.
For instance, in Nuremberg, number one, the gas chambers existed. They are never described, but anyway. Number two, there was a policy of physical extermination. They didn't use the word "genocide." Number three, they said, for example, that in Auschwitz four million people had been killed.
It is the official document of Nuremberg, U.S.S.R. 008, which, according to Article 21 of the statute of the Tribunal, was official truth.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You disagree with the official truth.
THE WITNESS: Excuse me...?
THE CHAIRPERSON: You disagree with the Gayssot Act; you have made that clear. You disagree with the philosophy and the facts set out in the Gayssot Act.
THE WITNESS: No, I say something more. I say that nobody has the right to say that it does not limit my freedom of research. I didn't say my freedom of speech; I said my freedom of research.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand.
THE WITNESS: That's something else.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. You mentioned the Nuremberg Triubnal's findings of four million people at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that the official version now today?
A. No. It was the official version until April 1990. In April 1990 suddenly they took off in Auschwitz the 19 plates in different languages where it was said that four million people had died in this place.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We are getting rather far afield here in response to your question about why he disagrees with this particular statement in paragraph 10.
MR. CHRISTIE: This is the final question in that line, and it relates to why he does not agree. If it were possible to reveal the answer to this question, I know and my friends know the problem of disagreement becomes far less ridiculous. They don't want the answer, because the difference between four million and one million is three million, but the official truth in Nuremberg was four million. They know it and I know it and the witness knows it.
Can I ask him that question?
MR. FREIMAN: There is no matter in issue in these proceedings as to anything about the Gayssot law and as to whether the witness agrees with it or whether it is a good law or it is a bad law or what the contents of Nuremberg truth are. These are all issues that are, so far, side issues.
The witness disagreed with the judgment of the Tribunal. He has been given an opportunity to indicate why he disagrees. The basis has been raised widely for about an hour now on the reasons why he disagrees with this. The issue of whether Nuremberg was right or wrong is so far from anything that we have to deal with and so close to opening up the entire Pandora's box that is not before this Tribunal that it is simply not a relevant question.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We are not even in the box yet. The fact of the matter is that this is a voir dire, and the exploration being carried on at this point is re-examination in connection with issues that go to credibility of this witness and whether he will be or will not be qualified as an expert.
There is a tenuous relevance to the issues of credibility which were opened up in cross-examination concerning his disagreement with what is here, and he is exploring the basis of his disagreement.
We are getting close to the point where I would have thought we had explored it to a limit, but I am going to allow him to answer this question.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Can you complete your answer in respect to the reason why you disagree with the statements in paragraph 10 as to the necessity for the Gayssot law, from where you were cut off? Do you think you can carry on from there?
A. Yes, I can.
Q. Finish it quickly because, if you don't get it out now, you may never get it out.
A. There cannot be any research if the result is already given. It was given by Nuremberg, so we don't have anything to do any more.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We understand your point in that regard. You have covered that a number of times. We understand your strong views on that point.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. You were asked about the official truth about Auschwitz and you gave the answer about the four million. The last question was: What is the current official truth about that? You never got to finish that, and that is what I want you to answer.
A. The official truth after five years is today one million and a half, but Pressac gives from 600,000 to 800,000.
Q. Under the Gayssot Act, are you allowed to raise these issues?
A. No right.
Q. Who is Gayssot?
A. Gayssot is a high member of the French Communist Party ‑‑ Jean-Claude Gayssot.
Q. You were accused of being polemical, and the remarks made at times in the April 26, 1983 judgment refer to being polemical. Is there something in the field of being an expert that prevents you from ever being polemical? Is it improper to be polemical as an expert?
A. I want to explain the word.
Q. What is it?
A. "Polemical" keeps the meaning of its origin, which means "war." It's a war ‑‑ "polemos" in Greek.
You cannot avoid this kind of intellectual war between people who disagree. Whatever the matter, you will have a kind of war. I understand that, when you use the word "polemical", you mean that the war is conducted in not a very serious manner. The question is to know if, in the way I express myself, I am serious or not. That's the question. To put on me "polemical" is much too easy.
Every time we have people saying, "But this is polemics." What about Voltaire? What about Swift? What about so many thinkers? They used something that you could call polemical. So what?
Q. Does your position regarding the accusation of polemics affect your credibility as an expert, in your view?
A. I think it could be something affecting my credibility, but this would be wrong.
Q. You were asked to read the seven paragraphs of a letter entitled "Faurisson still waiting for 'exterminationists'" and you were cut off. I would like you to tell me if the rest of the letter has any relevance to the previous part.
A. Total relevance.
Q. What does it indicate that bears upon the read portion?
A. The read portion had the name, for example, of Arno Mayer. Then in the non-read portion we had Jean-Claude Pressac.
Q. What about that was relevant to explain your reasons for writing?
A. I am reading it:
"Hill mentioned Jean-Claude Pressac's 1989 book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. That title is misleading. According to the author himself, the book contains no 'proofs' of the crime, but what he calls 'criminal traces.'"
I would like to bring the proof of what I am saying there. I have the book. It's very quick. It's the title of a chapter of Pressac.
Q. I think you went into that already, and I am not going to ask you to do that again. You did mention the book and you pointed out the paragraph.
A. But I didn't show it. I have it here.
Q. It is right on the desk in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. I don't think we need to go into that. It is not relevant for my sake. We are not going to go into that unless you are qualified and it has some relevance.
A. I understand.
Q. What was the relevance of the rest of the portion that you were not allowed to read into the record?
A. It is the fact that Pressac is constantly now changing the figures of Auschwitz. Instead of four million, instead of one million and a half, at that time when I wrote this letter ‑‑ the date is 3 December, 1993. At that time he said for Auschwitz, Jews and non-Jews, 775,000 rounded up to 800,000. Since then he has published something else in which he says between 600,000 and 800,000.
I say: See, for Arno Mayer, for Jean-Claude Pressac here, for Jean-Claude Pressac there, see those constant revisions always in the same sense.
Q. Are these people prosecuted under the Gayssot Act?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Do you feel they should be prosecuted?
A. Either I am prosecuted and they should be or I am not prosecuted and they should not be also.
Q. The term "antisemitism" was used in your cross-examination and the remarks made by tribunals about your work being capable of strengthening antisemitism. You took issue with that. You were asked if you agreed, and you disagreed.
What do you understand the word "antisemitism" to mean?
A. This is about...?
Q. I have just summarized what is in there and actually in other texts. The April 26, 1983 judgment refers to the words "capable of strengthening antisemitism."
A. I would like to take this ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: He is asking you generally if you understand the definition of "antisemitism." Can you do that without giving us a three-part lecture?
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
MR. CHRISTIE: Try.
THE WITNESS: Some people here would really need it.
MR. CHRISTIE: That is your opinion.
THE WITNESS: They have an opinion and I have mine.
"Antisemitism" is hostility to the Jews. Without getting into three parts, it is something which existed a long time before Christ.
MR. CHRISTIE: Let's not get into any of the three parts.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You were doing quite well when you were ‑‑.
MR. CHRISTIE: Just stick to the question, and we will be all right.
THE WITNESS: I know I will do quite well, Mr. Pensa, when I say nearly nothing. This I know.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Are there restrictions on hostility to any other group of people in France?
A. Restriction on...?
Q. Hostility to any other group of people, for example, revisionists.
A. I don't understand your question.
Q. You said that antisemitism is hostility to Jews.
A. Yes.
Q. My question is: Are there laws in France against hostility to any other group of people?
A. I would say ‑‑
MR. FREIMAN: Wait a minute, please.
It is not that I don't find this a fascinating topic, but what possible meaning or relevance could this have?
THE CHAIRPERSON: I think you had better go on to the next question.
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.
Q. You have taken issue with and disputed the judgment of the Committee of the International Declaration on Human Rights. Do you deny their validity?
A. I didn't take issue with this.
MEMBER DEVINS: I am wondering how this arises from cross-examination.
MR. CHRISTIE: It was put to him for the first time in cross.
MEMBER DEVINS: About the Declaration?
MR. CHRISTIE: No, the Committee's judgment. They are a committee under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as I understand it, in Geneva.
MR. FREIMAN: Under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you.
MR. ROSEN: It was also his application.
MR. CHRISTIE: So what? It wasn't put to him in-chief; it was put to him in cross.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Next question.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. How do you know that the court wrote the correction on page 9 of the judgment of April 26, 1983 that you were shown?
A. I do not know. I gave them credit for that. I suppose that it is the court.
Q. I just asked how you knew.
A. I see something in the margin.
Q. I didn't see any initials.
MEMBER DEVINS: Is that the form in which it was remitted to you?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Where did you get it? Where did you first see that document?
A. I suppose one month at least after the judgment itself.
Q. Where did you first see the judgment? Where were you physically located?
A. I was perhaps at home in Vichy.
Q. How did you get the piece of paper that you became aware of as the judgment?
A. I received it from a bailiff.
Q. Mr. Freiman referred to Rimbaud as a teenage French poet. Is he?
A. He did so, yes.
Q. Was Rimbaud a teenage French poet?
A. He was 17 when he wrote this.
Q. You were asked if you had studied linguistics. What is your understanding of linguistics? What is it?
A. It's the study of languages as such, not a question especially of finding the meaning of a text.
Q. How is linguistics different from your text and documents analysis?
A. For instance, if you study the origin of the words, you are in one of the matters of linguistics. If you have a text of today, you are not going to get into the origin of those words; you are going to get them as they are and you are going to try to understand what you have under your eyes.
Q. At one point you made a remark about Primo Levi and Elie Wiesel. You said that Primo Levi may not be a liar, but you said that Elie Wiesel was. Why did you say that?
A. Because Elie Wiesel published "Night." He said that in this book everything was true. Then, if you read the book carefully, if you take out for one moment things like atmosphere and feelings, if you want to try to get to the facts, you realize that not once Elie Wiesel, who was in Auschwitz and then in Buchenwald, mentioned the gas chambers ‑‑ not once. He said that the Germans used to kill the Jews by burning them in pits. You don't have the words "gas chamber." I have checked the text in French, which is the original language, in English, in Italian and in German, and what is interesting is that in English the translation is quite correct, in Italian quite correct, but when you go to the German text, you have 15 times the word "gazkeller" which means gas chamber in the places where in the French original, reproduced in the English and Italian version, you have "crematory" or "crematories."
Q. That is your reason.
A. Yes, and to have said after in his memoirs that the gas chambers must remain closed to the prying eyes and to imagination.
Q. In your letter to the North Shore News of December 3, 1993 you are accused, in essence, of taking Arno Mayer out of context and not referring to the fact that in his book he does believe in the gas chambers. Why did you not include the whole text in your letter?
A. Because you cannot put a whole text of something like 480 pages in a letter and because it goes without saying that, if I quote either Arno Mayer or Jean-Claude Pressac, it means that those people believe in the gas chambers. Otherwise, I would not quote them. My quotes would have no value. It would be the quote of someone saying that the gas chambers did not exist. What I want is to get it from the horse's mouth.
Q. Why are there no footnotes in your letter?
A. Because there are normally no footnotes in a letter.
Q. What was your object in writing your letter?
A. It was, as far as I remember, because Doug Collins had sent me this letter which was so wrong and in which it was said that at the second Zundel trial the defence witnesses had collapsed under the scrutiny of historians.
I attended this trial. I testified in this trial, so I thought I had to say something about that.
Q. In regard to this article called "The Horned Visions of the 'Holocaust'" ‑‑ are you familiar with the Internet? Are you on the Internet?
A. Not at all, no. I know that there are many, many things signed Robert Faurisson on the Internet. As I do not practice Internet, I learn by accident that there is this or that.
In France we have what we call ‑‑
Q. You have answered my question.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Do you have any idea why people would do this to you? Apparently it has happened on other occasions.
THE WITNESS: Perhaps I have some credit, you see.
MR. CHRISTIE:
Q. Do you think it would be to your credit that they wrote that article for you, or somebody did?
A. I would have to go through it once more. I don't remember very well what is said in it.
Q. It was alleged that it was published by CODOH, and you know Mr. Bradley Smith. Until today, were you aware that it was published by CODOH, if it was?
A. No. At least, I do not remember when I saw this for the first time. I don't know if I even looked from which part of the earth it was coming. I don't remember.
Q. Of the what?
A. The earth, which country.
Q. In the five French cases you gave as cases that you gave opinion evidence in, how long did you testify?
A. From one hour to two hours.
Q. Was this with a jury or not?
A. No jury, no transcript.
Q. Is that customary?
A. Yes. In France it is extremely quick. They ask you your name; your address; do you agree that you have written this; do you know the Gayssot Act? You have one hour or two hours, sometimes for myself three hours.
Q. There is no question about how the trials proceed.
Do you know what a voir dire is?
A. No.
Q. Do they have events like this where you are questioned on your qualifications before you give your opinion in France in these courts?
A. No. They ask you only what is your job and things like that; that's all. They don't even check.
MR. CHRISTIE: Thank you very much.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We will have argument after the break.
‑‑- Short Recess at 3:30 p.m.
‑‑- Upon resuming at 3:45 p.m.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
MR. CHRISTIE: The first thing I would like to begin with is to give you copies of the Judgment of the District Court of Ontario of February 4, 1985, the Judgment of His Honour Judge Locke.
This is the judgment pertaining to Dr. Faurisson's qualifications at that time. The judge begins his ruling on page 2466. It then deals with the question of precisely what was in issue and identifies the request of counsel for the accused
"‑‑ to lead from this witness evidence essentially bearing on what I have been informed by defence counsel as being the heart of the defence, namely, whether or not gas chambers were employed during the Second World War, and even before, to exterminate Jews. More specifically, defence counsel proposes to lead from this witness an opinion that gas chambers were not employed by Nazi Germany to kill the Jews or anyone else in World War II. Further, defence counsel proposes to lead from the witness evidence to the effect that Zyklon-B gas, by its chemical composition, cannot be used to kill people; rather, its use is confined to fumigating clothing and the killing of vermin in buildings.
It was also proposed to lead from the witness, as I understand from the submission, evidence concerning the construction, engineering and operation of gas chambers generally speaking, and whether any were constructed or used by Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945 in Europe."
I also sought to qualify the witness as an expert
"‑‑ to give opinion evidence on the information and thinking contained in literature. Various pieces of literature and various authors were named during the course of the application for this order. Literature was read by Dr. Faurisson concerning allegations that the Nazis in World War II carried on a program of intentional annihilation of Jews in Europe."
Then a recitation begins and continues on pages 2476 and 2468 regarding the background of Dr. Faurisson and his writings and his study. Then at page 2470 reference is made to "McCormick on Evidence" and the criterion was established as to what was necessary to constitute a qualified expert. It is stated at page 2471:
"That this witness has not been qualified as an expert does not of itself disqualify his being accepted as an expert in this trial. Because Dr. Hilberg testified as an expert when the Crown's case was in progress concerning Exhibit 1, does not automatically qualify Dr. Faurisson as an expert witness also entitled to testify in the capacity of an expert called by the defence."
Then there is reference to the fact that Dr. Faurisson has been convicted by a court in France of having said ‑‑ and then you have the remarks of the April 26, 1983 judgment, and it was given consideration.
The question is then framed on page 2472 as to whether the witness is "possessed of a certain field of knowledge and expertise beyond the ability of the ordinary witness, or it does not." The distinction, of course, is for the jury to make as to any weight to be given to the evidence.
The Court identifies the requirement of a properly recognized special knowledge acquired either practically or through study. The Court, on page 2473, then analyzes what degree of knowledge Dr. Faurisson has, particularly at line 20, in regard to Zyklon-B or the composition of gas in general.
The judgment is made at 2473:
"It follows that, lacking expertise in those fields, he will not be permitted to give his opinion on gas chamber construction or operation or on the subject of the proclivities and capabilities of Zyklon-B gas or its effect on people."
It is interesting to note at page 2474 that the Court holds:
"Dr. Faurisson's whole orientation is in the field of literary history. Although not a historian, he has gathered a certain field of expertise on a certain subject. He has studied documents, judgments and the ideas of authors from the subject of whether the Nazi German government in 1933 to 1945 deliberately embarked on a scheme to annihilate Jews in Europe."
The conclusion is:
"Dr. Faurisson is, by background and education, in my view, a person who should be permitted to testify as an expert witness and to give his opinion on the same subject, and with the same latitude as permitted the Crown expert. His opinion will be based on the knowledge that he has acquired from the sources that he has studied. His bias, if one exists, is an issue of weight that the jury will assess in due course. He will, therefore, be permitted to testify along the same lines as Dr. Hilberg, but subject to my ruling with regard to what I have already ruled as subjects upon which he will not be permitted to testify."
In my submission, that case involved issues that are different from the case before you, but the recognition of the serious nature of Dr. Faurisson's inquiries, his academic study and experience gave weight to his expertise sufficient to qualify him in the area of history generally, as is described. I don't mean to paraphrase the judgment, but that is what he was allowed to do.
I am seeking to qualify the witness specifically here within the confines of his literary training, skill and ability as well as his academic qualifications in text and documents analysis, but with a background in Holocaust study that is beyond that of the ordinary individual. There is, in my submission, no reason why two experts in a subject would not be legitimate and would not be possible. That is not to say that Dr. Faurisson's evidence will be in any way overlapping with Mr. Weber's, if he were allowed to testify.
It is my submission that his background knowledge of the Holocaust is, to a large extent, incidental, which is considerable and is of some use in terms of explaining his views in regard to the analysis of the text. That is only incidental to the overall analysis of the text.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Let me be clear, Mr. Christie. When you presented this witness, as I understood, it was primarily, if not totally, to speak about and contest the opinions of Professor Prideaux.
MR. CHRISTIE: Primarily, but not exclusively. I only ask that he be allowed to express his opinions regarding some issues of the subject matter of the text from a special skill and training that he has acquired. I don't expect that to be central nor the focus of the analysis, but incidental to it. He may occasionally venture into the realm of his understanding of the historical debate of revisionism, where this fits into that historical debate, not for its truth or falsity but to show its perspective in relation to that debate.
I would suggest that, if one is analyzing the text in that context ‑‑ and I agree that the first process that this witness will do is a careful examination of text. At some point, it is quite obvious that all sides will want to explore his understanding of the context. My friends may suggest that these remarks go far beyond legitimate scholarship of historical revisionism, if there is any such thing. Then to explain in context the nature of the existing debate, if he is allowed to do so, would be necessary to show the relationship of the text itself to the context of the historical discussion.
THE CHAIRPERSON: In allowing Mr. Weber to give evidence, it is in relation to revisionism in connection with the social context.
MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRPERSON: How does this witness qualify himself to speak of the social context in Canada? It doesn't seem that he has any qualifications to address the social context. He is free to admit that he knows very little about Canada, like most people outside this country. I think it would be difficult, would it not, to ask him questions about the social context of revisionism.
Let's assume that he is qualified to give us his perspective on revisionism, but it has to be in relation to the social context in Canada, does it not?
MR. CHRISTIE: That is a question that I hadn't thought was answered yet. It may be that the context of this discussion ought to be confined to Canada. That might be the position of my learned friends.
My position would be that it is an international debate. It really has virtually nothing to do with Canada, in actual fact. It involves a discussion that takes place in many places, certainly California and France. Of course, if it is established that Mr. Zundel is responsible for the Zundelsite, it would certainly qualify as somehow related to Canada since he lives here ‑‑ all the other things it has to be put aside for the moment.
My submission would be that the real context is an international one. My friends may argue at the end of the day that Canadians don't know the international context and, therefore, the only impact you have to concern yourself with is the narrow one of what an average Canadian might think of what they would see if they see the Zundelsite and that we don't need to concern ourselves with this international debate, if it exists, because Canadians are not aware of it.
So far, there has been no evidence on that point. It is an area of evidence that one might think would be necessary to establish if we have, shall we say, hypothetically a situation of access to an international means of communication. Are we to assume that Canadians are oblivious to everything outside Canada, as much as people outside Canada are oblivious to Canadian things?
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am trying to resolve in my own mind the context in the sense that what is prohibited here under section 13 has to do with something that happens in Canada.
MR. CHRISTIE: Exposure to hatred or contempt in Canada, exactly.
Sir, that is a very difficult question. Does that mean that only things that exist in Canada would be considered by Canadians in the formation of their emotional reactions? I would submit that, when we are talking about this international medium of communication, we are not talking about people who only watch hockey on Saturday night; we are talking about people who actually would, I suppose, look at things around the world.
MEMBER DEVINS: Will there be evidence provided to us of that?
MR. CHRISTIE: There may be. I am going to consider between now and the end of the day whether that is necessary for me to disprove or whether it is necessary for my learned friends to prove. I haven't really resolved that in my own mind. It begs the question: What is the context? Is it reasonable that people in Ontario or Canadians would derive from access to international discussions, if they are international ‑‑ and let's say, for the sake of argument, that they might be ‑‑ that the Internet is viewed by those who get onto it as an access to an international debating place?
Do we look at these people as if they had absolutely no knowledge outside Canadian political reality, or do we look at them as people who are capable of and reasonably likely to have a knowledge of international things?
It is a very difficult question, one I guess you would have to look at from the point of view of whether someone stumbles onto the Zundelsite, whether one looks for it, or not. I say that these are very difficult questions, and I have to give that consideration.
I think it would be an area where, were I counsel for the Commission, I might have some questions in my own mind about. There has not been very clear indication of how the context is defined or how the proscribed, prescribed and required elements of exposure to hatred or contempt are generated.
MEMBER DEVINS: I just want to make sure I am following correctly. How would the evidence of this proposed witness be different from the evidence of Mark Weber in that regard?
MR. CHRISTIE: In this regard, obviously it is not my desire to overlap any evidence unless, in my own understanding, it is necessary to strengthen it or correct it. If, in cross-examination of one witness, it is demonstrated weakness in one area, I might seek to bolster it with a second witness. It is only possible to know that on the second time around, and there is the possibility.
MEMBER DEVINS: Following that, would it be your position that we ought to reserve our decision until after we have heard from Mark Weber to see whether in fact ‑‑ you are suggesting that with respect to what this witness might add at least on the context issue you have no desire to overlap. I am trying to figure out how we make some decision about what this witness is likely to add to that.
MR. CHRISTIE: This witness is uniquely qualified to speak about certain areas that relate to the public reaction either in France or internationally to this type of text. This is going beyond the text to the context. He is better suited to do that than, for example, Mr. Weber.
Mr. Weber never faces prosecution. He has no idea what prosecution is. In the United States ‑‑
MEMBER DEVINS: Isn't that related to personal opinion as opposed to expert opinion?
MR. CHRISTIE: No. If I may, I think it certainly is a personal experience for the witness, but he is also quite a good deal more familiar with the public expressions of debate about these limits because he lives in an atmosphere where those limits exist, which is the atmosphere we are exploring in this country, shall we say in this case.
I am suggesting that in regard to the scope of the debate, the nature of the debate and the effects of the debate there are very few people in the United States who have any experience with the type of limits that we accept in this country.
He is uniquely suited because he is in a different environment and has experienced this phenomenon for quite a few years. It's an experiential knowledge which comes from the fact that he has been prosecuted 15 times. He knows what the reactions are.
For instance, the reactions in France might be arguably of no consequence, but it is interesting because, if the reactions in France to revisionism are such that antisemitism has declined, it certainly might be arguable that revisionism does not create antisemitism. It might create an antipathy to the revisionists, but it has a beneficial effect for Jews, which is one of the things that I will submit at the end of the day.
THE CHAIRPERSON: How is he qualified to give any empirical evidence on that subject?
MR. CHRISTIE: Personal experience, actually. That wouldn't be expert knowledge. He has actually some personal knowledge that I will at least be trying to lead to show some of the effects that I will try to submit at the end of the day are the result of free discussion on these topics.
I don't want to get off track from what his qualifications are. I am just trying to suggest that his qualifications are in two areas: text and documents analysis; and that he has unique skill, training and knowledge and has studied seriously areas to do with Holocaust revisionism. I don't intend to focus on that; I am not trying to introduce evidence to support his theories. I am simply trying to relate his existing text and documents analysis with an understanding that he has of the ongoing nature of the discussions around the world, particularly in France but around the world.
If there were experts from other countries, I would be entitled to do that, I think, to show an international trend.
MEMBER DEVINS: I have one other question, and that has to do with expertise in document and text analysis.
As I understood his evidence, his expertise in that area is limited to French and possibly Greek and Latin texts, not English.
MR. CHRISTIE: I heard to him to say, and I think it is very profound to say, that an English-speaking person could be an expert in analyzing Greek text and not be a fluent Greek speaker. This is frequently the case with scholars of Latin or Greek or other dead languages. I am not saying English is a dead language.
The processes of analysis, provided one has a dictionary ‑‑ one can be tested as to the accuracy of one's interpretation by cross-examination; there is no doubt about that. My submission is that he is not what might be called as fluent as any of us, perhaps, but he did say that he is competent particularly in the literary analysis of language, particularly skilled in the area of careful analysis which takes time. It may be at the end of the day that this has no weight, but it is impossible to say without hearing that evidence and it is impossible to deny that he says that he is a careful text and documents analyst.
MEMBER DEVINS: My question really goes to the level of his qualifications and expertise in doing document and text analysis in English. I think at one point he was asked about analysis experience ‑‑ and if you can refer me to something different, I would appreciate it. My recollection is that he himself restricted his experience to French, Greek and Latin.
MR. CHRISTIE: In his academic studies, yes.
MEMBER DEVINS: And his experience.
MR. CHRISTIE: His experience, I would submit, no. If you look, for instance, at the article, which is the only example, which is the analysis of the Anne Frank diary, that of course was a text written in Dutch. He analyzed it in the Dutch language, not because he is fluent in the Dutch language, but because he uses the techniques of analysis.
MEMBER DEVINS: Did he start with the Dutch or did he start with the French translation?
MR. CHRISTIE: He started with the Dutch. Elie Wiesel was in French first, and then in Italian and German and English. It went French-English-Italian-German.
It is, in my submission, the system of analysis which he uses which is his qualification. It is not necessarily the language. He has some familiarity with the language, but it is not essential that he be fluent in the English to apply the system of analysis. After all, dictionaries and grammatical construction, at least in the European languages, is not particularly unique. There are certainly differences, but not profound differences. His analysis in various languages does not require fluency in the language.
I was going to say that, if one looked at the analysis ‑‑ and whether it be right or wrong is not the issue. The analysis of the Anne Frank diary is a careful and systematic one and demonstrates the process that he uses ‑‑ and he does it in the English language ‑‑ in such a way that it is readily observable that he is highly skilled in the process of analyzing text. It is revealed precisely what method he uses in the article itself.
I think it is a very helpful example of what no doubt he will do in terms of analyzing the text in the case here.
I am not going to deal with it in detail. I am not going to refer to it, other than to say that it is completed in the English language. For instance, in paragraph 7 at page 150 ‑‑
MR. KURZ: The Anne Frank article has not been placed in evidence, Mr. Chair. It was shown to the witness, to the best of my knowledge ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: It was not marked, but ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: Maybe it is my mistake. Maybe I wouldn't have been allowed to do it anyway.
What I am suggesting is that the process of analysis defines its technique right on its face:
"The invention of the swinging cupboard is an absurdity. In fact, the part of the house which is supposed to have protected the persons in hiding existed well before their arrival. Therefore, to install a cupboard is to point out, if not someone's presence, at least a change in that part of the property. That transformation of the premise, accompanied by the noise of the carpentry work, could not have escaped the notice of the enemies, in particular the cleaning woman."
Does one have to speak the Dutch language to conduct this analysis, or is this a logical analysis in detail which is conducted in a way that ‑‑
MEMBER DEVINS: That leads me a little bit to my next question, which is: As I understood this witness describe his method a number of times, I understood him to say that his method involved a very careful reading of the text word by word. The question then becomes is what he brings, especially given that English is not his first language, whereas maybe some would say we are not competent ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: I don't think anyone would say that all, but I see your point quite clearly.
His answer which he gave to that is, "I can ring the bell." Do you recall him saying that?
MEMBER DEVINS: I do.
MR. CHRISTIE: With all due respect to what no doubt will be said about Faurisson ‑‑ and there are certainly aspects of his evidence which would indicate the contrary. I submit that he is essentially a fairly humble person in that he does not over-emphasize or dramatize his essentially, I would say, intelligent analysis.
We have not had an opportunity to see it in terms of it being at play but, when he says "ring the bell," I am suggesting that he is at least claiming that by the processes of his analysis, what my friends have called and I think Mr. Fromm first mentioned the Ajax method, he does something which we could do. Of course, every one of us could perhaps do what experts do. If one was endowed with certain fluency in articulateness, one could express oneself as Dr. Prideaux did. It wouldn't really require Dr. Prideaux. He speaks in the English language, and we all understand what he says. He has an opinion, and he analyzes text to create the rational basis for that opinion.
He rings a bell. He conducts a process which actually is no different from what we do, if we look at the text, but he does it with academic qualifications and a high degree of articulate processes.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't seem to ‑‑ and we are deflecting you perhaps from your line of argument here, but you might as well hear what we are thinking at this stage.
MR. CHRISTIE: That would be a presumption to think that there was one.
THE CHAIRPERSON: He doesn't seem to have a concept of what linguistics is. He says it is the study of language and that it has nothing to do with what he does, which is a study of text.
MR. CHRISTIE: There is a difference between what Prideaux says is linguistics and what Dr. Faurisson thinks is linguistics, and it could be that they come from different parts of the world.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I understand that, but I am not sure I fully appreciate the Ajax theory of textual analysis. I thought "Ajax" was going to refer to the mythology of Ajax ‑‑ and I have forgotten who Ajax was.
MR. CHRISTIE: So have I, but he didn't refer to that anyway. He is referring to a common household cleanser.
MR. FREIMAN: He was a warrior in the Trojan war.
MR. CHRISTIE: He put it in simple terms.
THE CHAIRPERSON: The more prosaic Ajax.
MR. CHRISTIE: Very much so. He put it in very simple terms.
It is my submission that he fell into a common fatal error of trying to simplify for the sake of comprehension at the risk of over-simplifying. I don't think, with all due respect, that there is an indication that his processes are viewed as so simplistic that it is like taking cleanser to a piece of silver.
He expressed it that way, and it may be that people who are familiar with their own techniques see them as particularly easy when they are really not.
Let me say this. If he really was just applying household cleanser to words, it is very unlikely that he would have been recognized as much as he has been in France, as a brilliant scholar, an incisive thinker, a careful and systematic analyzer of complex texts. He might call himself the Ajax of French literature; I don't think he has been regarded as such.
My friends may say that he is now, that he is discredited now and all the rest of it. His techniques and style and capacity have not changed. His opinions may have changed and the popularity of his views, but that is really, as it was before Judge Locke, of little consequence.
MEMBER DEVINS: What I am also looking for is some other objective benchmark that we can use to say that his skill is transferrable from French literature in French to using that with respect to expert testimony in linguistics in English.
If there were other times he had done that or if it was noted in some other way, it would be helpful. I see nothing either in his evidence or in his CV to indicate that.
MR. CHRISTIE: I concede that there is nothing in his CV to indicate a capacity to apply his techniques in English, any more than there was in his CV a recognition of his capacity to apply his techniques in German. But he has applied them in German, as one can find at page 186 of the Anne Frank Diary article. For instance:
"Among the entries that D and G apparently have in common, here are some letters (among many others) where G has some extra fragments, that is to say some fragments with which the Dutch reader was never acquainted:"
Then he cites the number of times these various words are used on different dates.
This is, in my submission, a systematic, methodical analysis which would escape or would not be readily available to someone. For example, it would be easily possible to assess certain words in another language, but it would not necessarily be something that a person could do in the process of an argument. You wouldn't expect someone to count the words or to proceed in that systematic way in the course of making an argument, or would one think that it would be necessary.
Let me look at his CV for a moment. I want to address your question more accurately.
It is quite clear that you are right that in the CV there is absolutely no reference to text and documents analysis outside the French language until you get to his examinations and his publications pertaining to issues related to the Holocaust, but then it has been extensive. The articles that are cited and which he went through, which deal with text and documents analysis, were extensive in the English language.
There is no doubt that at least his claim ‑‑ and it is not disputed ‑‑ was that ‑‑
MEMBER DEVINS: Again, perhaps you can identify them for me. I am not sure which ones involved text and document analysis in the English language.
MR. CHRISTIE: The analysis of the Wannsee conference was conducted, or at least is published in English. It was also published in French.
What he has done, if I understand correctly, is that he is responsible for the translation. His capacity to translate was demonstrated in cross-examination. There were areas where he was temporarily stopped and had difficulties, but overall, in my submission, he was extremely precise and had no difficulty in being careful in the English language, as he was in the French language, particular in terms of translation.
There was no evidence to contradict what he said in that area, notwithstanding the very capable explanations given by my learned friend Mr. Freiman. There was no suggestion that Mr. Freiman disputes the interpretation given by Dr. Faurisson at the end of the day, as far as I recall. If there was an intention to do that, it would be probably necessary to produce some evidence.
THE CHAIRPERSON: We did talk about this document on page 4. It seems that that was written in French: Le Journal d'Anne Frank est-il authentique?" It is referred to in HR-40, and I wonder if this is simply a translation.
MR. CHRISTIE: I think that is what he said it was and that he had supervised it and was responsible for it.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Sorry, you were going to say something else.
MR. CHRISTIE: Is it not correct to say that Dr. Faurisson indicated that revisionism is text and document analysis? Is it not correct to say that he claims to have analyzed Nuremberg documents, some of which are in English and some of which are not? Is it not correct to say that he has explained text and documents analysis to be visiting, re-visiting and re-analyzing documents of 50 to 80 years ago?
All of the suggestion that his ability in English is a reason to disqualify him, which is certainly a strong argument if one makes that a pre-condition, is met with this other response that that whole argument was available to and not upheld by the court in 1985 and 1988. He was no more qualified then in the English language, but he gave extensive text and documents analysis of the whole of the text known as "Did Six Million Really Die?" He did it twice.
He was cross-examined extensively on a voir dire at that time, and there was no suggestion then that, "Your ability in the English language is such that we don't recognize your expertise in text and document analysis."
That would, in my submission, be the best answer to the concern about the ability to speak English or to communicate in the English language.
The cross-examination was careful, thorough and detailed. It was my submission that, although there were occasional instances where he was unable to find the exact word, his precision did not falter and his evidence was coherent. His language was not simply simplistic; it was precise and accurate.
The ability to analyze, if it were in some way restricted by virtue of one's fluency in another language ‑‑ and I argue that it is not really a pre-condition of an analytic capacity that might be experientially beyond that of the ordinary person to simply be unable to explain it in another language ‑‑ even then his capacity to explain was adequate and, I suggest, would not in any way deteriorate over time.
Unless there any other questions, those are my submissions.
Thank you.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Mr. Fromm, please.
ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR
FREE EXPRESSION INC.
MR. FROMM: Mr. Chairman, I feel we owe Mr. Freiman a real debt of gratitude for having brought to our attention the judgments of the Human Rights Committee in regard to the Faurisson case and the earlier 1983 judgment. I think we owe that to him because what these judgments have shown us is the shape of another legal system that is certainly not ours.
Dr. Faurisson never, of course, hid the fact that he had had numerous convictions. In fact, he volunteered that fact. When we read the items in these judgments, I think men and women who cherish freedom can feel nothing but real fear.
As you read the confirmation of the French court's judgments by the Human Rights Committee, you find, for instance, 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...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, 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."
Then it goes on to explain the justification, certainly a justification that they concurred with, of the so-called Gayssot Act.
In other words, what is criminalized in France and in some other European jurisdictions, according to the same judgment, is one form of political opinion. I was reminded, when I heard that, of the words of an old Scottish song known as "The Scottish Soldier," referring to the hills of Tyrol:
"These hills are not highland hills;
They are not my land's hills but the green hills of Tyrol."
These are the laws of a repressive country. These are not our laws. While they may serve as a grim warning, they certainly have no relevance but to increase the reputation of a man that is being examined before you for the last two and a half days.
Had we had before us Alexander Solzhenitsyn and we had read to us the rulings of the various Soviet courts that had sent him repeatedly to the gulag, we would have felt nothing but contempt for those rulings, as I should suggest we should treat these rulings of the various European courts.
Had we had Anatoly ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: I am going to ask you to address the issue before us, whether this witness should be qualified as an expert.
MR. FROMM: It is perhaps a ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: I take your argument by way of preamble to getting down to the point, and I encourage you to get to the point as quickly as you can.
MR. FROMM: The point that I am endeavouring to make is that, first of all, we are dealing here with man of unassailable integrity. He has paid a big price for his integrity. If he had confined himself to the works of French poets, he would have been a literary star perhaps, a literary sensation, but when he moved that analysis into the area of the Second World War, he quickly found that that was not the way to fame. He could have quickly drawn back and said that he hadn't meant it or that he had been mistaken and continued in his career.
As he quite cheerfully admitted to you, he has continued in the views that he knows in the repressive European system will land him before courts and tremendous fines and have landed him in several physical confrontations that resulted in beatings. The French police are incredibly efficient at blowing up things like the Rainbow Warrior, and never been able to solve.
He has paid a tremendous price. You can come to one of two conclusions: the man is insane or the man has tremendous intellectual integrity. I would suggest, from his behaviour on the stand in response to repeated and hostile questioning, that he has established his integrity.
The integrity of intellectual heroes doesn't necessarily make them easy people to deal with. I know Mr. Chairman and Mr. Christie and Mr. Freiman have had some problems in questioning him and probably, if you qualify him as a witness, that may continue. The man of genius moves to the best of his own drum, but that does not take away from the fact that the man has incredible intellectual integrity.
I think that might be of assistance to you, that he will subject the text to the best analysis according to his Ajax method, which I will get to in a moment, that he can do. I think that may be of assistance to you.
You will have noted that in cross-examination by Mr. Freiman, we started out with HR-37. The witness was confronted with this thing that says "This is not a pipe." I suspect, if you turn it on its side, that you get the dirty joke. What that was supposed to prove, heaven only knows.
He was introduced to a poem called "The Emperor of Ice-Cream." He didn't identify that, and you will notice that he refused to rise to the bait. The arrogant expert would have probably immediately given you a snap analysis. He said that he couldn't give you a textual analysis of this without carefully studying it. I think that demonstrates the approach of the man.
Now to the facts of the case.
There are a number of issues, in our submission, in this case before us. There is the question, which I understand you have reserved on, as to whether or not section 13(1) covers the Internet, whether in fact the Internet is telephonic communication. You have reserved, as I understand, as well on the matter as to whether you have jurisdiction over a site that is in California. You have reserved as well as to whether Mr. Zundel is in fact responsible for the Zundelsite.
At the end of the day what you have is the texts complained of in HR-2 downloaded from the Zundelsite. At the end of the day you will have to decide whether those texts complained of violate section 13(1). Do they, in the words of 13(1), contain matter that is likely to expose a group of persons, in this case Jews, to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that those persons are members of that identifiable group?
The Zundelsite, to summarize what seems to be the passages complained of, alleges that there is a group of persons called the Holocaust Promotion Lobby. Most of those people are Jews. According to the items on the Zundelsite, they have ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: Excuse me, Mr. Fromm, where are you going here? We are here to decide a fairly narrow issue: Is Professor Faurisson capable of giving expert evidence within the meaning of the law and based on the fact that we have before us.
Can you focus on that, without going too expansively into what the overall issues in this case are? We are going to have plenty of argument at the end of this case as to what it is about, and we are trying to go step by step here. The next step is to decide on Professor Faurisson's fate.
You have heard Mr. Christie, and perhaps you can add anything you wish to add to what Mr. Christie has already said in support of the application.
MR. FROMM: I was attempting to do that.
The argument may well come down at the end of the day to what exactly is the meaning of the words on the Zundelsite.
I submit that the Human Rights Commission has a problem in that regard, in that there has certainly been no evidence thus far that the words urge people to hate Jews. There is no evidence that the words do other things that might be similar to suggesting hatred, advocating violence ‑‑
THE CHAIRPERSON: How is Dr. Faurisson going to be able to assist us in resolving that issue, if that is the issue?
MR. FROMM: That is the point after the next one.
THE CHAIRPERSON: You might as well get used to being a lawyer. You are constantly interrupted in argument.
MR. FROMM: That is no different from the classroom.
MEMBER DEVINS: Mr. Fromm, what qualifications does this witness have that can help us in this Hearing?
MR. FROMM: In terms of textual analysis, Dr. Prideaux testified that there was a hidden meaning to the words. That was his testimony, and that is the only testimony you have had so far that might assist you in determining whether the passages complained of violate 13(1).
Dr. Faurisson's method I don't think has been explained, at least the way I read it, adequately. The Ajax method means trying to strip away preconceptions and dealing with the text. Granted, he knows the text is attributed to the Zundelsite, but the Ajax method would strip away other preconceptions and deal with what the words say.
If you recall back almost a year to former Mayor Hall's ‑‑
MEMBER DEVINS: Mr. Fromm, what in his CV or in his evidence demonstrates his qualifications to deal with what you suggest he can do for this Tribunal?
MR. FROMM: For one thing, his approach to literature which originally establishes reputation. The process of taking a passage, looking at it carefully word by word ‑‑ what does this mean?
The argument is made that English is not his first language. I would suggest that in the repartee that has gone on in the last two and a half days we have seen him more than hold his own in what has often become a debate. He is very quick on the uptake, and this is orally. The few times where he has been at a loss for words ‑‑ for instance, as I recall from my notes, not being able to identify Doug Collins being an acquaintance. That is orally.
In terms of a text, I think he gave us practically an extemporaneous translation of the French judgment in the 1983 case.
MEMBER DEVINS: I think he was relying on a translated version of it.
MR. FROMM: That was yesterday when he was discussing with Mr. Freiman about the meaning of a passage. He has brought us another translation since then.
Certainly in oral repartee he more than held his own in a way that I doubt almost any of us could do in a foreign language. In terms of what he is being called upon to do, it is not to get into an oral debate; it is to go over the text and assist you, according to examination, as to whether the words as seen on the page are likely to create hatred. Is that the point of the writing, the creation of hatred or contempt against this particular identifiable group?
It is my submission that he is eminently qualified to do that.
If I might conclude with something that might assist you, in the development of this case, in the development of the Human Rights Commission's case, former Mayor Barbara Hall was called. She testified that she signed the Complaint, et cetera. Under cross-examination she was asked if she could point to any passage in what little she read that she felt indicated hatred or contempt of Jews. She was unable to do so, but she dealt with the generality.
I submit to you that this is exactly where the Ajax method comes into play. Why the generality? Because the accused has a bad reputation. He has been charred with scary labelling ‑‑ Nazi, neo-Nazi, White supremist, fascist and God knows what all else. He probably beats the dog. Generally, he has a bad reputation.
In that sense, I think there is a tendency to make the intellectual leap. Zundel is a bad sort; anything he writes must be bad. If you tell me it is hatred, yes, it is hatred.
On questioning, she could not point to a passage which would lead her to believe or would make her feel that her Jewish friends were bad or evil.
The Ajax method of looking at what the words say, I think, would be very helpful to you.
A question was asked of Professor Faurisson yesterday, "How would the Tribunal know if your judgments are correct?" Indeed, how would you know? How would you know if Professor Prideaux' are correct? I doubt that the bells will go off, but you will have the benefit of another judgment or another way of reading the text.
I suggest that becomes very important in coming to conclusion whether the words themselves are creating hatred or whether these words are attributed to a politically unpopular person and, per the European system, certain political beliefs are to be outlawed.
Those are our submissions.
THE CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr. Fromm.
I think it is likely that we will reserve on this. You will have a witness ready for tomorrow morning?
MR. CHRISTIE: I don't know. We will have to work on that tonight.
MR. FREIMAN: Could we have perhaps a clue as to who that witness might be?
MR. CHRISTIE: I could give you a clue that I will be phoning to see who I can get. That is the best clue I have.
MR. KURZ: What are the options?
MR. CHRISTIE: The options are that I get the witness or I don't get the witness. If I don't ‑‑
MR. KURZ: I mean in terms of their names. Are our options Mr. Weber or Dr. Martin, or is there a third option that may be called?
MR. CHRISTIE: Let's put it this way. I am in a position where I have to find a possible witness to come for half a day, because that is basically all there would be. I hope we are not going beyond Friday.
THE CHAIRPERSON: No. We will proceed from 9:30 until about a quarter to four. We can get started on a witness.
MR. KURZ: I am sorry, Mr. Chair, we still don't have an answer to the range of options available.
THE CHAIRPERSON: I have the heard the name Martin ‑‑
MR. CHRISTIE: There are three options. There is Dr. Martin; there is Mr. Weber; and there is Ingrid Rimland. There are three options.
‑‑- Whereupon the Hearing was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
to resume on Friday, December 18, 1998
at 9:30 a.m.