Diary: September 6, 2002

Real History and the Eternal Haters

Mike Whinge, defence chief of the
Board of Deputies of British Jews, gripped the witness box with arms shaking as he was put through a rigorous cross-examination on the vile, anti-Gentile, anti-Christian and pornographic contents of the
Talmud.

September
5, 2002 (Thursday), Little
Rock (Arkansas) — East of Dallas (Texas)

I SET out westwards at 12 midday and pause in Texas, east of Dallas. Mark
Weber of the Institute for Historical
Review responds to my query about the
Fritzjof Meyer article in Osteuropa: “Frey’s
National-Zeitung dealt with it in a pretty good front-page item.”

I reply that I would like to hear
Professor Robert
Van Pelt’s take on it. If he now admits that Krema II and III at Auschwitz were not actually used for mass gassings, then I shall start a worldwide blitz on the media. That is precisely what
I said at the Lipstadt Trial, over and over again: Probably no gassings at Kremas
II and III (and Krema I is anno
1948, built three years after the war); perhaps some experimental gassings at the
“bunkers” offsite.

Proved right, but at what a cost!

I ask Weber: “How long have you known of the National-Zeitung article? I only noticed it referred to in Die Welt.”

Reminds me of the L’Express
triumph in 1995: It took me to wake everybody up to the significance of what the French journalist Conan
had printed! I may do the same again now
— 20,000 printed postcards. But first we must learn more about Meyer: how astute is he?

MICHELE Renouf has won her battle against expulsion from the Reform Club in
Pall Mall — London’s clubland. They were holding an extraordinary general meeting to adjudicate on demands for her expulsion from the club for “conduct unbecoming” for having invited me to dinner there, and for having written a Letter to the Editor the
BBC omitting reference to Lipstadt’s own racism in a radio programme on the trial.

She reports briefly: “The Evening Standard
Diary rang me, but I am obliged to say nothing on my winning the skirmish yesterday, over my expulsion from Occupied
Pall Mall. Prof. Bob Worcester
[CEO of Mori Opinion Polls] ably defended on free speech, and my submissions were ‘forcefully expressed but mercifully minimal.’ Helped myself to a
Churchill’s
War and gave it to Bob for re-presenting” — i.e. to the Club.

A RATHER less moderately worded message comes from British right-winger Martin
Webster, announcing a different but substantial legal victory, won this time at the Leeds Crown Court, heartland of one of Britain’s most Jewish regions.

I have toned down Webster’s message content to make it legible without wincing:

Printer
Tony Hancock has scored a
marvellous and complete victory over
the forces of [etc.,
etc.]

Tony was due to stand trial on Monday on two counts of “aiding and abetting” (i.e. printing) two items of literature for veteran [etc., etc.] campaigner
Colin Jordan — a leaflet,
Jack Straw’s Jewish Justice, and a booklet, Merrie England 2000, which were held to be “intended or likely in all the circumstances to incite racial hatred”.

Mr.
Jordan was not required to attend Court to answer to the substantive charges due to his age and ill-health, on condition that he ceased all political activity — an outrageous imposition which he is contesting under European
Human Rights legislation.

Yesterday (Wednesday) the Judge directed that the charge in respect of Jack Straw’s
Jewish Justice be dropped since the
Crown Prosecution had not produced significant evidence as to distribution (i.e. “publication”) of the item.

Today, after the Judge’s summing-up, the (all-White) jury retired at lunchtime to consider their verdict in respect of
Merrie England 2000. As soon as the lunch break was over they filed back into court to announce their unanimous verdict of “not guilty”!

In a few days time, when I have had an opportunity to interview Tony and his excellent barrister, I will issue a more complete report on this significant victory against an attempt, mobilised by the Board of Deputies of British
Jews, to bring printers within the ambit of the Race Relation Law even though
Parliament declined to amend the law to that effect.

This fuller report will give details of how
Mike Whinge (left), defence chief of the Board of Deputies of
British Jews, gripped the witness box with arms shaking as he was put through a rigorous cross-examination on the vile, anti-Gentile, anti-Christian and pornographic contents of the
Talmud.

Webster believes that it was because the press had anticipated this vigorous defence strategy that not a single reporter was in Court, even though an adverse verdict could have led to a serious curtailment of Free Speech and a
Free Press in Britain.

Previous
Radical’s Diary

Michael
Whinge wants to censor the
Internet

Michael
Whinge admits planting smear dossier on
Mr Irving with Canadian Jewish
organisation