Letter from Ursula Haverbeck to Richard Edmonds re her upcoming Hamburg trial

The lovely Ursula is now in prison in Bielefeld serving a two-year sentence, but is also having to defend herself from another charge brought by the prosecutor in the Hamburg court.

RICHARD EDMONDS, FRIEND OF URSULA HAVERBECK and of revisionism, sent round this letter he received from Ursula, which he translated into English. He said:

Below you will see UH's reply to me: she first wrote some personal lines of thanks to me, then gave me the statement which she intends reading out at her Hamburg trial.
Please feel free to pass this correspondence on and/or publish it.  RE

______________________________________________

Regarding myself, I am not a University professor; I am not a Chemist; I am not a technician; Like the judge and prosecutor, I am dependent on the statements of witnesses and experts with regard to the nature and character of Auschwitz.

But for twelve years now I have travelled from one end of the BRD (Federal Repubic of Germany) to the other in order to participate in the trials of comrades and in my own; trials based upon paragraph 130 [Race hatred laws] of the German criminal code. By this experience, I have been able to gain a deep isight into the nature of the judicial process here in the Federal Republic.

Many judges, - including German judges - regard paragraph 130 as incompatible with Article 5 of our Basic Law [which guarantees Freedom of Speech and enquiry, etc.]. Perhaps even you have your doubts, Lady Judge [a woman judge has been assigned the case].The case involves crimes "committed" by the National Socialists. It is undestood to concern the Holocaust. The question, as to whether the Holocaust was actually committed, may not be put.  The question itself is already a crime, because the crime is obvious.

By this means a "Stop" sign is deliberately put in place to thwart the scientific research of  History: it is forbidden to proceed any further; it is forbidden to conduct research into this subject. Clearly what we  see here is a symptom of  weakness [of the case against us]: a subjective assertion becomes the thing claimed or assumed [a postulate].

This trial is not a conventional trial, that is, a trial to consider whether a crime has been committed. Here we have two contrary, opposed opinions, each based on received but contradictory sources. Neither of the two parties, neither the prosecution nor the defendant has personally, directly been victim of an alleged  crime. So it is not a question here of crimes but of opinions. It is a question of seeking the truth of a historical happening / event. That can not be the task of jurists; that is the task of independent historians.

Neither the Memorial centres [at Auschwitz and elsewhere], nor the SPIEGEL editor[Fritjof Meyer] have ever been charged with "denial of the Holocaust". On the contrary it is said that the Spiegel editor verified (that is, he reported truthfully), which is not a criminal offence. Therefore how does it come, that to this very day German citizens who question the Six Million victims of the gas-chambers, are dragged into the courts and condemned to fines or prison sentences ? That has got nothing to do with a proper legal system. That is pure arbitrariness.  But how could it have come to such a state ?

It is all due to the fact that paragraph 130 is incompatible with the Basic Law.

The question of whether Auschwitz was an extermination camp or a work-camp, can not be decided by this court. One should not forget that for forty years Katyn was taken to be a crime committed by the Germans. Then the Russian government handed over to the Polish government the proof that Stalin had ordered the crime; and so it was clearly proven that the Bolsheviks had committed the crime.

Lastly here is an indication that Jews and Israelis - two of whom I know personally- long for and  yearn to be liberated from the Holocaust and from the chosen people. Gilad Atzmon, a renowned, Jewish saxophonist and author made the following public statement at a meeting in Bochum in the year 2005:

"Put an end now to your guilt-complex. The Holocaust is an invention of the American and Israeli secret services."

Now that is an opinion that may be false or true. But under no circumstances can it be a crime. That would be the end of a free, liberal state based upon the rule of law. We should be less antagonistic to dissenters and deal with them with a more tender understanding. The truth does not belong to any one person. But we all have a duty to seek the truth.

It is now high time, 72 years after the end of the Second World War that we free ourselves from this "mental prison". What Avraham Burg the former Speaker at the Israeli Knesset [parliament] urged upon his fellows in Israel, applies equally for the Justice-system in the Federal Republic of Germany. We are making our selves the laughing stock of the world. We are making ourselves unworthy of serious consideration so long as we continue to sacrifice the Rule of Law to paragraph 130 [the Racial hatred law], and against all Law and conscience force German judges to send guiltless men and women to prison.

Ursula Haverbeck.