Monday, January 31, 2011

Madame Director-General, UNESCO

Irina Bokova, Director-General UNESCO
UNESCO Headquarters
Place de Fontenoy
Paris, France

30 January 2011

Dear Director-General:

I have here the draft of your talk on the occasion of the Opening Session of the International Symposium on Freedom of Expression at UNESCO on 26 January 2011, and I have watched the Webcast of your presentation of that talk. You appear to be sincere when you say: "We agree that freedom of expression is a fundamental human right underpinning all other civil liberties."

Unfortunately, the reason I am forced to question (forgive me) either your sincerity or your understanding of what it means to suppress Freedom of Expression, is that you have never addressed the Gayssot Act, which in France is designed specifically to suppress Freedom of Expression by making it a crime to question the findings of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46 (art.9).

UNESCO is headquartered in Paris. I cannot believe that you are ignorant of the Gayssot Act, which makes it a crime against the French State to question the language of a Military Tribunal that originated some 65 years ago. It would appear to me that you have made a conscious decision to stand aside from confronting this clear assault on Freedom of Expression. With this decision you have made of yourself, and of UNESCO itself, mere bystanders to the ongoing corruption of the ideal of Freedom of Expression by the French State.

In a similar context following WWII, folk who acted in this way were referred to, contemptuously, as "bystanders."

You say: "UNESCO raises awareness about challenges to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We ring the bell when violations occur." It was along about this time, listening to you, that I began to feel impatient.

Where have you, where has UNESCO, ever "rang the bell" about laws in Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, Switzerland and other countries that have made it a crime against the State to question fragments of WWII history, particularly but not solely the charge that Germans used gas chambers to murder hundreds of thousands (millions?) of innocent, unarmed civilians?

You state: "Too many journalists find themselves in prison for the wrong reasons." For you, what are the "wrong" reasons? Men and women are in prison today in France, Germany, Austria and Spain for challenging State laws against questioning, again, fragments of WWII history. I can only sense that you agree that they should be—which is why you have decided in every such instance to not ring the UNESCO bell.

And then, what in this context is rather shameful, you quote George Orwell: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
The fact of the matter is that UNESCO and its Director Generals, both past and present, have not wanted to hear that some—some, not all—of the findings of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46 (art.9) are not true, or merely half-true, or in some cases too obtuse to take seriously.

You say: "Freedom of expression means, indeed, the right to inform, whatever the context is, however difficult the situation might be. Protecting this fundamental human right is a process without an end. The case must be continually argued, violation of this right should never be accepted, and States and societies have to be helped to move forward."

Agreed, Madame Secretary General. I agree. Let's begin to move forward now. At UNESCO! In France! With the Gayssot Act! This really is your cup of tea, is it not?


Bradley R. Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, CA 92143
Tel: 209 682 5327

NOTE: This communication will be distributed to personel at UNESCO Headquarters and to your field offices.

Friday, January 28, 2011

A question for Jean-François Julliard, Secretary General, Reporters without Borders

Jean-François Julliard, Secretary General
R e p o r t e r s W i t h o u t B o r d e r s
5, rue Geoffroy-Marie
75009 Paris - France
Tél. (33) 1 44 83 84 84
Fax (33) 1 45 23 11 51

28 January 2011

Dear Secretary General Julliard:

It is good to know that you will have participated in the UNESCO International Symposium in the panel addressing the state of press freedom worldwide. There may be no more important matter facing human culture today than what Reporters sans frontières stands for, "the freedom to inform and to be informed."

RSF states: "The right of all to freely inform the public and to be informed is absolute." RSF quotes Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: " ,,, everyone has a right to freedom of opinion and expression, which includes the right not to be penalized for those opinions and to 'seek, receive and impart' information and ideas by whatever means, regardless of national borders."

This represents an ugly irony that is difficult for me to understand. All over Europe, but especially in nations such as France, Austria and Germany, writers and publishers are being "penalized" with imprisonment for addressing publicly specific fragments of WWII history, including but not limited to, the German WMD (gas-chamber) question. Has RSF come to the aid of such men and women as Vincent Reynouard, Wolfgang Froelich, Gerd Honsik, Sylvia Stolz or Horst Mahler? Not that I am aware of. Why not?

These writers are in prison today for having believed in the "absolute right of all to freely inform the public and to be informed." Am I to take it that RSF only "half-believes" what these men and women truly believe – that "The right of all to freely inform the public and to be informed is absolute?" RSF says nothing. RSF does nothing. RSF will go to the ends of the earth in Asia, Africa, South America and especially the Muslim world to protest the imprisonment of writers and publishers, but it hasn't a word to say about the imprisonment of writers in Western Europe, the place where RSF itself is housed.

Jean-François Julliard: a simple question. I would be willing to travel to France to speak publicly about the irrational vocabulary of the American professorial class with regard to the Holocaust question. I gave such a talk in Tehran in 2006. I did not need the support of RSF in Iran, but I would need it in the land where RSF is headquartered – in France. Would RSF argue publicly that I would have the right to speak, that French men and women would have the right to listen to me speak, without the threat of arrest, trial, and imprisonment?

Or would RSF, representing half-believers in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – half-believers being those who believe that Article 19 was meant to protect some at the expense of the rest – allow the French State to take me down?

I hardly need to ask, do I?

Sincerely, but with a sincere sense of disappointment,

Bradley R Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, CA 92143

Telephone: 209 682 5327

NOTE: This letter will be copied to administration and staff at UNESCO headquarters and field offices.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The United Nations Holocaust Outreach Program distorted to prevent open debate about the Holocaust

Mr. Frank La Rue
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection
of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10

26 January 2011

Esteemed Sir:

I am writing to you relating to your charge under HRC resolution 7/36, specifically as it relates to discrimination against persons seeking to exercise or to promote the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including, as a matter of high priority, against journalists or other professionals in the field of information.

I am a member of the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust. CODOH promotes discussion and debate, publishes a news letter and a maintains a Blog site. I am writing to you because I asked to attend the United Nations sponsored Conference on Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial, which took place at Trinity College Ireland on November 18th and 19th. Since I am a Revisionist, I wanted to hear what was being said about people like me, particularly in light of the fact that expressing Revisionist views is a felony in many countries.

In the event, I was denied permission to attend the Conference. Other Revisionists were refused attendance as well. The story is told here. Since Revisionist views are usually distorted, allow me to explain that we only wished to attend and report on the proceedings.

Briefly, we believe that much of the history that we are taught today has been influenced by Soviet, British and American wartime propaganda, which exaggerated and exploited real tragedies for propaganda purposes. This concerns not just Jews but Slavs, Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses and, in some versions, Gays. It can be argued that we have produced considerable research that supports this point of view. It is inconceivable to me that I, or anyone, should be threatened with prison for stating in public that I doubt aspects of "official" history.

While I understand that you have very serious matters to investigate, many scholars have been imprisoned for being Revisionists. It is particularly offensive that the United Nations Holocaust outreach program has been distorted to suppress discussion of the Holocaust. I respectfully ask that you investigate this matter.

Thank you for your attention,

David Merlin, member
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro, California

Telephone: 209 682 5327

Saturday, January 22, 2011

For Frank La Rue, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection at UNESCO of the right to freedom of opinion and expression

Frank La Rue
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection
of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10

Fax: +41 22 917 9006

21 January 2011

Dear Mr. Frank la Rue:

On 26 January you will give the keynote address to the two-day UNESCO symposium and conference on the status of press freedom worldwide, freedom of expression on the internet, and the safety of journalists. These are matters that I am interested in.

I have here your Statement to the Fourteenth session of the Human Rights Council at Geneva, 3 June 2010, on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. With these remarks you note that "The Human Rights Council, through resolution 12/16, asserted that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and is instrumental to the development and strengthening of effective democratic systems."

What do you make then of the fact that in France, where UNESCO is head-quartered in Paris, there is no freedom for individuals to fully exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression when it comes to asking questions about fragments of World War II history? One such question is: "What proof is there that the German WMD (homicidal gassing chambers) actually existed?" Remember the Iraqi WMD fraud?

What do you make of the fact that the French citizen, Vincent Reynouard, is presently imprisoned for what the French State holds to be a "thought crimes" -- questioning this or that fraction of the orthodox Holocaust story?

Have you looked into the matter of this French prisoner? Have you decided to not look into it? I see that recently, in your position of Special Rapporteur for UNESCO you have addressed the right to freedom of opinion and expression for folk who live in Tunisia, China, Mexico, Italy, Columbia, Venezuela and even in The Maldives. Are you suggesting perhaps that the Maldivians have the right to freedom of opinion and expression while Frenchmen do not?

Please don't take this the wrong way. It is my view that you are entitled to your opinion, and that you have the right to express it, as does Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to hear you explain why Vincent Reynouard is imprisoned for stating publicly that he questions what the French State holds to be true regarding one fragment of WWII history. Are all Frenchmen condemned to silence on this one issue—under the threat of State prosecution and imprisonment? And if not all, which ones are? Specifically?

As the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, representing UNESCO and the longing for liberty all over the planet, could you not say a few words about the imprisonment of Vincent Reynouard for the crime of thinking for himself, rather than for the State?

Thank you for your attention, and good luck to you out there on the podium.

Bradley R. Smith, Founder
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust

NOTE: This letter will be copied to offices at UNESCO headquarters and to UNESCO field offices.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

The New Humanism at UNESCO

Irina Bokova
Director-General of UNESCO
UNESCO Headquarters
Place de Fontenoy
Paris, France

20 January 2011

Dear Director General:

UNESCO proclaims on its Website that: "Freedom of information (FOI) is a fundamental human right as stated in the UN General Assembly 1946, Resolution 59."

UNESCO states that its "mandate as set out in its 1945 Constitution specifically in mandating the Organization to 'promote the free flow of ideas by word and image.'"

I presume that you are aware of the fact that if I go to Germany or Israel to argue for a free exchange of ideas on the question of the WWII German WMD (homicidal gas-chambers) I will be arrested, prosecuted, and in all likelihood imprisoned because I will have questioned publicly what the German and Israeli States demand that I not question.

In your published "credo" for UNESCO, which you refer to as a "New Humanism," you write that you will "not cede" with regard to the "dignity of every human being."

Director General Bokova: do you personally find it "dignified" to cooperate via your office with the imprisonment of men and women for thought crimes? Those who hold that the German WMD charges should be examined in the routine way that all other historical questions are examined?

If you do, there are men and women at UNESCO Headquarters and at UNESCO field offices all over the world who would like to know how you can dignify that position.

So would I.


Bradley R Smith
Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust
PO Box 439016
San Ysidro CA 92143

Tel: 209 682 5327

NOTE: This letter was copied to personnel at UNESCO Headquarters and to UNESCO Field Offices throughout the Arab states and in North America.

Friday, January 14, 2011

The First Holocaust(s)? Also Fake

Zionist historiography makes much of the ethnic cleansing (of its Jewish inhabitants) by the Romans in either 70 or 135 A.D. (or both) from Judea and Galilee. Taking a "holocaust" to entail at least ethnic cleansing, and possibly extermination on top of that, these would be the first "holocaust" - indeed the one that removed the Jews from their homeland.

Shlomo Sand's The Invention of the Jewish People reveals that historians, including those in Israel, have been quietly aware for some time that neither the Romans nor anyone else did any such thing, beyond deporting a small portion of the population for enslavement. This means that allegations of what might be called the first holocaust(s) are, like those for the period 1938-1945, substantially fabricated for purposes of nation-formation.

The same book establishes that most of today's Jews aren't descended from the ancient inhabitants of present-day Greater Israel in any case. This produces a fascinatingly ironic possibility that is not mentioned in the linked review, nor, presumably in Sand's book: that the people being cleansed and holocausted (to coin a verb) out of Palestine today are descendants of . . . the real Jews.

Hey, this history stuff can really be fun, no?

Monday, January 10, 2011

Spot the Number! Only $150.

A very good friend who visited Israel under the Birthright program forwarded me this invitation to the February 1 launch party of Take Back Zionism in (where else?) New York City, where, for $150, you might get to rub the numbered elbow of Holocaust Survivor Elie Wiesel himself (7:00 to 7:30)!

Tantalizingly, they invite visitors to the site to upload their own definitions of Zionism (click "Contribute Your View" from the link above), from which the ones that pass Selektion scroll down the left side of that screen . Naturally, readers of this blog have definitions of Zionism we would like to air, but I fear candid expression of them would never see the light of day in the electronic Zion.

If only they'd confine their censoring activities to their own Web sites (such as this one)!