The UN Decides on a Universal Ban on Revisionism

On November 1st , unanimously and without a vote, the representatives of the 191 nations making up the UN adopted — or let be adopted — an Israeli-drafted resolution proclaiming January 27th “International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust”. Moreover, the resolution “Rejects any denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full or part”.

Historical revisionism thus sees its existence acknowledged by the whole world, a fact proving that it has some life in it, but, at the same time, this decision means that the revisionists find themselves struck with the reprobation of all the countries of the world. As for the “State” of the Vatican , which has no seat at the UN, it had, as early as in 1992, declared: “There is no historical revisionism that can call into question the inhuman abyss of the Holocaust”

For his part, the President of the General Assembly, the Swede Jan Ellasion, had the deftness on November 1st to ask orally whether anyone was opposed to the resolution aimed at commemorating the “Holocaust”. No hands being raised, he declared, without prior recourse to a vote of any kind, that the resolution was thereby adopted, the text of which contained in one of its provisions the condemnation of any form of “Holocaust” revisionism.

The draft was approved by the United States in utter disregard of the guarantees of freedom of opinion provided by the first amendment to its constitution.

And, most remarkably, this Israeli text was accepted by the Arabo-Moslem countries, including Iran . All those present approved, or let pass with soft verbal restrictions, a resolution originating from the Jews that goes so far as to condemn the right of free research on a historical subject. The UN act assumes only a political and not a juridical character. Still, since it provides that the Secretary General will have to report on the measures subsequently taken within the framework of the resolution, the revisionists will have reason to fear consequences for themselves of a judicial or administrative nature, for instance, as regards border and airport police, authorization to enter and stay in certain countries or the issuing of visas.

The resolution will serve morally to justify and facilitate extradition measures taken against revisionists. Precedents are not lacking, what with 1) the European arrest warrant; 2) the virtual handing over of revisionist René-Louis Berclaz by Serbia to Switzerland; 3) the handing over of revisionist Ernst Zündel by the United States to Canada, then by Canada to Germany; 4) the handing over of Belgian revisionist Siegfried Verbeke by the Netherlands to Germany; 5) the handing over of revisionist Germar Rudolf to Germany by the United States. In Austria , on November 11, the semi-revisionist David Irving, a British citizen, was arrested by traffic police on a motorway and is now in detention in Vienna . For any noted revisionist it is already risky to leave the confines of his home country. In doing so, he exposes himself to a request for extradition made to the country of transit by either Israel or Germany .

There is at present a bill in committee at the Knesset that will authorize Israel to demand the handing over of any revisionist in order to bring him before a court, sitting in Jerusalem , that will apply the 1986 Jewish antirevisionist law against him.

© 17 November 2005