In the Supreme Court of Western Australia         No. 1676 of 1993

BETWEEN:

DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING

Plaintiff

- and -

JEREMY JONES

First Defendant

- and -

AUSTRALIA ISRAEL PUBLICATIONS

Second Defendant

EXHIBIT NOTE

Date of Document: 23 February 1994

Filed on behalf of: The First and Second Defendants

Date of filing: 1994

Prepared by:

Arnold Bloch Leibler Solicitor Code: 54

Solicitors & Consultants DX: 455

Level 21 Tel: 629 7444

333 Collins Street Ref: AHN:934829:KAV

MELBOURNE VIC 3000 (Mr A H Northam)

This is the exhibit marked "AHN2" referred to by ANTHONY HUGH NORTHAM in his Affidavit sworn this 23rd day of February 1994.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA     No. 1676 of 1993

BETWEEN:

Date of Document: 1993

Filed on behalf of The Plaintiff

Date of Filing: 1993

Prepared by
MESSRS E J WALL & ASSOCIATES Telephone: 244 3633
Barristers & Solicitors Ref: IRVI2250.2.EJW:LM
Suite 7, 1st. Floor
25 Walters Drive
HERDSMAN WA 6016

1. The Plaintiff is an Historian and the author of a number of books dealing with the Second World War.

2. The First Defendant is the President of the Zionist Federation of Australia who writes and contributes articles to various publications including the "Australia/Israel Review"

3. The Second Defendant is the proprietor and publisher of a Journal entitled "Australia/Israel Review" which is published and distributed in, amongst other places, Western Australia and Australia.

4. In the edition of the Australia/Israel Review, Volume 17, No 20, dated 3rd-16th November, 1992, under the headline, ""The Odious Irving" the First Defendant falsely and maliciously wrote and published, and the Second Defendant falsely and maliciously caused to be printed and published of and concerning the Plaintiff and of and concerning him in the way of his profession as Historian an article containing the words particularised in the Schedule hereto ("the Words").

5. The words, in their natural and ordinary meaning meant, and were understood to mean that:-

5.1 The Plaintiff is a key neo Nazi agitator, supporter, and apologist.

5.2 The Plaintiff, if permitted to enter Australia, is likely to break the laws of Australia and/or encourage others to do so.

5.3 The Plaintiff projects himself as the right person to lead a revival of Nazi sentiment in Europe.

5.4 The Plaintiff intentionally excites the adulation of brawling street thugs in German.

5.5 The Plaintiff disregards laws designed to protect minority groups.

6. By reason of the publication of the words the Plaintiff has been greatly injured in his character and reputation as an Historian and has been brought into public scandal odium and contempt.

AND THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS:-

(i) Damages;

(ii) An injunction restraining the Defendants whether by themselves or by their servants or agents or otherwise -from publishing or causing to be published the said or similar words defamatory to the Plaintiff.

signed

COUNSEL

SCHEDULE OF WORDS COMPLAINED OF The Australian League of Rights has informed supporters that Nazi apologist David Irving "plans to conduct a lecture tour in Australia early next year". Once just an odious historian, apologist for Goring, denigrator of Churchill, Irving claims Hitler knew nothing of the Final Solution of the Jewish question. He has emerged as the key academic agitator supporting neo Nazis in Europe, the Americas, South Africa and Australia. His views on women, immigration policies and Hitler have earned him contempt from thinking people everywhere. Unfortunately in Germany he mightily excites the tiny minority of conspiracy theorists and lumpens who make up his audiences. His adulation by brawling street thugs in Germany has led David Irving to boast that he is the right person to lead a revival of Nazi sentiment in Europe. Because he has shown scant disregard for laws designed to safeguard the rights of minority groups, he is formally banned from entering Germany and Austria and has been denied entry into Italy, South Africa and most recently Canada. Three Australian States and the ACT have passed anti-racism laws since David Irving last came to Australia on a speaking tour in 1987. As in Canada, there is good reason to believe that on his past record he would break laws in this country should he be permitted to visit. Further, he has been convicted of criminal offences in Germany. a warrant for his arrest is current in Austria and he was deported from Canada after admitting that he had gained entry through "misrepresentation" last month. The Australian Government has a duty to protect the social fabric of Australia and our communal harmony. In the past, immigration restrictions have been placed on sportsmen from South Africa as a show of Australian opposition to apartheid and to individuals from other countries who have records and reputations which suggest that their purpose in visiting Australia would have been to provoke others to break Australian law or to themselves present a threat to social harmony. Australia should follow the example of Canada and tell Mr Irving, unambiguously, that his rabble-rousing may be appropriate in the beer cellars of Munich but that this Country has no desire to accommodate another whistle-stop on his international tour of turpitude.