Thursday, December 08, 2016

Text of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act [S.10]

Text of the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act" Passed by the U.S. Senate

Donations or the purchase of our publications and/or CDs/DVDs is essential to the continuation of this blog.


As a follow-up to our December 7 report, we are here reproducing the actual text of the bill (S. 10) passed by the US Senate, the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.”

It appears here precisely as published in the Congressional Record, with one exception.  The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act does not contain a definition of what constitutes criminal violations of Federal Civl Rights law. Rather, the bill refers to — and adopts — a definition of criminal anti-Semitism devised by the U.S. Department of State. Consequently, we have highlighted in the color blue, the portion of the text of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act that refers to the State Department definition, and then reproduced that definition at the end of the document (also in text colored blue).

For our analysis of the Act and its implications for our Republic and the First Amendment, see our December 7 column, “The Gradual Erosion of the First Amendment: The U.S. Senate has passed the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.

United States Senate
Source: The Congressional Record, Dec. 1, 2016

Issue: Vol. 162, No. 172 — Daily Edition

Pages S6649-6650

Research by Michael Hoffman 
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consider- ation of S. 10, introduced earlier today. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title. 
The legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 10) to provide for the consideration of a definition of anti-Semitism for the enforcement of Federal anti-discrimination laws concerning education programs or activities.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise  today, along with my colleague from South Carolina, to talk about a bill we have introduced entitled the ‘‘Anti- Semitism Awareness Act of 2016.’’ 
Let me say first that I wish we were living in a time where we would not have to introduce legislation like this, but unfortunately what we have seen over a long period of time—and I think a problem that is getting worse—is the rising tide of anti-Semitism in substantial sectors of our society. We have, in fact, a rise in the incidence of religious discrimination and religiously motivated hate crimes. To say that is unacceptable, even un-American, is an understatement. 
We have to take action at long last to do what we can in the U.S. Senate, and I hope in the House as well, to not just speak out against anti-Semitism but to take action which will lead to a better strategy to deal with it. What do I mean by that? Well, it is simple. It is about definitions, and it is about making sure that Federal agencies, such as the Department of Education, do their job when it comes to combating anti- Semitism. We know that one piece of legislation is not somehow going to magically eradicate anti-Semitism. We don’t have that naive hope. But what we do believe is that if we don’t take action, this problem is only going to get worse. 
Some of the problem, frankly, is on our college campuses, and I know that  is true, unfortunately and regrettably, in my home State of Pennsylvania. We don’t have time to list every incident, every action, every terrible example of this, but I will just provide one for the record. 
In September, students at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania— one of our great institutions of higher education not only in Pennsylvania but across the country—Swarthmore is a great school, but here is what they found. They found swastikas spray-painted in a bathroom in the library. The college leadership did the right thing in swiftly condemning these actions and removing the graffiti, and I am glad they did that. 
I can only try to imagine—and I can literally only try to understand be- cause I have never been the victim of this kind of hate—the horror that was experienced by those students and their families. A person comes to a college or a university as a place where they are going to learn and grow and live in a community, and then there are people—for whatever reason, and I will never understand the reason anyone would do that—painting those images and using language and taking other actions that discriminate against people because of who they are. We have to be not just concerned about this, as I said, but we have to figure out a way to take action. 
This particular piece of legislation is aimed at a terrible manifestation of this problem. When anti-Semitic views lead to discrimination against students of Jewish faith or Jewish ancestry, that is the result, and they are the vic- tims of this. The intent here is simple and narrowly circumscribed to make sure we are getting at the problem as best we can to define anti-Semitism at long last—this hasn’t been done before—to define anti-Semitism so that the Department of Education can effectively investigate allegations of dis- crimination motivated by anti-Semitism under the Civil Rights Act. The bill does not infringe on the First Amendment. It does not infringe on those rights of free speech. It is intended to help protect students from discrimination on the basis of their faith. 
We all agree that religious discrimination has no place on campuses, has no place in our society, and we have to do more than just speak out against it. That is fundamental, but we can do more than just speak out; we can de- fine it and thereby give in this case one Federal Government agency one tool it needs to deal with this issue. This is a bill which is timely not only because of what is happening on college campuses but unfortunately what has happened in too many parts of our society. We want to make sure the Department of Education has at least one of those tools to deal with this problem. 
Because of the nature of this problem, we have people on both sides of the aisle here who are very concerned about it. I am particularly grateful that I am joined by my colleague from South Carolina, Senator SCOTT, who is joining with me. We are a Democrat and a Republican from different parts of the country and a different point of view on a lot of issues. On this issue we are unified, and we have a solidarity about not just the problem, but there is a solidarity and a consensus about one of the things we can do to take action on this issue. 
I am grateful to be joined by my colleague from South Carolina. 
I yield the floor to him. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina. 
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I thank Senator CASEY for joining me on the floor. 
There is no question that much of our country yearns for a day when Republicans and Democrats come together on issues that impact who we are as a nation. I am thankful that Senator CASEY has joined me in this objective of making sure hate is pushed out of this Nation every single day. 
Today I come to speak about an alarming issue—the issue of hate. It truly tears at the very fabric of our great Nation and should inspire all of us to stand up and be counted on the side of justice, on the side of common sense, and on the side of making sure this great American family remains one Nation. 
Over the past several years, there has been a sharp rise in religiously motivated hate crimes, particularly on our college and university campuses all over America. According to the FBI, close to 60 percent of these crimes were due to anti-Jewish sentiments. From 2014 to 2015, we saw the number of reported incidents double. Let me say that one more time. In a year, we saw a doubling of the incidence of religious discrimination on college campuses, and the vast majority of those issues and situations focused on the Jewish community. There were 90 anti-Jewish incidents reported at 60 schools last year, compared with 47 incidents on 43 campuses just the year before. These numbers are staggering. 
Senator CASEY noted that there have been college campuses and buildings on college campuses where we have seen swastikas. We have heard protests that call for Zionists to leave the school, and we have heard references being made to burning in Auschwitz. I am stunned and saddened by the careless and hateful reminders of such an incredibly dark and daunting time in our world’s history, but I also feel empowered and committed to taking a stand against hate. No one, not a single person should ever have to experience being singled out because of who they are or attacked based on the religion they choose to follow. There is simply no place in our country for this kind of intolerance, especially not in our country, the greatest country on Earth. 
As citizens of this great Nation, it falls on us to stand up and do more to protect our students from being targeted by any form of hate and bigotry.
It is important that we work together to stamp out anti-Semitism and other forms of religious discrimination. Our students should be able to go to school, to grow, to learn, and to develop without having to worry about being discriminated against. Although the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has stated that they will not tolerate incidents such as these, there exists a lack of firm guidance on what constitutes anti-Semitic acts. That is why Senator CASEY and I stand before you today to introduce the bipartisan Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. We have come together to ensure that the U.S. Department of Education has the necessary tools at their disposal to investigate anti-Jewish discrimination. 
Our proposed legislation uses the very definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the U.S. State Department’s Special Envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. This important clarification will provide necessary direction to assist officials and administrators to understand when anti-Semitic activities are occurring. By clarifying exactly what anti-Semitism is, we will leave no question as to what constitutes an illegal anti-Semitic incident. 
As we seek to tackle this concerning issue, it is important to note that this act will in no way infringe on any individual right protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. I think we have to emphasize that. Our legislation in no way, shape, or form infringes upon any individual rights protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. It simply and specifically provides clarity on the definition that the Department of Education can and will use for defining anti-Semitic acts. 
We must act now. This increase in religiously motivated hate crimes must be addressed. It must be addressed by the entire American family, and it ought to start here. We will come together because we will not allow others to tear us apart. We must hold to the ideals that our Nation was founded on and promote freedom of religion. We must protect that freedom and encour-age it. We must—as a Nation, as an American family—call out hate wherever and whenever we see it. 
I thank Senator CASEY for his involvement and leadership on such an important issue. 
I yield the floor. 
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators SCOTT and CASEY for their work on the anti-discrimination legislation, particularly as it relates to anti-Semitism. I support them in that effort and look forward to getting something done in Congress to help address the definition of anti-Semitism for the Department of Education. 
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
The bill (S. 10) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read the third time, and passed, as follows: 
S. 10 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016’’.
Congress makes the following findings: 
(1) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (referred to in the section as ‘‘title VI’’) is one of the principal antidiscrimination statutes enforced by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. 
(2) Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 
(3) Both the Department of Justice and the Department of Education have properly concluded that title VI prohibits discrimination against Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and members of other religious groups when the discrimination is based on the group’s actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics or when the discrimination is based on actual or perceived citizenship or residence in a country whose residents share a dominant religion or a distinct religious identity. 
(4) A September 8, 2010 letter from Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez to Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn H. Ali stated that ‘‘[a]lthough Title VI does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion, discrimination against Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and members of other groups violates Title VI when that discrimination is based on the group’s actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics’’. 
(5) To assist State and local educational agencies and schools in their efforts to comply with Federal law, the Department of Education periodically issues Dear Colleague letters. On a number of occasions, these letters set forth the Department of Education’s interpretation of the statutory and regulatory obligations of schools under title VI. 
(6) On September 13, 2004, the Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague letter regarding the obligations of schools (including colleges) under title VI to address incidents involving religious discrimination. The 2004 letter specifically notes that ‘‘since the attacks of September 11, 2001, OCR has received complaints of race or national origin harassment commingled with aspects of religious discrimination against Arab Muslim, Sikh, and Jewish students.’’ 
(7) An October 26, 2010 Dear Colleague letter issued by the Department of Education stated, ‘‘While Title VI does not cover dis- crimination based solely on religion, groups that face discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics may not be denied protection under Title VI on the ground that they also share a common faith. These principles apply not just to Jewish students, but also to students from any discrete religious group that shares, or is perceived to share, ancestry or ethnic characteristics (e.g., Muslims or Sikhs).’’. 
(8) Anti-Semitism remains a persistent, disturbing problem in elementary and secondary schools and on college campuses. 
(9) Jewish students are being threatened, harassed, or intimidated in their schools (including on their campuses) on the basis of their shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics including through harassing conduct that creates a hostile environment so severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit some students’ ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by schools. 
(10) The 2010 Dear Colleague letter cautioned schools that they ‘‘must take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment, eliminate any hostile environment, and its effects, and prevent the harassment from recurring,’’ but did not provide guidance on current manifestation of anti-Semitism, including discriminatory anti-Semitic conduct that is couched as anti-Israel or anti-Zionist. 
(11) The definition and examples referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 3 have been valuable tools to help identify contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism, and include useful examples of discriminatory anti-Israel conduct that crosses the line into anti-Semitism. 
(12) Awareness of this definition of anti- Semitism will increase understanding of the parameters of contemporary anti-Jewish conduct and will assist the Department of Education in determining whether an investigation of anti-Semitism under title VI is warranted. 
For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘definition of anti-Semitism’’— 
(1) includes the definition of anti-Semitism set forth by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism of the Department of State in the Fact Sheet issued on June 8, 2010, as adapted from the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism of the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (now known as the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights); and 
(2) includes the examples set forth under the headings ‘‘Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism’’ and ‘‘What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?’’ of the Fact Sheet. SEC. 4. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TITLE VI  OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. 
In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics, the Department of Education shall take into consideration the definition of anti-Semitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the alleged practice was motivated by anti-Semitic intent. 
Nothing in this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. 
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. 
U.S. Department of State
Fact Sheet 
Washington, DC 
June 8, 2010

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective—especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. 

 Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the state of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

 Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. 
 Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own nations. 

What is Anti-Semitism Relative to Israel?

EXAMPLES of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel, taking into account the overall context could include: 


 Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or Israelis 

 Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis 

 Blaming Israel for all inter-religious or political tensions


 Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation 

 Multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations.

Research by Michael Hoffman 

Wednesday, December 07, 2016

"Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” passes in the Senate


1. The gradual erosion of the First Amendment: The U.S. Senate has passed the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act,” by Michael Hoffman

2. Fake News Versus No News
How Russia is pilloried while real news about Israel goes unreported, by Philip Giraldi

The gradual erosion of the First Amendment:
The U.S. Senate has passed the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act”

By Michael Hoffman

No, this is not a joke, or a newly discovered appendix to a dystopian George Orwell novel.  The United States Senate on December 1 did indeed pass the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act” [complete text is here]. A companion bill has been sent to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

We are unfortunately all too familiar with this type of abridgment of freedom of speech and press. In Canada, Australia, Britain, France, Germany, Austria, and everywhere that the “error has no rights” standard of the Inquisition has been revived, dissident writers and activists have been fined or imprisoned. Ten years ago yesterday historian David Irving was released from an Austrian prison after serving more than a year for his alleged “anti-Semitic” speech and writing.The American media are mostly not interested. In their view this is the right kind of repression.

The official explanation for the thought police enabler in the Senate is that the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act "seeks to adopt the U.S. State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism so that the Education Department may consider it in investigating reports of religiously motivated campus crimes." Note that word: "crimes." We will return to it in a moment. 

The bill was proposed by Senators Bob Casey, a “family values” Pennsylvania Democrat, and Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican, and co-sponsored by “Conservative” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, also of South Carolina, to “ensure the Education Department has the necessary statutory tools at their disposal to investigate anti-Jewish incidents,” according to a news release. 

The misnamed bill (its not about merely raising “awareness”), gives the federal government the authority to investigate ideas, thoughts, and political positions as violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's supported by the Israeli lobby in the U.S. and appears to be the work of the Israeli government. Supporters include the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federations of North America, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. 

Mainstream media such as the New York Times, which are obsessed with detecting supposed ominous Russian “meddling” in American politics, have reported barely a word about this legislation, which has the fingerprints of a foreign power all over it. 

Senator Casey listed the following examples of anti-Semitic crimes covered by the bill:

•Accusing Israel as a state of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust

•Judging Israel by a double standard that one would not apply to any other democratic nation

•Demonizing Israel by blaming it for inter-religious or political tensions

Are political thoughts and words a hate crime which should be investigated by colleges and universities, or the Department of Education? That’s what this Act will require if it passes in the House of Representatives. Should criticizing the government of China be treated as a hate crime against Asian students? 

Passage of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act will have a chilling effect on freedom of speech at America’s institutes of higher learning, and this is its intentThe Act is an extension of growing Israeli supremacy over our Republic through the implementation of laws consonant with Talmudic halacha, which consists of one law for the lower-souled goyim, and another for the higher-souled Judaics (cf. BT Sanhedrin 57a; Kiddushin 66c; Erubin 21b; Bava Metzia 114b; Kerithoth 6b and 58a;  and the Chofetz Chaim’s Mishneh Berurah: O.H. 330, among many other halachot). 

Zionist students on American campuses are free to denigrate, insult and mock every nationality, government and religion on earth. On the glass toilet known as television, Zionist Larry David urinated on a portrait of Jesus Christ in October of 2009, on the HBO TV show, “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” There’s no “Anti-Christian Awareness Act” on the legislative agenda of our cowardly Congress.

Thus far the Los Angeles Times has been one of the few newspapers willing to broach this topic. In a Times’ guest editorial Liz Jackson writes: "This fall, Berkeley suspended an academic course called 'Palestine: a Settler Colonial Inquiry' after complaints from the same Israeli advocacy organizations who had previously tried to get the Education Department to stifle campus debate. This is how the chilling effect plays out. Campus administrators understand the specter of federal investigations —not just the threat of losing funding, but the fallout from bad headlines — and they suppress legitimate speech to avoid problems.”

To add insult to injury, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act contains the following coda: “Nothing in this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.”

Sure. And some are more equal than others.



Michael Hoffman is the author of Judaism Discovered, and Judaism’s Strange Gods, as well as five other books, including The Great Holocaust Trial, which last month was translated into French and published in Italy. The author, translator and publisher are all subject to potential prosecution in France, Germany and Austria, among other European nations where daring to question Israeli supremacism and legends is an “anti-semitic crime.”

If you wish to see these columns by Michael continue, purchase a book, newsletter, CD or DVD — or send a donation. Your support is essential to the continuation of our Truth Mission.

Fake News Versus No News
How Russia is pilloried while real news about Israel goes unreported

By Philip Giraldi

The drama surrounding allegations that the internet is awash with “fake news” is being promoted by the so-called mainstream media which certainly has a lot to answer for when it comes to producing material that does not pass the smell test. Does the name Judith Miller ring any bells? 

The fake news saga is intended to discredit Donald Trump, whom the media hates mostly because they failed to understand either him or the Americans who voted for him in the recent election. You have to blame somebody when you are wrong so you invent “fake news” as the game changer that explains your failure to comprehend simple truths. 

To accomplish that, the clearly observable evidence that the media was piling on Donald Trump at every opportunity has somehow been deliberately morphed into a narrative that it is Trump who was attacking the media, suggesting that it was all self-defense on the part of the Rachel Maddows of this world, but anyone who viewed even a small portion of the farrago surely will have noted that it was the Republican candidate who was continuously coming under attack from both the right and left of the political-media spectrum.

At the present moment, it is practically obligatory to slam Russia and Putin at every opportunity even though Moscow is too militarily weak and poor to fancy itself a global adversary of the U.S. Instead of seeking a new Cold War, Washington should instead focus on working with Russia to make sure that disagreements over policies in relatively unimportant parts of the world do not escalate into nuclear exchanges. 

Russian actions on its own doorstep in Eastern Europe do not in fact threaten the United States or any actual vital interest. Nor does Moscow threaten the U.S. through its intervention on behalf of the Syrian government in the Middle East. That Russia is described incessantly as a threat in those areas is largely a contrivance arranged by the media, the Democratic and Republican National Committees and by the White House.

Blaming Russia, which has good reasons to be suspicious of Washington’s intentions, is particularly convenient for those many diverse inside the Beltway interests that require a significant enemy to keep the cash flowing out of the pockets of taxpayers and into the bank accounts of the useless grifters who inhabit K-Street and Capitol Hill. 

There is, however, another country that has interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America’s legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby that oddly is not subject to the accountability afforded by the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of 1938 even though it manifestly works on behalf of a foreign government. That country is, of course, Israel.

On December 1 the Senate unanimously passed an Anti-Semitism Awarness bill. The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act is intended to give the Department of Education investigatory authority over “anti-Jewish incidents” on America’s college campuses. Such “incidents” are not limited to religious bigotry, with the examples cited in the bill’s text including criticism of Israel and claiming that the holocaust was “exaggerated.” The Anti-Semitism bill makes Jews and Jewish interests a legally protected class, immune from any criticism. 

“Free speech” means in practice that you can burn an American flag, sell pornography, attack Christianity in the vilest terms, but criticizing Israel (on college campuses) is off limits if you want to avoid falling into the clutches of the legal system. The Act is a major step forward in effectively making any expressed opposition to Israeli actions a hate crime and is similar to punitive legislation that has been enacted in twenty-two states as well as in Canada. It is strongly supported by the Israeli Lobby, which quite likely drafted it, and is seeking to use legal challenges to delegitimize and eliminate any opposition to the policies of the state of Israel. That the legislation is not being condemned or even discussed in the generally liberal media tells you everything you need to know about the amazing power of one particular unelected and unaccountable lobby in the U.S.   Read more at:

On the Contrary is a public service of Independent History and Research, Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816 USA

Visit us online at

Tuesday, December 06, 2016

'Tis the Season — to Remember

By Michael Hoffman

This is the season of joy and this writer is more hopeful about the future than many of my colleagues in the revisionist world. Yet, when I  meditate on our shortcomings dark clouds can gather. One of these is our amnesia about our own recent history and our apathy about memorializing it. Vicki Weaver and her young son were killed by Federal agents in 1992 at Ruby Ridge, here in Idaho. There is no statue to the victims or any memorial of any kind. Had she been a Leftist or a Zionist her supporters would have cared enough to be sure her murder and that of her child were not forgotten. What about us?

The most intrepid, effective and selfless civil libertarian lawyer of the past thirty years was the Canadian Doug Christie (1946-2013), who wore himself out flying from one end of his huge native land to the other, defending in court Ernst Zündel, Imre Finta and dozens of other dissidents, many of them indigent. He deserves a biography, a memorial and a North American scholarship in his name to encourage law students to emulate his example.

Years ago I thought of creating and publishing an annual calendar that would document all of the heretofore unsung outrages and injustices  as well as the victories and the struggles and important dates in revisionist history  which folks like the Weavers, attorneys like Christie, and writers and activists in our ranks such as Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel and David Irving, have undergone. My all-consuming vocation writing books has precluded my participation in this educational and inspirational project. Surely there is someone else who can do it   and do it well?

One of the anniversaries that should be memorialized, December 6, 2006, has arrived. Historian David Irving was arrested by Austrian police in the autumn of 2005 . His thought crime was a speech he gave years before in Austria, based on his history books. He remained in prison until his show trial in Vienna on Feb. 20, 2006, where he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. After having been in solitary confinement for more than a year, he was released on probation; that was ten years ago today, Dec. 6, 2006.

Sewer covers were off and the pound-of-flesh gang was in full dudgeon: "I am sorry that he did not serve out his full term, and I hope he will remain in Austria and not return to the United Kingdom, where he will not be welcome.  Lord Janner, World Jewish Congress and Commonwealth Jewish Council, Dec. 20, 2006

"It is unfortunate that...the Austrian court saw fit to reduce Irving’s sentence to probation...  Iris Rosenberg, Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum. Many other rabbis and Zionists around the world expressed similar merciless, inquisitorial sentiments toward the historian.

A timeline is hereTis the season to remember!

David Irving's remarks:

"We are approaching Christmas and a date almost more important: December 6 is the tenth anniversary of the date when five wise Viennese judges sitting in the Austrian Court of Appeal ordered my immediate release from prison: I had been ambushed in Vienna and held for over a year in solitary confinement for “Wiederbetätigung,” a mysterious political offense created by Stalinist courts in 1945; I was accused of trying, with my famous biographies, to “reactivate” the German Nazi party.  The decision rescued me, and I was able to get back to England and my little girl, and resume writing Real History. 

"The following day saw the unleashing of a Press campaign against the judges who ordered my release. Prof. Deborah Lipstadt, who a year earlier had told the press it was wrong to lock me up, announced to the US newspapers straight-faced that it was now totally wrong to release me. As you know, some people are hard to satisfy! My daughters are now all grown up, and Lipstadt has written a movie, which is as truthful as only Hollywood movies can be, funded by millions of Hollywood dollars, attacking me. It has been going around since September. Its very first scene is a lie."

If you wish to see these columns continue, purchase a book, newsletter, CD or DVD  or send a donation. Your support is vital to our Truth Mission. Thank you.