For my part I had not been informed of any proceedings against me. The examining magistrate had not apprised me of or alerted me about anything. He neither summoned me nor heard me. He has, if one may put it thus, convicted me by correspondence. Some will be astonished by this manner of process. They are unaware that, when it is a matter of stifling those who arouse the wrath of Jewish or Zionist organisations, there is no longer any place for trust, nor law, nor right. Those whom such organisations call, as the case may require, “Holocaust deniers,” “war criminals,” “criminals against humanity,” or perhaps “Palestinian terrorists” have been forced to learn this.
Our Fribourg judge seems to me to be less deceitful than French justices like Simone Rozès, Pierre Drai or Françoise Simon who notify me, summon me to appear, pretend to listen to me, and convict me, whatever case I make in my defence. Tomorrow, by registered letter, I shall inform Michel Favre of my intention not to appeal against his ruling; I am prepared to hand myself over to the Canton of Fribourg with a view to serving my sentence. Had I the forthrightness to challenge the decision and to appear in a Swiss court, I should receive the same treatment as the Swiss revisionists before me; first, notice would be given that any defence of a revisionist character would constitute a repetition of my offence; then my counsel would only be able to use quibbling arguments and plead mitigating circumstances; finally, any witness who gave testimony as to the substance of the case – in a word, historical reality – would, upon demand of the prosecution service, himself be immediately charged. My sentence would then run to twelve or fifteen months and the fines and costs would amount to considerable sums of money. As for availing of the protection of my French nationality, it would be useless even to consider such a prospect: the French authorities, in their attempts to please the Grand Sanhedrin, would cooperate with Switzerland as I have seen them work against me with a Dutch court in the Anne Frank case. Besides, I no longer have the time, nor the money, nor the strength for these judicial marathons doomed to failure.
In Switzerland as in France and a good number of other countries in the world, Jewish organisations have, through continuous pressure, obtained the passage of special laws that allow prosecution of those who do not believe the kosher version of the history of the Second World War, with its genocide of the Jews and its Nazi gas chambers (not to be confused with the crematoria ovens whose existence and usefulness in camps ravaged by epidemics are contested by no-one). Against sceptics in France – and the expression of mere doubt constitutes an offence – the Fabius-Gayssot Act of 13 July 1990 provides for a prison term of from one month to a year, a fine of from 2,000 to 300,000 francs and still other penalties. In Switzerland, an identical law has been applied with rigour since 1995. Naturally these laws are impudently labelled “anti-racist” by their authors and enforcers.
For the reader’s information I ought well to point out here that, like my other revisionist articles, the piece that has earned me a conviction today was of the same spirit as the sixty-word sentence I pronounced in December 1980 in an interview with Ivan Levaï on the Europe 1 radio network: “The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle the main beneficiaries of which are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – BUT NOT THEIR LEADERS – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.”
In his jargon, our so-called examining judge in the land of the “glacious Swiss” (Céline) says that, as he sees things, “a favourable prognosis cannot be pronounced.” He means that no penance or repentance can be expected of me. Here for once is a clear-sighted judge! He must know that ten physical assaults and a stream of convictions in the courts, writs of seizure, a recent police search of my house, a professional ban, torrents of slander in the national and foreign press (particularly in Le Monde, the slanted daily) have had the sole effect of fortifying my determination, and all the more since, as far as scientific argument is concerned, we are still in the same situation as on February 21, 1979 when in precisely the aforementioned paper a “historians’ declaration” amounted to a statement that no-one was capable of answering me on the subject of the Nazi gas chambers.
I shall carry on my revisionist Intifada all the way to prison.
Recently, Jean-Louis Berger has been barred from the secondary teaching corps, and Serge Thion excluded from the CNRS.
Registered letter addressed to Michel Favre
Your penal ruling of June 15, 2001 was delivered to me yesterday, June 19. I am prepared to hand myself over to the Canton of Fribourg with a view to serving my sentence. You must inform me as quickly as possible of the place and date of my incarceration.
I shall be keen to see your face, if possible.
Vichy, Wednesday June 20, 2001