Watch videos with subtitles in your language, upload your videos, create your own subtitles! Click here to learn more on "how to Dotsub"

A public debate for Professor Faurisson. Repeal of the law Gayssot

0 (0 Likes / 0 Dislikes)
Vincent Reynouard Editorials A public debate for Professor Faurisson October 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal declares the National Socialist leaders guilty of the extermination of Jews. The judges invoke the confession of the first Auschwitz commander, who confessed mass gassings. 2.5 million exterminated until December 1, 1943 in his camp. During the trial, some defendants have objected the facts, arguing that there was no hard evidence of such a massacre. Called as a witness, the former head of the Reich Chancellery claims that Himmler always spoke to him of expulsions, and that until the end, he knew nothing of a massacre of 5 million people. As to Julius Streicher, he points out that technically, such mass murder would have been impossible to perpetuate. It is true that to achieve such a mass murder, the Germans would have developed an unprecedented system in history: the homicidal gas chamber for 1,000 or 2,000 people at a time. A room in which they had used an extremely dangerous gas: hydrocyanic acid such a facility is not improvised, many technical problems arise, not only to ensure good distribution of the gas, prevent its absorption on the surfaces, but especially at the time of ventilation of the room, in order to extract the corpses. Besides, the Soviet accusation asserts it, to develop this unprecedented massacre, perpetrated with this unprecedented weapon, it took the collaboration of technicians belonging to very different branches. This collaboration must have inevitably left paper trails. But, these traces, the Soviets have them in their hands. Because, when they liberated Auschwitz camp, on January 18, 1945 they discovered the crematoriums plans. These plans they have them shown in their documentary filmed in the spring 1945. But, a few months later, during Nuremberg trials, if they exhibit many pictures of Auschwitz taken at the time of the camp's liberation, they do not exhibit a single one of these plans. When it's the murder weapon. An unprecedented weapon. A weapon that will establish the Nazi perversity. Why this incomprehensible discretion? The explanation probably lies in Dachau. Spring 1945, the victors show people the homicidal gas chamber in Dachau. But it was a propaganda lie, and Americans noticed it. So much so that, in November 1945, during the trial of the garrison of the Dachau camp, Advocate General abandons all accusations relating to a gas chamber, especially he is careful not to produce the plan of this gas chamber, as the Americans drawn it. But, it is precisely at that time, in November 1945, that the great Nuremberg trial starts. Therefore, everything leads to believe that scalding by the case of Dachau, the Anglo-Americans advised the Soviets not to produce the plans they seized. But the case doesn't end there. June 1959, a former lawyer with the US Department of War, confirms that, there was no gas chamber in Dachau. What was shown as a gas chamber was a banal crematorium. He adds: "The Soviets claimed that there was a gas chamber at Auschwitz, but, they did not allow the Westerns to go investigate on site. But, coincidentally, the Soviets also placed the alleged gas chambers in the crematoriums. So, why would Auschwitz gas chambers would have had more reality than that of Dachau's one? 1974, a leaflet published in England, entitled "Did six million really die?" The author challenges the generally accepted version of the Holocaust. At the same time, a French man, Robert Faurisson, professor of literature investigates. He was able to note the enormous complexity of an American gas chamber, in which one prisoner is executed at a time, sometimes two. Then, he questions himself, how technically these large Auschwitz gas chambers would have worked. Because, even the greatest historian of genocide did not worry about this issue. In his book there is no plan or picture, or even explanatory sketches of a single gas chamber. March 1976, Pr. Faurisson obtained, by trickery, these crematorium plans, which the Auschwitz Museum authorities are hiding since 31 years, and there surprise: the rooms presented as "gas chambers" are designated, in fact, as "morgues". Which is perfectly normal in a crematorium where one stores the corpses awaiting cremation. Moreover, according to the Soviet thesis, the Germans would have poured the deadly gas, by 4 holes opened in the roof. But, apart from the fact that the holes do not appear on the original plans, a Swedish, who took thousands of pictures of the scene in the 70s and 80s, confirms that no such hole is visible in the buildings ruins. 1977, in the United States an academic publishes a complete book that challenges the official version of the Holocaust. December 1978, Professor Faurisson exposes its findings in an article published by the daily Le Monde. "For historical and technical reasons, he said, the German homicidal gas chambers are a mere rumor of war without further reality." February 1979, 34 historians answered him: "Do not ask how technically such a mass murder was possible, it was technically possible, since it happened. This is the necessary starting point for any historical inquiry on this subject. This truth, it is our function to simply recalled it; there is no, and it can not be possible to have a debate about the existence of the gas chambers. The same month, in order to make it clear to Mr. Faurisson that there can be no debate, nor even called into doubt publicly the existence of gas chambers, LICRA and other associations assign the teacher to justice. But the heretic of a new kind does not yield. On the contrary. He answers to those who want to silence him. And the court case ends when on April 26, 1983, Justice said that regarding the gas chambers problem: "the value of the conclusions defended by Mr. Faurisson therefore belongs to the sole appreciation of experts, historians and the public " 1985, in Canada, a Revisionist, Ernst Zündel, is charged for broadcasting material challenging the reality of the Holocaust. Pr.. Faurisson participates in the trial as a defense counsel. The prosecution called the expert number 1 of the Holocaust, Raul Hilberg to testify. But totally defeated by the revisionists, the latter refuses to testify on appeal in 1988. September 1987, Jean-Marie Le Pen says, awkwardly, that the gas chambers are a point of detail in the Second World War. But, above all he asks: "are you telling me that it is a revealed truth, which everyone has to believe? A moral obligation?" December 1987, Pr. Faurisson proposes an open and public debate on the gas chambers issue. He warns that under the pressure of powerful Jewish organizations, the French government is preparing to pass a law that will condemn revisionists to prison, without counting the job losses and lifetime striking. 1988, during the appeal trial of Ernst Zündel, the one who, in the U.S., built the execution gas chambers in the American penitentiaries is called to testify. He conducted the first comprehensive expertise of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers. His conclusion is formal, these rooms could not have been used as homicidal gas chambers. In France, the Leuchter report's findings are published. For anti-revisionists, it is urgent to silence Prof. Faurisson and Le Pen. Some take care of it by violence. September 1989, Prof. Faurisson is victim of a terrible attack near his home, he owes his life only to the providential intervention of several people. July 1990, the anti-revisionist law finally passed. For crimes against humanity, contradicting the judgment of Nuremberg is now punishable by fines and / or imprisonment. Fines can be up to 300,000 francs (45,000 euros), and imprisonment up to one year. This law is unconstitutional, but at the time of its promulgation it would take the initiative of 60 deputies to senators, to bring before the Constitutional Council. But no elected officials - or practically none - dare to act for fear of being accused of defending the infamous. At first, the judges do not dare too harsh law enforcement, because in the country of human rights throwing someone in prison for his opinions is messy. But the years pass and justice strikes stronger. Year 2000, the college professor Jean-Louis Berger will not be jailed, but must pay a ton of money. Totally ruined and now unemployed with dependent children, he must ask his mother his inheritance part, in order not to end up on the street. The reversal of the judgment which convicted the procedural defect saves him just in time. But destroyed by the treatment he underwent, he dies soon after of a cancer. 2007, Saverne court condemns me on appeal to one year in prison. The sentence was confirmed on appeal. A year in prison and 20,000 euros fine, not including damages and other costs. March 2010, a private citizen can now challenge the constitutionality of a law opposed to him, by introducing a Priority Question of Constitutionality (QPC). 5 QPC are filed for a review of the anti-revisionist law called Gayssot Act, but the blows miss their target. The 5 QPC are dismissed by the Supreme Court, for lack of seriousness. They are not even transmitted to the Constitutional Council. July 2010, for the 20th anniversary of the Gayssot Act I am arrested in Belgium where I live, extradited to France and immediately imprisoned in the prison of Valenciennes, to serve out my sentence. February 2015, I am sentenced to two years in prison, i.e. two times more than the expected text. In this repressive climate atmosphere which accelerates, a totally unknown lawyer contact me, Lawyer Wilfried Paris, leftist, he proposes to submit a QPC to the anti-revisionist Gayssot Act. I refused at first, then as he insists, I agree. June 2015, Caen Appeal Court sentenced me to one year in prison with no possible arrangement. October 2015, the QPC filed on my behalf by Mr. W. Paris, is transmitted to the Constitutional Council. The rest of the story is well known, four days before the hearing, before the Constitutional Council, Mr. Paris is placed in police custody on false charges. The same day, the Constitutional Council sent us each the same letter, to signify to Mr. Paris he can not plead, and to invite me to choose another lawyer, which I would refuse to do. Fortunately, thanks to his tenacity, Mr Paris manages to get out of this mess, and plead before the Constitutional Council on December 8, 2015. But, tired of these unfair attacks, and having been unable to properly prepare himself, the quality of his argument suffered. This is why we will put shortly, online, the pleading that this court Lord would have should have rendered and which he finally recorded. In December 1987, Professor Faurisson wrote: The revisionists simply claim the right to doubt and to research. They do not intend to comply dogma or taboo. They offer an open and public debate." This claim was consistent with the education provided to students of the Third Republic, when taught them: "Free discussion is absolutely necessary in the order of beliefs which demonstrate and discuss itselves. " Then one will say, "Yes, but the revisionist theses convey antisemitism." Excuse me, but I remember that first of all, thesis whatsoever and either true or false. It is this question of truth or falsehood, that must be addressed first, regardless of any other legal or political considerations. And since before the anti-revisionist law, Justice estimated that the value of the conclusions of Pr. Faurisson fell within the public appreciation, so let's repeal the anti-revisionist Gayssot Act, and let's organize this public debate, which revisionists are calling for almost 30 years. Good evening. You like our videos ? So help us to continue. Give for the cause: Translated and subtitled by didi18

Video Details

Duration: 14 minutes and 35 seconds
Year: 2016
Country: Andorra
Language: English
License: Dotsub - Standard License
Producer: Vincent Reynouard
Views: 39
Posted by: didi18 on Jan 13, 2016

Un débat public pour le professeur Faurisson. Abrogation de la loi Gayssot.

In this video, I draw up a chronology of the main events which, since 1945, forged the revisionist epic. The judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal (October 1946) to the QPC supported by my lawyer Mr. Wilfried Paris (December 2015) through the heroic struggle of Professor Faurisson. This to demonstrate that a public debate on the issue of "gas chambers" is completely legitimate. So let's repeal the anti-revisionist laws, and demand this debate that Professor Faurisson proposes since 1987.

Caption and Translate

    Sign In/Register for Dotsub to translate this video.