That idiot didn't remove her FALSE ASSERTION about Faurisson. Faurisson as never been condemned by French court for being a "forger of history" as she wrote. On the opposite, a French court stated in the 80's that the work of Faurisson was serious. That was too much for the usual holofolkies who didn't stop to pressure the gov until the establishment of a new law in order to silent Faurisson on the French medias. That is why that idiotic "Gayssot act" was voted.
In fact, recently Faurisson sued for defamation Badinter (former French minister of justice) who called him of "falsifier of history" on a TV show and he WON.
However, Badinter had nothing to pay for compensation to Faurisson because the judge considered that his defamation was "in good faith". LOL.
On her blog Deborah Lipstadt claims that "Robert Faurisson IS a "forger of history": French court rules"
That simply means that Deborah is an idiot, a LIAR and a FORGER.
She falsifies what it happened at that trial.
<>
Robert Faurisson IS a "forger of history": French court rules
LOL. French court stated the OPPOSITE. What a moron that Lipstadt!
That affair by Faurisson himself
Three new examples of how “the law lies down in the conqueror’s bed”.
In the course of a discussion programme on the ARTE television channel last November, Robert Badinter lied outright in saying that in 1981 he had won a court ruling against me “for being a falsifier of history”. I therefore sued him for libel. On May 21, 2007, the 17th division of the Paris criminal court, presided by Nicolas Bonnal, held that R. Badinter had indeed libelled me BUT … IN GOOD FAITH. In its own words, the court declared: R. Badinter “failed to give convincing evidence” in support of his assertion (p. 13 of the judgment) but “the justifying circumstance of good faith” would be “acknowledged” for him (p. 16). Consequently I thus have to disburse 5,000 euros to R. Badinter for his lawyers’ fees and pay court costs as well. Factors beyond my control unfortunately make it impossible for me to lodge an appeal against this villainous judgment (I shall shortly make plain what I mean both by “factors beyond my control” and the term “villainous”).
Remarks that I had made during the Teheran conference on the “Holocaust” (December 11-12, 2006) prompted Jacques Chirac himself, then president of the French Republic, to make my talk at that gathering a special matter for his justice minister, Pascal Clément. At the latter’s request, the prosecutor’s office in Paris opened an inquiry. On April 16, 2007, police lieutenant Séverine Besse and her assistant, having made the journey from Paris, questioned me at Vichy police station. In keeping with custom, I refused to answer their questions, giving them my usual reply to put in their books: “I refuse to collaborate with the French police and justice system in the repression of historical revisionism”. Today, July 4, I learn from the news agencies that on June 13 a formal investigation was assigned to examining magistrate Marc Sommerer, who thus will not fail to summon me to Paris soon.
For an interview given over the telephone on February 3, 2005 to the Iranian television channel Sahar 1, the same Paris court, the same Nicolas Bonnal presiding, had sentenced me, on October 3, 2006, to three months’ imprisonment (suspended) and a fine of 7,500 euros, as well as ordering me to pay the lawyers’ fees — 1,500 euros — of each of the three organisations that had also brought civil cases against me at the trial (LICRA, MRAP and LDH *). Today as well, the 11th division of the Paris court of appeal, presided by Laurence Trébucq, has upheld that sentence, not without adding on another 1,000 euros for each of the three organisations’ legal fees; the monetary sanctions in the matter of this single case thus amount to 15,000 euros.
All that without counting my own legal costs, my travel expenses, the various other outlays, the work in preparing for these trials and the hearings themselves. But the French revisionists are not to be grieved for if one compares their lot with that of the German, Austrian, Belgian, Swiss or Canadian revisionists.
The good thing is to pick Deborah with the fingers in the pot of "biased interpretation" marmalade. The kind of accusation she made against Irving to qualify him of "dishonest" and bad historian.
So, Lipstadt is dishonest and a bad historian. She dares to make FALSE statements based on a complete ignorance as well as a blatant misunderstanding of the FACTS.
ZuLu <Z...@gloogloo.com> wrote: > That idiot didn't remove her FALSE ASSERTION about Faurisson. > Faurisson as never been condemned by French court for being a "forger of > history" as > she wrote. > On the opposite, a French court stated in the 80's that the work of Faurisson > was > serious. That was too much for the usual holofolkies who didn't stop to > pressure the > gov until the establishment of a new law in order to silent Faurisson on the > French > medias. That is why that idiotic "Gayssot act" was voted.
> In fact, recently Faurisson sued for defamation Badinter (former French > minister of > justice) who called him of "falsifier of history" on a TV show and he WON.
> However, Badinter had nothing to pay for compensation to Faurisson because > the judge > considered that his defamation was "in good faith". LOL.
> On her blog Deborah Lipstadt claims that "Robert Faurisson IS a "forger of > history": > French court rules"
> That simply means that Deborah is an idiot, a LIAR and a FORGER.
> LOL. French court stated the OPPOSITE. What a moron that Lipstadt!
> That affair by Faurisson himself
> Three new examples of how ³the law lies down in the conqueror¹s bed².
> In the course of a discussion programme on the ARTE television channel last > November, > Robert Badinter lied outright in saying that in 1981 he had won a court > ruling > against me ³for being a falsifier of history². I therefore sued him for > libel. On May > 21, 2007, the 17th division of the Paris criminal court, presided by Nicolas > Bonnal, > held that R. Badinter had indeed libelled me BUT Š IN GOOD FAITH. In its own > words, > the court declared: R. Badinter ³failed to give convincing evidence² in > support of > his assertion (p. 13 of the judgment) but ³the justifying circumstance of > good faith² > would be ³acknowledged² for him (p. 16). Consequently I thus have to disburse > 5,000 > euros to R. Badinter for his lawyers¹ fees and pay court costs as well. > Factors > beyond my control unfortunately make it impossible for me to lodge an appeal > against > this villainous judgment (I shall shortly make plain what I mean both by > ³factors > beyond my control² and the term ³villainous²).
> Remarks that I had made during the Teheran conference on the ³Holocaust² > (December > 11-12, 2006) prompted Jacques Chirac himself, then president of the French > Republic, > to make my talk at that gathering a special matter for his justice minister, > Pascal > Clément. At the latter¹s request, the prosecutor¹s office in Paris opened an > inquiry. > On April 16, 2007, police lieutenant Séverine Besse and her assistant, having > made > the journey from Paris, questioned me at Vichy police station. In keeping > with > custom, I refused to answer their questions, giving them my usual reply to > put in > their books: ³I refuse to collaborate with the French police and justice > system in > the repression of historical revisionism². Today, July 4, I learn from the > news > agencies that on June 13 a formal investigation was assigned to examining > magistrate > Marc Sommerer, who thus will not fail to summon me to Paris soon.
> For an interview given over the telephone on February 3, 2005 to the Iranian > television channel Sahar 1, the same Paris court, the same Nicolas Bonnal > presiding, > had sentenced me, on October 3, 2006, to three months¹ imprisonment > (suspended) and a > fine of 7,500 euros, as well as ordering me to pay the lawyers¹ fees ‹ 1,500 > euros ‹ > of each of the three organisations that had also brought civil cases against > me at > the trial (LICRA, MRAP and LDH *). Today as well, the 11th division of the > Paris > court of appeal, presided by Laurence Trébucq, has upheld that sentence, not > without > adding on another 1,000 euros for each of the three organisations¹ legal > fees; the > monetary sanctions in the matter of this single case thus amount to 15,000 > euros.
> All that without counting my own legal costs, my travel expenses, the > various other > outlays, the work in preparing for these trials and the hearings themselves. > But the > French revisionists are not to be grieved for if one compares their lot with > that of > the German, Austrian, Belgian, Swiss or Canadian revisionists.
> Robert FAURISSON
> * LICRA, MRAP, LDH : French jewish organizations.
> The good thing is to pick Deborah with the fingers in the pot of "biased > interpretation" marmalade. The kind of accusation she made against Irving to > qualify > him of "dishonest" and bad historian.
> So, Lipstadt is dishonest and a bad historian. She dares to make FALSE > statements > based on a complete ignorance as well as a blatant misunderstanding of the > FACTS.
<aussies_s...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > Still having problems with the language, > I see.
> Exactly what did she "forge"?
Nothing. Its just a nazi trying to deny the evil that his fellows perpetrated on the Human Race. The French lost many of their Jewish citizens to the nazi murderers
In article <70dbd662-578d-4558-9b6d-42c47919ff47@f1 8g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote: > On Oct 29, 12:36 pm, I'll Always Be 27/10/09 > <aussies_s...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > Still having problems with the language, > > I see.
> > Exactly what did she "forge"?
> Nothing. > Its just a nazi trying to deny the evil that his fellows perpetrated > on the Human Race. > The French lost many of their Jewish citizens to the nazi murderers
> In article > <70dbd662-578d-4558-9b6d-42c47919ff47@f1 > 8g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 29, 12:36 pm, I'll Always Be 27/10/09 >> <aussies_s...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Still having problems with the language, >>> I see.
>>> Exactly what did she "forge"? >> Nothing. >> Its just a nazi trying to deny the evil that his fellows perpetrated >> on the Human Race. >> The French lost many of their Jewish citizens to the nazi murderers
> It's not "lost" but "sacrificed"
That is FALSE
Most of French jews weren't deported and 60% of deported were foreigners.
To compare, the amount of French civilians including women, children and old people dead under allied bombings is nearby the same than all jews deported from France.
To be added more 20,000 who died under nazi bombs.
Moreover, the nazis didn't want to deport the children. That was the Jewish associations which asked to do so, to not separate the families they said. They even helped nazis to round up the ones who were hidden in French Christian families.
<zulu>
Until now we have only 1 source (Klarsfeld) to state the French Jewish deportation. The numbers given are:
Jews deported from France Total: 75 721 of whom 60% were foreigner refugees ( 26,000 Polish, 7,000 Germans, 4,500 Russian, 3,300 Romans, 2,500 Austrian, 1,500 Greek, 1,200 Hungarians.
In 1940, the estimated Jewish population was about 360,000 in France, including 170,000 Jews in Occupied zone only (150,000 Parisian region, 20,000 rest).
Now, concerning non racial deportation 86.827 French (10% women)[*] were sent to the nazis camps were they shared the same conditions of detention than their Jewish companions as related by Gaston Pernot.
Those numbers don't includes about 650,000 French sent to Germany to forced labor among a total of 1,2 millions required (STO, Service du Travail Obligatoire).
How much died in the camps?
Jewish people: the official story tells that as only 3% came back to France thus 97% must have been "gassed".
From 86.827 French deportees, 40% didn't go back.
Well, concerning the affirmation about "gassed number", may be some correction has to be made if you consider the high proportion of Jews foreigners who had no particular reason to come back to France.
And, about the others, we can reasonably deduce that "some" preferred to choose another country to return. So, we have to wait for the complete compilation of Bad Arolsen archives to know more about the actual fate of all those people. It seems that nobody is interested in finding it out...
Furthermore, knowing the hard conditions of the camps, we can imagine that a population including many old people and children would present much more mortality than a stronger population of men in the force of their age like a majority of non-racial deportees.
But if Jewish population presented a higher mortality that is not a reason to forget what happened to the non Jews!
Do you ever know in USA that non Jews were deported from France to the nazis camps ?
So, there were more non Jews deported than Jews!!
Don't they deserve any "small" place in the History of the French deportation?
Obviously the non Jews victims don't share a proportional part in the French media.
[*] Numbers established by a Research agreement between Caen's University (in behalf of CRHQ - Centre de Recherches en Histoire Quantitative ) and the Foundation to the Deportation's memory (FMD - Fondation pour la Memoire de la Deportation ) signed on 28 November 28th, 1996.
ZuLu <Z...@gloogloo.com> wrote: > I'll Always Be 29/10/09 escribió: > > In article > > <70dbd662-578d-4558-9b6d-42c47919ff47@f1 > > 8g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > george <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >> On Oct 29, 12:36 pm, I'll Always Be 27/10/09 > >> <aussies_s...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>> Still having problems with the language, > >>> I see.
> >>> Exactly what did she "forge"? > >> Nothing. > >> Its just a nazi trying to deny the evil that his fellows perpetrated > >> on the Human Race. > >> The French lost many of their Jewish citizens to the nazi murderers
> > It's not "lost" but "sacrificed"
> That is FALSE
> Most of French jews weren't deported and 60% of deported were foreigners.
> To compare, the amount of French > civilians including women, children > and old people dead under allied > bombings is nearby the same than all > jews deported from France.
People die in a war. Some people call that collateral damage and it's a sad thing, but it is different from what your countrymen did. The French allowed the deportation of THEIR citizens...I repeat, the French allowed the deportation of THEIR citizens and I have no doubt they knew full well what was in store for them. I know that all of the deportees weren't French citizens, but that is no excuse.
> To be added more 20,000 who died under nazi bombs.
> Moreover, the nazis didn't want to > deport the children. That was the > Jewish associations which asked to do > so, to not separate the families they > said. They even helped nazis to round > up the ones who were hidden in French > Christian families.
I am not aware of this...and I really don't believe the nazis didn't want the children. Even if true, they would have come for them later.
> Until now we have only 1 source (Klarsfeld) to state the French Jewish > deportation. > The numbers given are:
> Jews deported from France > Total: 75 721 of whom 60% were foreigner refugees ( 26,000 Polish, > 7,000 Germans, 4,500 Russian, 3,300 Romans, 2,500 Austrian, 1,500 Greek, > 1,200 > Hungarians.
> In 1940, the estimated Jewish population was about 360,000 in France, > including 170,000 Jews in Occupied zone only (150,000 Parisian region, 20,000 > rest).
> Now, concerning non racial deportation 86.827 French (10% women)[*] were > sent > to the nazis camps were they shared the same conditions of detention than > their > Jewish companions as related by Gaston Pernot.
> Those numbers don't includes about 650,000 French sent to Germany to forced > labor among a total of 1,2 millions required (STO, Service du Travail > Obligatoire).
> How much died in the camps?
> Jewish people: the official story tells that as only 3% came back to France > thus > 97% must have been "gassed".
> From 86.827 French deportees, 40% didn't go back.
> Well, concerning the affirmation about "gassed number", may be some > correction > has to be made if you consider the high proportion of Jews foreigners who had > no > particular reason to come back to France.
So tell us how many that was, otherwise it is just pure conjecture
> And, about the others, we can > reasonably deduce that "some" > preferred to choose another country > to return. So, we have to wait for > the complete compilation of Bad > Arolsen archives to know more about > the actual fate of all those people. > It seems that nobody is interested in > finding it out...
Ah, that canard again.
> Furthermore, knowing the hard conditions of the camps, we can imagine that a > population including many old people and children would present much more > mortality than a stronger population of men in the force of their age like a > majority of non-racial deportees.
But you can't prove that
> But if Jewish population presented a higher mortality that is not a reason to > forget what happened to the non Jews!
You are trying to compare mortality with murder. That anyone died from harsh conditions is sad, that some were singled out for special treatment because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or other attribute is horrible.
> Do you ever know in USA that non Jews were deported from France to the nazis > camps ?
I don't know what that sentence means
> So, there were more non Jews deported than Jews!!
And by your logic, more non-Jew survivors
> Don't they deserve any "small" place in the History of the French > deportation?
Sad thing that the French don't wish to acknowledge this, isn't it?
> Obviously the non Jews victims don't share a proportional part in the French > media.
You have proof for this assertion? I posit that the French are embarrassed by what they did
> [*] Numbers established by a Research agreement between Caen's University (in > behalf of CRHQ - Centre de Recherches en Histoire Quantitative ) and the > Foundation to the Deportation's memory (FMD - Fondation pour la Memoire de la > Deportation ) signed on 28 November 28th, 1996.
|
