Legal action taken by

Professor Robert Faurisson 
 
against 

former French Justice Minister
Maitre Robert Badinter

in the Palais de Justice, Paris, France,
March 12 and April 2, 2007

A Report by 
Lady Michèle Renouf

THE CASE:

Professor (rtd) Robert Faurisson (born 1929) is suing the former French Minister of Justice, retired barrister Maitre Robert Badinter (born 1928), because Maitre Badinter claimed in a TV discussion programme in November 2006 that, in the very last case he pleaded before being named Minister, he had managed to have Faurisson found liable by a court for being a falsifier of history!!!   No court, ever, in 28 years of trials, has ever ruled that Professor Faurisson the Exactitudinist is a falsifier. The fact is, though the French courts would glory in themselves to do so, they just could not. Thus, Maitre Badinter could only make this boast by, himself, falsifying.

So, from the outset, let it be clear. Several papers make the following mistake: They say that Faurisson “is suing the former French justice minister for defamation”. This is not correct. Faurisson does not bother any longer to sue anyone for defamation when they say that he is a “falsifier of history” since every time he has done so in the past, he has lost his case because courts would say: Calling Faurisson a “falsifier” is actually defaming him, but the person who defamed him did so “in good faith”!

PREAMBLE

The day before - March 11th 2007 - off the famous Boulevard St. Michel at the Place Saint André des Arts, over a welcoming glass from one of its smarter French proprietors, the doughty half-Scot and dapper half-French retired professor, Robert Faurisson, outlined to me the basis of his legal case.  I and other champions of his renowned Exactitude had come from far and wide to cheer him into battle on the morrow in the Palais de Justice de Paris, France.

Palace of Justice, Paris, France

If you have not yet seen my DVD, JAILING OPINIONS,  you will need telling (for you will not have read it reported in any newspaper) about the Professor’s earlier stand made there in that elegant Paris courtroom called "XVIIe Chambre Correctionnelle " in July 2006.  As on his many such historical forays, Faurisson the Exactitudinist stood firmly before the “sword and shield” of ruthless Israel: “Yahweh” and “The Holocaust”. 

Yes! You ought to be right in thinking that this sort of metaphysical talk would be deemed irrational, even conspiratorially racist, in a secular court of law.  Yet, in Chambre XVII indeed it is not!  For, like all of us who sweltered in that frightfully hot courtroom in Paris last Summer, the valiant Professor heard the State Prosecutor, in her summing up, literally pray, by name, to her race god “Yahweh” to protect (only) the Jewish “Chosen People” from “deceitful lips”.  A preposterous conceit and an extraordinary admission, to be sure, from a French Court official who is clearly at odds with France’s famous ideal: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, to say nothing of the separation of Church and State!

All but next door to the Palace of Justice is the famous Notre Dame Cathedral

A NOTE ON THE ROOTS OF PRESENT DAY INEXACTITUDES

To clarify these mythical terms given authority over a secular Court:

• "Yahweh" is the early rabbis’ race supremacy creation of their so-called Jewish Creator's
• "Chosen People" ... against whom we are to understand Christ the Only Son contender was crucified for blaspheming against their own enthralling collective of self-divined supremacy.
• “The Holocaust" is a religious act by which, say, an “assimilated” Jewry could be literally sacrificed in a "Covenantal" bargain made between the Jewish god "Yahweh" and “His Elect”, which, in fact, was “offered”, oxymoronically, by a secular network of International Zionists to gain a “Promised Land” H.Q. and logo ... in collusion with those (who fought on both sides of WW1 and WW2) who did not want an anti-gentile Jewry active in their midst.

Theirs is a ruthless end-game, as brave anti-Zionist Orthodox rabbis keep revealing despite arson attacks against them as recently reported in the news.

The New York headquarters of the anti-Zionist Jewish organisation Neturei Karta was destroyed by arson in April 2007, after months of threats from a militant Zionist group

These Neturei Karta Orthodox Rabbis oppose a Jews-only “Promised Land" gained blatantly by "disappearing" (to quote Herzl, founder of Zionism, in 1896) Palestine and its entire population.  In fact, there were two proposals for a "Promised Land” - at first a less ambitious one; and then a second, proposed "From the Nile to the Euphrates".

It is precisely to these racist supremacy conceits in Jewish (only) tribal ambition that the Paris State Prosecutor was heard making her racist prayer in an official Summing Up last July 2006.

An anti-gentile Jewish menorah candelabra icon paves their way into the capital's city hall.

The Appeal against that prosecution case, which Faurisson lost in its first round, comes up again on May 30th 2007. That case against the retired Professor was brought because his scholarly opinion expressed in an interview abroad might have been heard in France (though no one knows whether that actually happened, apart from its having been picked up in the State listening laboratories that monitor foreign transmissions). The French people, like those in nine other European countries, are “protected” by law from hearing historical scepticism in matters of Jewish interests. And so, whilst the Scottish half of this witty scholar is free to speak and carry out research when in Britain (provided his words are not heard in France in case they distress the “memory of the dead”!), his French side is prosecuted, heavily fined and risks lengthy imprisonment.

Thus the Cause of any legal outcome lies in like-mindedeness with the State Prosecutor’s prevailing irrational Holocaustianity mentality. For under this religious deceit, I have borne astonished and repeated witness (see JAILING OPINIONS DVD) whereby European and Canadian law courts rule that debunking - by scholarly observations and forensic investigation - “in whole or in part” this colossal “Chosen People” preciousness, is countered only by a flimsy reposte about “deceitful lips” and anti-investigative “obviousness”. 

Here then, below, is the combative case taken BY veteran Exactitudinist Faurisson AGAINST veteran Obviousist Badinter in which, with a flourish, Exactitude simply overturns TwistSpeak!

A CASE OF A FALSIFIED BRAG

As summed up to me, and in Professor Faurisson’s words:

Robert Badinter, a prominent Jew, a former lawyer, former Minister of Justice, former President of the Conseil consitutionnel, said on November 11, 2006, on the TV Channel ARTE: ‘I had Faurisson found liable (in the context of civil proceedings) for being a falsifier of History’ in 1981.

A leading French newspaper declares it “a disgusting trial”; “if ever Mr Badinter is caught by this it will be a big disaster” for “it was a defamation but done in good faith”.

The case had gone against me in 1981 on grounds, as the court of first instance put it, of “imprudence”, “lack of objectivity”, but one should note that in the Appeal, “falsification” was not even raised as an issue.

Exactitude may not be expected, for example, from a journalist.  But Badinter is not a journalist, he is a lawyer. And a lawyer knows what a Judgment is. The 1981 ruling did not enter into the question of falsification of history.

THE HEARING

09.30, Monday 12th March, 2007

The public entrance to the Paris law courts,
where airport-style metal detection searches take place

Dr Yaqub Zaki, an Islamic scholar, Mr Guillaume Fabien, a translator of renown, and Lady Michele Renouf wonder at the illegal motif (!) on the gates of the Palais de Justice de Paris

My Scottish ally (a Muslim convert) Dr Yaqub Zaki and I (a champion of the right of revisionists to be heard) found places in the packed public benches (capacity upwards of 120) in the XVIIe Chambre Correctionnelle of the Tribunal de Grande Instance ("High Criminal Court").

via the Staircase to the First Floor XVIIe Chambre Correctionnelle where such axe symbols for decisive judgment are painted on the allegorically ornate high ceiling

Professor Faurisson entering that
Chamber 17 of Criminal Corrections

My eye was caught by Georges Theil.  We had met, only briefly, before at the Tehran Conference in December 2006 and subsequently he had kindly sent me his book, Heresy in Twenty-First Century France: A case of insubmission to the 'Holocaust' dogma.

Georges Theil's book Heresy in Twenty-First Century France has a Foreword by Robert Faurisson

I was pleased with having a better chance to chat with him, and honoured that he would take on the additional burden of concentration in translating the salient points to me from the French throughout the day’s proceedings.

Georges Theil

Frankly, I was proud to be sitting by him, for he, in standing firm, had been slapped with two unjust sentences amounting to a year’s imprisonment and over 100,000 euros in fines, damages and costs.
Georges Theil explains here

The entire day's proceedings would be filmed - as is done, normally, only with trials of grave criminal cases heard by juries - one French TV Channel’s movie camera pointing in the direction of the judiciary bench; the other, towards the Plaintiff, the Defence, the press gallery and the public. One camerman manned both.

Seeing that filming was allowed (at least before the proceedings began), I too took a couple of snaps of the Defence team with my new camera before two armed men of the gendarmerie rushed up to order me to delete them.  Fortunately it was a camera I had bought only the day before and had not yet found out how to do so. I agreed to keep my apparatus in my bag - which, in any case, I would have done once the proceedings had begun, of course.

What a crime! The French people, and those of nine other European countries, MUST NOT BY LAW be allowed to hear the Revisionist debate.  As the witty professor points out, half of him (the Scottish half) can speak and be heard freely in Britain; the French half, for the same opinions, gets heavily fined and risks lengthy incarceration! 

At 09.45 the Court spectators rose respectfully from their lightly upholstered wooden benches when the presiding Judge, President Nicolas Bonnal, flanked by two others (both female) opened the Proceedings from their slightly raised, traditionally wood-panelled Judicial Bench.

Embracing a valiant revisionist

There alone he sat, attended only by his leading barrister Eric Delcroix ... (but with public benches full of staunch admirers for a scholarly man who had endured the physical violence of cowardly Jewish “anti-Fascist” thugs whose hatred had several times hospitalized this brave veteran for his exactitude).

Professor Faurisson hospitalised by Jewish thugs

And nearby, one armed member of the team of four ever-present gendarmerie.

To the right in the Defence benches sat two leading counsel, two rows of silent legal aides, and heading all of them, the retired Maitre Robert Badinter, suddenly himself hauled into the dock at the Chamber of Corrections!  Nearer to that bench than to the Judge sits, high, the Deputy Procureur - representative of the Justice Ministry - M. François Cordier.  Quite what justifies his attendance for a civil rather than a criminal case can only be guessed at as an estimation of the importance of Faurisson’s historic scholarly battle.

Leading Defence barrister in the foreground, the defendant Maitre Badinter farthest in the background.

A very hard-working woman stenographer took down the proceedings for the entire day, all nine hours of them.  She was very friendly in the breaks with the Defence team. I never saw her once approach the Plaintiff’s bench for a chat.

The court stenographer with the defence team

This reminded me of the Irving libel action in London in 2000, where I witnessed even Mr Irving’s chums shy off being seen to approach his bench for “fear of association” which HAS, in all kinds of professions, undesirable repercussions.

As extraordinary was the Defence lawyers’ blatant hatred in their determination to be seen snubbing the normal good form of accepting, between both sides' leading barristers, a sportsmanlike handshake following the pronouncement of the verdict - even as it went against Irving the Plaintiff (for David Irving acted as his own barrister in the London High Court in the Spring of 2000).

SELECTIONS FROM the 9 hour day's PROCEEDINGS

Judge/President Bonnal: calls the professional witnesses to step before him.  The Defence team have called nine; the Plaintiff none. Witnesses must leave the courtroom and stay in isolation during the proceedings until summoned individually.

The courtroom’s televison set is turned on and all watch the passage from the ARTE programme in which retired barrister Maitre Badinter is seen to defame Professor Faurisson as someone he has had “found by the courts to be a falsifier of history”.

At 10.00, Faurisson’s barrister first addresses the Judges’ bench to the effect:
Maitre Delcroix: This court must not judge my client.  But Mr Badinter has to be judged!

Prof. Faurisson: (standing at a microphone before the judges)
He recalls in 1983 that the Paris court of appeal had said Faurisson's research about gas chambers was honest and scientific!!  So nobody could hold that Faurisson had lied. Also, the value of Robert Faurisson's findings was, in its words, a question solely for the consideration of experts, historians and the public (and thus, by unmistakable implication, not of the law courts).

an animated Professor Faurisson

At another point, he asks the Court to remember that the Germans (when led by Adolf Hitler) had asked the Allies: “These Jews you like so much; take them with you!  But do not settle them in Palestine.”

Then Faurisson repeats his famous 60 words (in French) sentence:

“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 whose main beneficiaries 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.”

President Bonnal/Presiding Judge: But I think that courts have in the past found against you for that sentence?!

Prof. Faurisson:  I've never hidden the fact!  But I want to tell this court about it all thoroughly (as he rises off his heels for emphasis, his speech and manner are forthright, combative, concise, engaging).

Judge Bonnal:  (Seems nervous at the prospect.)

Prof. Faurisson:  Revisionism is the big adventure of the 20th and 21st centuries. I shall maintain my objective. No court has convicted me of being an antisemite. I don’t want my children to have to suffer because of the Badinter defamation here.  (He concludes his opening remarks by 10.45.)

Maitre Badinter: (takes stand at 10.45, his speech and manner are at first quiet and calm, building steadily and dramatically - and irrelevantly - eventually to tears over his presumptions about the way his personal relations were deported, and died, during WW2; ending in a spitting rage of revenge addressed directly at Faurisson...who nodded back, calmly, to this now familar hate-filled behaviour towards the scholarly professor’s findings). 

The judge does not interject at the irrelevancy or threatening nature of Badinter’s personal anecdotal defence:
“When Faurisson says there is an enormous hoax and, huckstering, he spits upon the dead.”

Badinter acknowledged the facts - could he really do otherwise? In a sense, before the all-day parade of his witnesses began, he pleaded "guilty". He recognised that he had probably not read the text of the first instance judgment of July 8, 1981 because at the time, just appointed minister of justice, he'd found himself "precipitated into the many problems that assail you [in such circumstances]."

Last November 11, he had not foreseen that he'd be talking about the Faurisson affair. "To an unexpected question, an improvised answer", he admitted, adding: "If I'd known that question was going to be put to me I'd have verified my sources, but there, it was an improvised answer". In the newspaper Libération of the following day (p. 16), he was reported as saying: "I'm not sure I read the decision […]. For an article, I'd have verified. In a television studio, you answer according to memory".

“I’ve visited Auschwitz...I’ve seen those gas chambers... I said Kadish for my relations... I’d been informed later that my father had not been there... I went to Sobibor and again said Kadish for him... The Germans arrested all the Jewish families, even the very young children and the elderly. Was this because of their 'capacity to work'?” 

It is when badly arguing like this that Badinter and other like-minded Zionists really need to be reminded of what Jabotinsky, the deeply race-supremacist Jewish leader and still influential Zionist, said in 1903  - (when Hitler was barely in his early teens).

An historical aside

Ze'ev 'Vladimir' Jabotinsky

Maitre Badinter: At 11.15, he shouts and spits the climax of his opening remarks to Faurisson, in an attempt, NOW, to TWISTSPEAK the defamation action into engineering what he wrongly claims on tv shows: 

“Till my last days, I’ll say you are a history falsifier” ...
which is NOT the same as having had Faurisson found liable for this, but which IS the point that Badinter has NOT addressed.

Despite this shameless failure to address the central issue, the judgment delivered at 3.30 pm on May 21st - to no-one's surprise - favoured Badinter. After all, new 'French' President Nicolas Sarkozy has declared: "I consider any insult against Jews an insult against France." For an extensive analysis of Sarkozy's election campaign and the implications of his victory, view the YouTube video of a live TV debate between Lady Renouf and former US diplomat Professor George Lambrakis.

Robert Faurisson was ordered to pay Badinter 5,000 euros in legal costs, but the positive value of this case for the cause of free enquiry, in exposing the poverty of the exterminationist case, was far higher.

This website will report next week on the next instalment of Robert Faurisson's legal battles with the French establishment, as well as providing further reflections on the Faurisson-Badinter case.

Professor Robert Faurisson still faces criminal charges relating to his address at the Tehran Conference on the Holocaust in December 2006. He is seen here at the conference with fellow speaker Lady Michele Renouf.