Toronto, Ontario

‑‑- Upon resuming on Thursday, December 17, 1998

    at 10:08 a.m.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning.

RESUMED:  ROBERT FAURISSON

Cross-Examination re Qualifications, continued

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Mr. Faurisson, before we get back to the Human Rights Committee decision, I want to clarify something about your proposed method in analyzing Professor Prideaux' work.

         How long did you spend looking at Professor Prideaux' work?

         A.   It is difficult to say.  Perhaps 100 hours.

         Q.   Am I correct, sir, that you are not a linguist?

         A.   I am not a linguist.

         Q.   And you have not studied linguistic analysis?

         A.   Linguistic analysis, no, but I have learned how to read French, Latin and Greek texts.  I have been trained in grammar.

         Q.   For instance ‑‑ and the Registrar may not have this, but I am going to give it to you.  HR-3 is a copy of a document that I think you are familiar with.  It is called "The Commission's Brief of Materials for Prof. Gary Prideaux."  Have you seen this before?

         A.   This is the part, I understand ‑‑ a very long list of publications of Mr. Prideaux.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  He has just asked you a simple question.  Have you seen this document before?

         THE WITNESS:  Yes.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Could you give it back to me for one minute. 

         We are looking at HR-3.  At tab 2, page 4 ‑‑ maybe we can look at this together.

         A.   When I say that I have spent so much time, it was only because I didn't want to know who was Mr. Prideaux, what were his titles, his theories and so on.  I mean ‑‑ I am going to tell you ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, wait until you hear the question.  Don't tell us things that pop into your mind.  You are here to answer questions.  If there are other areas that need to be brought out, counsel for the Respondent will do that.  Just confine your answers to the questions.

         MR. FREIMAN:  One of my colleagues has given me an extra copy of HR-3.  It might be useful for you.

         Q.   I am asking you to look at page 4 of tab 2.  Do you have the list of references?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Which of those have you read?

         A.   I have not even read this page 4.  My‑‑

         Q.   Let me ask you the questions and maybe you can give me answers to them.

         I am not asking whether you read them in preparation for reviewing Professor Prideaux' work.  I want to know:  Have you read any of these books?

         A.   None of those books.

         Q.   Tell me what you have read on linguistic analysis?

         A.   Nothing in linguistic analysis.  What I have read is what you could find in a French, very thick book which is called "L'Histoire et ses méthodes" (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade), in which you have all sorts of analysis of historical matters, literary matters and so on, which is something quite different.

         I want to achieve my answer.  My work was precisely from page 5, beginning with "Discourse Analysis of Selected Passages", and I didn't want to know who was Mr. Prideaux, what kind of reading he had, what kind of publications, et cetera.  I worked only from page 5 where he begins his analysis of some Zundelsite notes.

         Q.   We have established so far that you have never studied linguistic analysis; you have not read any of the books cited by Professor Prideaux.  I take it you are not familiar with the French works on linguistic analysis either, are you?

         A.   No, we could not say that.  I am going to give you what we call the real reference book which is "Manuel de Critique Verbale" of Louis Havet, which is about especially analysis of text, the way the texts are transformed, and so on.

         Q.   You have read one book on analysis of text by M. Havet.  I take it you have studied Saussure?

         A.   Saussure, no, not even Saussure.

         Q.   Not even Saussure.  Saussure happens to be the founder of linguistic analysis who wrote in French, but you have not studied him.

         A.   I have not studied this because it is not my method.  It is not my way of doing.  I have been reading many other things ‑‑ practically, not theoretically.

         Q.   So your knowledge of linguistic analysis is practical, not theoretical.  You are not capable of commenting on the well-foundedness or not well-foundedness of any theories that we might find underlying Professor Prideaux' work.

         A.   Really, in history, in life, in anything, I am very suspicious about theories.  I need to see, for example, text of anything.  I want to see someone who is supposed to have read many, many books, who is supposed to be very literate, and I say, "Come.  I don't care about this.  You are going to read this.  I am going to watch you, whatever your food has been.  Perhaps your food is not mine; I do not know.  We are going to see."  No theory.

         Q.   No theory at all.

         A.   No.

         Q.   You also, I take it, did not consider it useful to read the passage on "Discourse Analysis."

         A.   No.  I began, I told you, on page 5.

         Q.   So you know nothing at all about the theory that Professor Prideaux takes toward linguistic analysis.

         A.   No, not at all.

         Q.   Not a word.

         A.   Not a word.

         Q.   How many hours did you spend analyzing the Zundelsite texts?

         A.   I took only the parts, as I said repeatedly, only the parts quoted by Mr. Prideaux.

         Q.   Did you analyze those separately from what Professor Prideaux says?  Did you apply the Ajax method to the Zundelsite excerpts?

         A.   Commented by him, yes.

         Q.   I am not asking on his comments.  Did you independently ‑‑

         A.   No, commented by him.

         Q.   Fine, the ones that are commented on by him.  You applied the Ajax method as well, did you, or not, on those passages?

         A.   Yes, of course.

         Q.   You did that separately from your analysis of Professor Prideaux?

         A.   No.  I took, for example, on page 5:

"More recently, Jewish historian Walter Laqueur 'denied established history' by acknowledging in his 1980 book, The Terrible Secret, that the human soap story has no basis in reality.'"

Which is a little more than two lines.

         Q.   You analyzed that?

         A.   I analyzed that.

         Q.   How?

         A.   You will see.

         Q.   How?  How did you do it?

         A.   By reading carefully.  I didn't even want to state that I know very well the book of Walter Laqueur, "The Terrible Secret."

         Q.   So you pretended that you didn't know the book, "The Terrible Secret."  That is the first thing you did.

         A.   No, I don't pretend.  I am fighting against this as I am fighting against prejudice, which is difficult.  I say, "I am not going to state in my analysis of this ‑‑ I am not going to say, 'Oh, I know how and when Mr. Walter Laqueur in his book put those two lines.'  I am not going to say, "Oh, but the context is different."  No, I am not going to do it.  I am going to take it at face value.

         This is what Mr. Prideaux brings.  Mr. Prideaux is extremely brilliant, perhaps; I don't know.  He says, "I am going to analyze those two lines."  Robert Faurisson comes and says, "I am going also to analyze," and I am not going to say I have done those kinds of studies, certainly not.

         This is an experience of life.  A professor might be totally stupid.  We have a saying in France which is:  There is nothing worse than a donkey with a  charge on it."  You have a simple donkey and you have a donkey who has been to university.  If they have been stupid at the beginning, at the end most probably they will be as stupid.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, do you remember what the question was?

         THE WITNESS:  Yes.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am beginning to forget myself.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   What was the question?

         A.   I forget.

         Q.   I thought so.

         The fact is, sir, that you know you Ernst Zundel is.

         A.   I know who he is.

         Q.   You know who Walter Laqueur is.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   You know whether he is a Jewish historian.

         A.   It happens that I know, but I do not care.

         Q.   And you have no linguistic theory that you apply to these; you are just reading them in a common sense way.

         A.   I try to read it in the common sense way.  Common sense is something rare.

         Q.   The real talent you bring to the analysis is your common sense.

         A.   We will see.  Common sense is a way of saying things.  We could perhaps say it another way.

         If I am qualified, I will be judged on the way I will explain what Mr. Prideaux explained.  It will be a kind of competition; that's all.

         Q.   Would you agree with me, then, that one of the things that the Triubnal should do in deciding whether you are qualified is perhaps analyze your common sense as you manifest it?

         A.   Analyze my common sense if you want.

         Q.   Let's get back to what we were doing yesterday.  By the way, did you bring the English translation with you today?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   We will look at that in a minute.  I would like to finish with this text, and then we will go back and look at the previous text as well.

         You will recall we were looking, I believe, at ‑‑ let me check my notes.  I want to look at a passage with you and ask if you would agree that, from your perspective, this is the ratio decidendi.  You know what that word means.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   This is what you understood was being said about you, about your work and about why your conviction was just.  It is at page 15 of 21 ‑‑

         A.   Sorry, of which document?

         Q.   Of this document, the one we were looking at yesterday, the Human Rights Committee.

         A.   Is it the one of 8 November, 1993?

         Q.   That is the very one.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  There is HR-41(a) and HR-41(b).

         MR. FREIMAN:  It is HR-41(a), the University of Minnesota.

         THE WITNESS:  Could you give me a copy, please?  Thank you.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   At page 15 of 21, paragraph 10 at the bottom, the court says:

"the French courts examined the author's statements in great detail.  Their decisions, and the interview itself, refute the author's argument that he is only driven by his interest in historical research."

         I understand that to mean ‑‑ and tell me if I am incorrect ‑‑ that the Committee here is saying that the decision of the French courts and the Human Rights Committee's reading of the passage complained about negate your statement that you are only interested in historical research, that in fact they find that you are interested in something else and that you go beyond historical research.

         A.   That is what they say.

         Q.   That is what they say.

         A.   May I make a comment on the first sentence?  You have two sentences.  The French courts examined the author's statements in great detail.

         Q.   And you disagree with that?

         A.   That is what they say.

         Q.   I am only looking at what they say.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  There is no argument at this point about that.  He is quoting to you what they say.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   I just want you to confirm that your understanding is the same as mine as to what the court found.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   I believe that in the first part what they are saying is that the French courts correctly found that your argument is not only driven by interest in historical research.

         A.   That's correct.

         Q.   Then they go on to explain that;

"In the interview the author demanded that historians 'particularly Jewish historians' ('les historiens en particulier juifs') who agree that some of the findings of the Nuremburg Tribunal were mistaken be prosecuted.  The author referred to the 'magic gas chamber' ('la magique chambre à gaz) and to 'the myth of the gas chambers' ('le mythe des chambres à gaz), that was a 'dirty trick' ('une gredinerie') endorsed by the victors in Nuremburg."

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Excuse me for interrupting, but my paragraph 10 is this, and it is obviously not the paragraph.

         MR. FREIMAN:  It is at page 15 of 21.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  There is more than one paragraph 10 then.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I am sorry.  I am very sorry.  I think Mr. Christie is correct.  I am reading from a concurring opinion.  I will get to that concurring opinion because it is very interesting, but we were, in fact, on page 12 of 21.  This is the majority decision.  I thank Mr. Christie for bringing this to my attention.

         Where we had stopped was at page 12 of 21 at paragraph 9.6.  What the majority said, the decision of the Committee itself, at 9.6 ‑‑ and I am looking at the sentence beginning "Since the statements made by the author ‑‑".  They say:

"Since the statements made by the author, read in their full context, were of a nature as to raise or strengthen anti-semitic feelings, the restriction served the respect of the Jewish community to live free from fear of an atmosphere of anti-semitism."

         Would you agree with me that on this page in this paragraph the Committee is finding that your statements, read in their full context, were of a nature to raise or strengthen antisemitic feeling?

         A.   What is the question, please?

         Q.   Do you understand, as I do, that what the Committee is saying is that your writings, read in their context, are of a nature that raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings?

         A.   That is what they say, and they say "in their full context."

         Q.   In their full context.

         A.   Of course, I wonder what is the full context.

         Q.   We don't have them here, so we can't ask them, can we?

         A.   There is a question there.

         Q.   That is the basic finding, that your works raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings and that ‑‑

         A.   No, "were of a nature as to raise", which is not the same.

         Q.   That is correct.  They have a tendency; their quality is such that they can raise antisemitic feelings or strengthen antisemitic feelings.  Is that what you understand?

         A.   They are of a nature as to raise ‑‑ exactly the words.  We have not to change those words.

         Q.   What does that mean to you?

         A.   To me, it means that those people affirm that, read in their full context, which is something that I do not understand, my statements were such that they could provoke or strengthen antisemitic feelings, which means:  You have the writings of Faurisson here, and you think that from those writings there might be a consequence in antisemitism, animosity perhaps, feelings.  We have the writings of Faurisson and we know what they are.  They have so many words.

         Then we have something which is "full context."  What is that?  Then we have "feelings".  Three things.  They put a link between those three things.

         Q.   So that is your understanding.

         A.   That is my understanding.

         Q.   Am I correct, sir, that you or your lawyer argued that this was incorrect, that your writings were not of a nature to raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings?

         A.   This is my absolute conviction, yes.

         Q.   And you argue that fully before the Human Rights Committee?  Your lawyer was able to argue whatever he wanted on that basis, was he not?

         A.   Sir, I had no lawyer.

         Q.   You argued it yourself in the terms ‑‑

         A.   I don't remember what I said in the paper I sent.  I had no lawyer.

         Q.   This is the same argument that you presented, or your lawyer presented, when you had one, to the French courts, that your works were not of a nature to raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings.

         A.   I wouldn't say that.

         Q.   You never argued that?

         A.   I think so, but we always insisted on the fact that the question is to see if what I say is exact or not.  What we have said many, many times in court is this:  I am not going to think now ‑‑ must I write down something that I think is exact.  Am I going to worry if Peter or Paul ‑‑ and this is the example that we take very often ‑‑ if Peter or Paul are pleased or displeased with what I am going to write. 

         The question is:  Is there a gas chamber in this place, in Auschwitz, in Majdanek, in Dachau, and so on?  If I conclude that there is one, I am not going to say, "Oh, this would be very bad for many people that I know" or "This will be good for some other people."

         This is what in French court my lawyer said repeatedly.  Sometimes maybe he has said, "And what about antisemitism?  Bring us the proof that the writings of Faurisson have done anything to develop antisemitism."

         Q.   I don't want your conclusions because we have not had you qualified as an expert.  If you were qualified as an expert, would you be giving an opinion about the qualities of Mr. Zundel's writing based on the same sort of theory that you enunciated here?

         A.   I would take the pieces quoted by Mr. Prideaux and, of course, I would answer the question:  Is it against the Jews?  Of course, I will answer this question, because we can say the conclusion of Mr. Prideaux is precisely that the writings of Mr. Zundel or any one of the Zundelsite ‑‑ I do not know ‑‑ are of a nature as to raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings, of course.

         Q.   What I am trying to get at is whether the argument or the way you are going to develop your ideas, if you are qualified as an expert, is different from what you just told us now, which is that your only concern is for historical truth and that consequences don't enter into your publication.

         A.   No.

         Q.   It will be totally different.

         A.   It will be different because I have been told ‑‑ is it right, is it wrong ‑‑ that truth is no defence.  If it is not a defence, I cannot use it.

         Now, be careful.  I told you that in French court I used all the same this argument, which is that it is not antisemitic.  But afterward ‑‑

         Q.   Afterward, and every time you used it it was rejected.

         A.   As long as I have been condemned ‑‑ sometimes I have not been condemned.  It happened, yes.

         Q.   And 12 times you have been convicted, or is it 13 now?

         A.   More than that probably.  Quite recently I have been once more condemned on Friday. 

         Q.   On November 13, was it?

         A.   No, no, in December in Amsterdam.  You should go and try to get the judgment.  I did get it already.  I have been condemned in Amsterdam.

         Q.   Who condemned you in Amsterdam?

         A.   A court.  I didn't send any lawyer, nothing.  A court about the Anne Frank diary.

         Q.   And they condemned you for what?  What was the charge?

         A.   I have not the judgment.

         Q.   I don't care about the judgment.  I want to know what the charge is.

         A.   I am going to tell you.  A Jewish foundation, the Anne Frank Foundation, in Amsterdam and the Anne Frank Fonds in Basle, Switzerland, were fighting each other and got united to lodge a complaint against Faurisson.  Why?  Because they say, as you have yesterday, that "Is the Anne Frank genuine?" was translated into Dutch, was distributed by a Belgian, I think, at the beginning of 1991.  This is the complaint.

         The complaint is that Mr. Faurisson is doing harm to the Anne Frank institution of Amsterdam because ‑‑ there are two reasons.  Number one, the number of visitors might decrease after reading Mr. Faurisson, and it will be what we call a reduit des financiers; it will be bad for their money.

         Number two, we are obliged to train our guys, which costs money, to answer visitors asking them questions asked by Faurisson.  This costs money also.

         Q.   That, I understand, is the nature of the damage they suffered.  What were you accused of?  What did you do wrong?  What do they say you did wrong?

         A.   I don't know.  I received by fax a copy of an article in a newspaper saying that I had been condemned.  I do not know ‑‑

         Q.   You don't know what they found ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Could you allow him to finish? 

         MR. FREIMAN:  I have allowed him to finish.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  He was speaking when you interrupted him.  Is that how you signify the next question?

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Dr. Faurisson, you received a copy of the complaint against you at some point, didn't you?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   And you read it?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   What did it say?

         A.   I told you.

         Q.   That's all it said?  It didn't say you did anything else wrong, other than you caused financial prejudice to these institutions?

         A.   Of course, they said it was antisemitic and things like that.  Of course.

         Q.   That goes without saying.

         A.   Of course.  Or perhaps they didn't say even antisemitic.  I would need the text here.  Perhaps they said that it was bad for the memory of Anne Frank, without talking about antisemitism; I am not sure.

         Q.   You take these matters so seriously that you don't pay any attention?  You don't know what it is that they ask.

         A.   I have a difficult life.  I have many, many trials.  I receive many papers, many complaints.  I received this perhaps in 1992.  I don't remember.  I would need to have those papers.

         So I brought you a piece of news.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Was this a hearing before a tribunal in Amsterdam?

         THE WITNESS:  Before a tribunal, meaning in front of a tribunal?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.

         THE WITNESS:  No.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Was it a court?

         A.   It was a court, yes.  I had the visit of the French police at home, and they served me a paper saying, "There is a complaint against you", and that's it.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  And did you appear before the tribunal or the court?

         THE WITNESS:  No.  I have no money; I have no time.  I cannot go to Amsterdam.  The next morning perhaps it will be in Lithuania ‑‑

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Or Toronto.

         A.   Or Toronto.  For my friend I am ready to do anything.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  So you did not appear.

         THE WITNESS:  No, I didn't appear.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You didn't' appear and you didn't ask anyone to appear for you.

         THE WITNESS:  No.  My publisher, to answer more completely ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You have answered it.  This is not a debate.  We are just trying to get answers.

         THE WITNESS:  My publisher, of course, when he had to defend himself ‑‑ I don't know if he went to Amsterdam.  Perhaps he said something for my defence; that is possible.  I wrote one letter, I think, to the lawyer of my publisher saying that my argument was only this one, that my work on the Anne Frank diary had been made for someone who had to appear in a tribunal in Hamburg 20 years ago. 

         I cannot understand how something which has been made for a tribunal or for someone accused, how it could be possible to sue me 20 years after.  That's all.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Next question, please.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   While we are on the topic of Anne Frank, when you were discussing with Mr. Christie your work on Anne Frank, I didn't hear you refer to the fact that the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation published a 250-page refutation of everything that you said.

         A.   But I am totally ready to talk about that.

         Q.   That did happen, did it not?

         A.   I didn't ‑‑

         Q.   Did it happen or not?

         A.   It did not happen, but I am totally ready to do it at any time.  I would be pleased, because I know very much about that, I can tell you.

         Q.   I am sure you know an awful lot about it.  I just want the fact that the Netherlands State Institution for War Documentation ‑‑ that is a government institution.  Correct?

         A.   It's an institution for war documentation.

         Q.   It's a government institution?

         A.   Yes, it is.

         Q.   And it conducted a study.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   And its conclusions were opposite to yours.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Thank you.  Now let's get back to ‑‑

         A.   I have something to add.

         Q.   So this is not a debate about ‑‑

         A.   How is it that I cannot put any precision.  You ask me:  Do you agree with something?  I agree, but do I have the right to say back.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You agreed with the proposition that your view differed from the government's findings.  Is that correct?

         THE WITNESS:  But in this book my views were summarized in a totally stupid way.  That is what I wanted to add.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Can we now get back, then, to the decision of the Human Rights Committee?  Could we look at page 13 of 21.

         You will notice that after the opinion of the Committee, there is a number of concurring opinions.  You know what a concurring opinion is.  Before we get to the concurring opinions, there is one member of the Committee who excused himself.  Can we look at the "A" on page 13 of 21 ‑‑

         A.   I remember very well.

         Q.   You remember.  This is Mr. Thomas Buergenthal, and he says:

"As a survivor of the concentration camps of Auschwitz and Sachsenhausen whose father, maternal grandparents and many other family members were killed in the Nazi Holocaust, I have no choice but to recuse myself from ‑‑

         A.   To recuse.

         Q.   Yes, recuse.

"‑‑ myself from participating in the decision of this case."

         Is Mr. Buergenthal a liar?

         A.   I would never say that he is a liar because I do not know this man.  I do not have the list of the people that he said disappeared or were killed ‑‑ he said "killed", not "disappeared."  I have no means to go and check what he says.  I have not to believe or disbelieve what he is saying.

         My duty as a scholar in such cases would be, if I was free to do it, to go and check, and I can tell you exactly where.

         Q.   Exactly where?

         A.   Exactly.

         Q.   You could tell me.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Let's look at some of the concurring opinions now.

         A.   And I am ready to tell you where.

         Q.   That's fine.  You are not ready now to say that he is a party to a dishonest fabrication, Mr. Buergenthal.

         A.   He is a party to...?

         Q.   To a dishonest fabrication when he talks about his grandparents and many other family members being killed in the Holocaust.

         A.   I repeat that I do not know if he says something which is exact or not, so I am not going to judge the man.

         Q.   On the whole, though ‑‑

         A.   On the whole, though, I would say something.  I find all the same very surprising that an American citizen doesn't take the defence of freedom of speech in that case since in the United States it's absolutely permissible to say what I say, and this man comes and he says, "I have suffered so much that I am not going to say, as an American representative, that Faurisson should have the right to speak his mind."

         Q.   I see.  Looking at the concurring opinions which is really where I was looking before ‑‑ and I apologize for not pointing out that it is a concurring opinion.  If you look at "C" on page 13 of 21, you find that these are concurring opinions by Elizabeth Evatt, David Kretzmer,  Eckart Klein.  Then if we look farther on at page 16 of 21, we also find a Cecilia Medina Quiroga concurred with that opinion.  So we have four members of the Committee agreeing with the decision and giving their explanations.

         This is their declaration.  I would like to read with you a couple of the passages and see if they conform to your understanding of what the Committee had decided.

         At paragraph 6 they say:

"The notion that in the conditions ‑‑"

         A.   At page...?

         Q.   14 of 21.  We will get back to page 15, but I want to be fair and read the whole thing insofar as it bears on paragraph 6.

"The notion that in the conditions of present-day France, Holocaust denial may constitute a form of incitement to anti-semitism cannot be dismissed.  This is a consequence not of the mere challenge to well-documented historical facts, established both by historians of different persuasions and backgrounds as well as by international and domestic tribunals, but of the context, in which it is implied, under the guise of impartial academic research, that the victims of Nazism were guilty of dishonest fabrication, that the story of their victimization is a myth and that the gas chambers in which so many people were murdered are 'magic'."

         I understand that to mean that these members of the Committee find that Holocaust denial, such as practised by you, can constitute, may constitute, a form of incitement to antisemitism because they see that under the guise of impartial academic research the victims of Naziism are being accused of being guilty of a dishonest fabrication.

         Is that your understanding as well?

         A.   Absolutely.  This is what they say.

         Q.   And you disagree; I understand.  You disagree entirely.

         A.   I disagree especially with the beginning.  We have to begin by the beginning, which is:

"The notion that in the conditions of present-day France, Holocaust denial may constitute a form of incitement to anti-semitism cannot be dismissed."

I disagree totally, since there is, according to Pierre Vidal-Naquet, quite recently ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just a moment, Witness.

         THE WITNESS:  ‑‑ absolutely no antisemitism.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just a moment.  We are not going to debate the two sides of the issue represented in this paragraph.  We know that you disagree with the findings of this tribunal.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   I want to direct your attention to that paragraph in order to get back to paragraph 10, which I had improperly put to you before without noting that it is the decision of four members of the Committee.

         Having said that, they go on ‑‑ and let's read it again and I will ask you the question I asked before:

"the French courts examined the author's statements in great detail."

And you have talked to us about that.

"Their decisions, and the interview itself, refute the author's argument that he is only driven by his interest in historical research."

         A.   Only driven.

         Q.   "He Is only driven by his interest in historical research."

         The first conclusion they come to ‑‑ and this follows up, I put to you, from what they said in paragraph 6 ‑‑ is that the decision of the French court, as well as their reading of your work, the interview that was complained about, leads them to conclude that you are not only driven by historical research; there is something else that drives you.  Correct?

         A.   That's right.

         Q.   They go on to illustrate that:

"In the interview the author demanded that historians 'particularly Jewish historians' ('les historiens en particulier juifs') who agree that some of the findings of the Nuremburg Tribunal were mistaken be prosecuted.  The author referred to the 'magic gas chamber' ('la magique chambre à gaz) and to 'the myth of the gas chambers' ('le mythe des chambres à gaz), that was a 'dirty trick' ('une gredinerie') endorsed by the victors in Nuremburg."

         They conclude:

"The author has, in these statements, singled out Jewish historians over others, and has clearly implied that the Jews, the victims of the Nazis, concocted the story of gas chambers for their own purposes.  While there is every reason to maintain protection of bona fide historical research against restriction, even when it challenges accepted historical truths and by so doing offends people, anti-semitic allegations of the sort made by the author, which violate the rights of others in the way described, do not have the same claim to protection against restriction."

         As I understand it, their conclusion is that the antisemitism in your work surpasses or goes beyond anything that should be protected in bona fide historical research and goes on to violate the rights of others.  That is their conclusion, is it not?

         A.   That is their conclusion, yes.

         Q.   Again, I understand that you disagree with that.

         A.   Of course.

         Q.   Yesterday you objected and, in fact, gave me a very failing grade for refusing, as you said, to look at certain passages.  I thought that, in fairness, we would look at some passages, because I am going to put to you the proposition that, when we

look ‑‑

         A.   Passages of what?

         Q.   Of the decision of the 26th of April, 1983.  I am going to put to you the proposition that, when we look at those passages, the Court of Appeal comes to exactly the same conclusion as the members of the Human Rights Committee, namely, that your work goes beyond the bounds of history and into polemical antisemitism.  That is correct, is it not?

         A.   That is correct.  We don't even need to read.  I totally agree.

         Q.   I want to be fair to you; I don't want to be unfair to you.  I want you to understand that I accept your translations that you gave yesterday, that you were correct.  You are the expert in French; I am not.  "Convaincre" means to condemn or convict or to lay at the feet of, and I accept that that is correct.

         I still put to you that at the end of the day the Court did not find that you were a careful historian who was serious.  What they found was, as the Chair said, a Scotch verdict ‑‑ that is, it was not proven the opposite.  They were not able to come to a conclusion for the opposite proposition.

         A.   I do not agree, because they came to a conclusion by saying, "Therefore, it is permitted to say that the gas chambers did not exist," which is a conclusion.

         Q.   Where do they say that?

         A.   I will show you.

         Q.   Show me.

         A.   You take your French text, and I am going to read the English translation.

         Q.   Fine.  Just tell me where it is.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Do you want a copy of this?

         MR. FREIMAN:  Sure.  I would like to make this an exhibit.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  This is a translation of HR-40, is it?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  May I, for the record, identify that we are providing a translation prepared of the 26th of April, 1983 judgment of the Court of Appeal in Paris.  The translation is into the English language.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Do we know who made the translation?

         A.   Yes, I can tell you.  I remember the name.  Must I give the name or say who is the man?

         Q.   Say who is the man.

         A.   It is a German who was a translator in the American army.  His name is Hans Rudolf van der Heide.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  For what purpose was this translation made?

         THE WITNESS:  It was made, I think, for the ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  May I answer?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  This was provided to the District Court in Ontario in 1985, before His Honour Judge Locke.  I believe it was accepted as the translation at that time.

         THE WITNESS:  I have the original, if I may read the signature.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just a moment.

         MR. FREIMAN:  My position on this is that I am glad to let it in as something that the witness has prepared.  I don't accept its authenticity or its reliability as a translation.  There is no ordinary attestation; there is no jurat.  There is nothing to it.  It is simply someone's version of what this is.  If it is of assistance, that's great, but it has no special status.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Are you suggesting that we mark it for identification?

         MR. FREIMAN:  It can be marked for identification only.

         THE REGISTRAR:  This translation will be marked for identification as "C".

EXHIBIT NO. "C" (for identification:  English translation of Exhibit HR-40

         MR. FREIMAN:  I just note that one of the reasons that it is important to do that is that there is a number of notations which are properly recorded as having been inserted by Mr. Faurisson himself.  It is this witness' translation, for better or for worse.

         Q.   Tell me where it is said.

         A.   You will remember that I said that there was a "therefore" and this was a conclusion by the court.

         Q.   Yes.

         A.   I am going to it.  It is on your page 9 of the French version, paragraph 5, line 2.  You have "donc" which means "therefore."  I am going to give the translation of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  On page...?

         THE WITNESS:  In the translation it is page 8.  On the original it is page 9, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5.  In the translation it is page 8, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5.  I am going to read ‑‑ Mr. Pensa, do I have a right to read?

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   You tell me where it says that it is all right to deny the gas chambers.

         A.   It's paragraph 5.

         Q.   "Therefore, the value of the conclusions defended by Mr. Faurisson rests solely with the appraisal of experts, historians and the public."

         A.   Yes.  It must be quite clear.  It has been so unclear up to now; I wanted to be quite clear.

         Q.   Let me stop you for a moment.  This is an example again of your Ajax method, is it?  You are now going to give us an explication du texte of ‑‑

         A.   I am going to read the translation.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, don't talk while the lawyer is speaking.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Is that what you are going to do?  You are going to give us an explication du texte of this paragraph?

         A.   Not at all.  I want to read the translation of this so important part of the judgment to show that it is not a court who said, "Maybe yes, maybe no."  On the problem of the gas chambers, the court was so clear, so clear.  I want only to read the translation.

         Q.   Read the translation.

         A.   I begin at "Considérant qu'à s'en tenir provisoirement ‑‑".

         Q.   Read what you like.  I am waiting to hear the defence of denying the gas chambers.

         A."Limiting ourselves," says the court, "for the time being to the historical problem that Mr. FAURISSON wanted to raise with this precise point, it is proper to state that the accusations of frivolity made against him are lacking in pertinence and are not sufficiently proven; FAURISSON's argumentation (that he thinks is) of a scientific nature, ‑‑"

Please, a detail.  First it was typed "argumentation of a scientific nature" and then in the margin someone put in a handwritten addition "that he thinks is of scientific nature.

"‑‑ that the existence of the gas chambers such as they have usually been described since 1945 runs into an absolute impossibility, which would be sufficient by itself to invalidate all of the existing testimonies or, at least, to make them suspect;"

Next paragraph:

"It is not the job of Court to speak up on the legitimacy of such a method

or ‑‑"

         Q.   Let me just pause to note that just reading this English translations informs us of how accurate it is likely to be.  But continue.  "It is not the job of court to speak up on the legitimacy of such a method ‑‑"

         A."‑‑ or on the full significance of the arguments ‑‑"

Which means that there are arguments.

"‑‑ set forth by Mr. FAURISSON, nor is it any more permissible for Court, considering the research to which he has devoted himself, to state that Mr. FAURISSON has frivolously or negligently set the testimonies aside or that he has deliberately chosen to ignore them."

Next paragraph:

"Furthermore, this being the case, nobody can convict him of lying when he enumerates the many documents that he claims to have studied and the organisations at which he supposedly did research for more than fourteen years."

This was in 1983.

         Q.   May I stop you there for a moment, sir?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   The way that I read that is that the court comes to a conclusion that you cannot be called a liar when you say that you read a number of documents and you cannot be called a liar when you say that you did research at a number of organizations for 14 years.  Is that the way you read it as well?

         A.   Yes, because the accusation was frivolousness in this, negligence in that, deliberate ignorance in that, and lying when I was enumerating, and so on.

         There we have the conclusion:

"Therefore, the value of the conclusions defended by Mr. FAURISSON rests solely with the appraisal of experts, historians and the public."

         So I was right when I said that there was "therefore", that it was a conclusion and that the conclusion was clear.

         Q.   You were right because you translated the word "Que" as "therefore."

         A.   No.  It's "donc."

         Q.   You see "donc"; I see "Que."

         A.   No.  Considérant que ‑‑

         Q.   Monsieur, would you look at page 9 in the French, the second-last paragraph.  Read the second-last paragraph, the one before the paragraph that says "Mais considérant ‑‑"

         A.   "Considérant qu'il ressort ‑‑"

         Q.   No, no, no.

         A.   Which one?  Tell me the French words.

         Q.   "Que la valeur ‑‑."

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Read it.

         A."Que la valeur des conclusions défendues par M. FAURISSON relève donc de la seule appréciation des experts, des historiens et du public."

         Q.   So you say that the "donc" ‑‑ what do you say the "donc" proves?

         A.   Excuse me...?

         Q.   What do you say the "donc" prove?

         A.   That it is a conclusion.  It is "therefore."  Therefore, from all this the court concludes by saying ‑‑ it seems extremely clear:  Considering this and this and that, the court decides that you will have the right to say that the gas chambers did not exist, or did exist, as you like it.

         Q.   That is what you read.

         A.   It is crystal clear.  I want to go back to what you said about "Que."

         Q.   Fine.

         A.   No, no.  You made one more mistake.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness ‑‑

         THE WITNESS:  One more mistake.  So many mistakes.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, stop.  When the Chair or a Panel Member asks you to stop, you stop.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  May I raise an objection?

         My learned friend has put to the witness that the word "Que" is at the beginning of the paragraph rather than the word "donc."  The word "donc" appears in the middle of the paragraph.  With Mr. Freiman's interpretation, it doesn't appear to have any significance. 

         Therefore, I wonder if it is possible to allow the witness to explain why the presence of the word "donc" in the middle of the paragraph could, in translation, move that to the beginning of the paragraph.  I don't think there is a fair opportunity ‑‑

         MR. FREIMAN:  I am willing to allow the witness the conclusion that it is a "therefore."  I withdraw my objections; it is not worth the time.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  It is worth the time.  If there is a suggestion that it is a matter of time, I think we should allow the correct answer.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I am allowing the "therefore."

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  He is conceding the witness' interpretation, as I understand it.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Thank you.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Monsieur Faurisson, can you tell me how that differs in any way from what the court began by noting at page 7, under "Cela Etant Expose . La Cour"

"Considérant que les premiers juges ont rappelé avec raison ‑‑"

         A.   Excuse me, page 7 you said?

         Q.   Page 7, at the beginning of the Reasons.

         A.   And I am going to give you the page of the translation.  Which paragraph, please?

         Q.   The very first one under "Grounds for the Court's Decision".

         A.   I am going to find the translation.

         Q.   Page 6.

         A.   It's page 6, paragraph 3:

"Grounds for the Court's Decision

The previous judges have rightfully recalled that the courts are neither competent nor qualified to give judgment on the value of the historical work submitted by the researchers to the public and to decide on the controversies or disputes which such research work seldom falls to bring about."

         Q.   Now tell me how that differs in any way from your conclusion, even with the "donc" in it.  Isn't that exactly the same thing as they said at the end?  Is anything different?  Does it say anything different ‑‑

         A.   In this place ‑‑

         Q.   In this place ‑‑

         A.   And the other one.

         Q.   ‑‑ and the other one, yes.

         A.   Let's look at it carefully.

         They say that they have no right to give judgment on the value of the historical work submitted to them, but later on they are judging my method and my arguments.  They are looking not for the value in itself of my work, but is there anything that the accusations ‑‑

         Q.   You have misunderstood my question.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  No, unfortunately, he did not misunderstand the question.  He is directing an answer to it.  My friend cuts him off because he does not like the answer, and I object to that.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   The question that I asked, sir, was:  Is there any difference between that paragraph and the paragraph which states:

"Que la valeur des conclusions défendées par M. FAURISSON relève donc de la seule appréciation des experts, des historiens et du public"? 

Is there any difference between what is being said in that paragraph and what was said in the very first paragraph of the court's Reasons?

         A.   I think that there is.  It's a complement; it's not a difference.  They begin the decision by saying, "We have no right to judge the value," and then they judge method, arguments and so on.

         Q.   That is what you say.

         A.   That is what they say, unless you find something else.  That's okay.  It's so clear.

         Q.   Let's continue, then, with what they say after what you call this ringing endorsement of your work ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  He didn't use those words, and I object to those words being put to him.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   After the important victory that you talked about yesterday ‑‑ and you did talk about an important victory ‑‑ can we look at the next paragraph?

         A.   In the French version?

         Q.   In the French version or the English version.  I prefer the French because at least we can see what the actual words were.

         A.   At page...?

         Q.   At page 9:

"Mais considérant qu'une lecture d'ensemble des écrits soumis à la COUR fait apparaître que M. FAURISSON se prévaute abusivement de son travail critique pour tanter de justifier sous son couvert, mais en dépassant largement son objet, des assertions d'ordre général qui ne présentent plus aucun caractèrs scientifique et relèvent de la pure polémique; qu'il est délibérément sorti du domaine de la récherche historique et a franchi un pas que rien, dans ses travaux antérieurs, n'autorisait, lorsque, résumant sa pensés sous forme de slogan, il a proclamé que 'les prétendus massacrés en chambres à gaz et le prétendu génocide sont un seul et même mensonge.; que par delà la négation de l'existence des chambres à gaz, il cherche en toute occasion à   attinuer la caractère criminel de la déportation, par exemple en fournissant une explication personnelle mais tout à fait gratuite des 'actions spéciales' mentionnées à quinze reprises et avec horreur dans le journal du médecin KREMER;"

         A.   May I give the translation?

         Q.   Let me give my translation, and we will see if it is at all close to what is there.

         "But, taking into account that a reading of the totality of the writings submitted to the Court makes it appear that M. Faurisson has taken advantage in an abusive manner of his critical work in order to try to justify under its cover, but going beyond its object or its goal, assertions ‑‑

         A.   Your forgot "largement". largely.

         Q.   "‑‑ assertions of a general order that don't present any scientific character ‑‑"

         A.   No, a very serious mistake.

         Q.   "‑‑ no longer present ‑‑

         A.   No longer.

         Q.   "‑‑ no longer present any scientific character: ‑‑ and what would you say for relèvent", "relèvent de la pure polémique."  How would you translate "relèvent?"

         A.   I will tell you.

         Q.   Your friend translated it as "are."  I would say "and rise to pure polemics."

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is that fair?

         THE WITNESS:  No; "are nothing but polemics."

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   You are reading the translation.

         A.   And the translation is quite correct.

         Q.   What does the word "relèvent" mean?

         A.   It is of the nature of.  The translation is quite good.

         Q.   "‑‑ and that he has deliberately left the field of historical research and taken a step which nothing in his previous work authorizes when summarizing his thought in the form of a slogan.  He has stated that the alleged massacre in gas chambers and the alleged genocide are one and the same lie. By this means, the denial of the existence of gas ‑‑

         A.   No, not "by this means", not at all.

         Q.   Then what?

         A.   I will tell you.  "In addition to".

         Q.   I am not sure that that is what "par delà" means, but if you want to say "in addition

to" ‑‑

         A.   What?

         Q.   I am not sure that is what "par delà" means.

         A.   "Par delà" means "in addition."

         Q.   All right.

         "‑‑ and in addition the denial of the existence of gas chambers"  ‑‑ it is "par delà", by means of the denial of the existence of gas chambers is what it should say ‑‑

         A.   No, no, delà.  I think it would be much better to read this translation.

         Q.   I don't trust your translation, sir.

         A.   Okay, so you could say "I do not agree."  In the same way I am saying, "I do not agree," this gentleman could say, "I do not agree."

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  He is not a witness, and you are.  Let's get on with it.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Do you wan to say "In addition to?"  All right.

         "In addition to the denial of the existence of gas chambers, he tries at every occasion to mitigate the criminal nature of the deportation, for example, by providing a personal explanation or explication" ‑‑ what would you say is "tout à fait gratuite?"

         A.   I have to go back ‑‑

         Q.   Totally gratuitous, totally unfounded.

         A.   "He avails himself of every opportunity to mitigate the criminal nature of the deportation, e.g. by furnishing a personal, but altogether unfounded explication of those 'special acts' mentioned on fifteen occasions and with horror in the diary of Dr. Kremer."

         Q.   Then he goes on:

"Que sans doute il proteste dans ses dernières conclusions contre les 'falsifications' de sa pensée qui lui prêteraient l'opinion 'qu'il n'y a pas eu de victimes juives' de l'Allemagne nazis;"

         It says:  Undoubtedly, you protest in your last submissions against what you call the falsification ‑‑

         A.   Not "last;" "recent."

         Q.   "‑‑ recent publication against what you call the falsification of your thought which attributes to you ‑‑"

         A.   There is no "you."

         Q.   It's "he".  I am saying "you"; the "he" is you.

         A.   Yes, but, if you read it, don't say "you."

         Q.   Put me down to three instead of four.

         A.   I agree.

         Q.   We will see if I can escape with one by the time we are done.

         A.   We will see.

         Q.   "He" meaning you, "protests in his recent submissions against the falsification of his thought that attributes to him the opinion that there were no Jewish victims in Nazi Germany, but nevertheless ‑‑

         A.   "Of" Nazi Germany.

         Q.   All right.  I think it probably is "in," but that's okay.

         A.   No, it's de l'Allemagne.

         Q.

                                    Toronto, Ontario

‑‑- Upon resuming on Thursday, December 17, 1998

    at 10:08 a.m.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Good morning.

RESUMED:  ROBERT FAURISSON

Cross-Examination re Qualifications, continued

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Mr. Faurisson, before we get back to the Human Rights Committee decision, I want to clarify something about your proposed method in analyzing Professor Prideaux' work.

         How long did you spend looking at Professor Prideaux' work?

         A.   It is difficult to say.  Perhaps 100 hours.

         Q.   Am I correct, sir, that you are not a linguist?

         A.   I am not a linguist.

         Q.   And you have not studied linguistic analysis?

         A.   Linguistic analysis, no, but I have learned how to read French, Latin and Greek texts.  I have been trained in grammar.

         Q.   For instance ‑‑ and the Registrar may not have this, but I am going to give it to you.  HR-3 is a copy of a document that I think you are familiar with.  It is called "The Commission's Brief of Materials for Prof. Gary Prideaux."  Have you seen this before?

         A.   This is the part, I understand ‑‑ a very long list of publications of Mr. Prideaux.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  He has just asked you a simple question.  Have you seen this document before?

         THE WITNESS:  Yes.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Could you give it back to me for one minute. 

         We are looking at HR-3.  At tab 2, page 4 ‑‑ maybe we can look at this together.

         A.   When I say that I have spent so much time, it was only because I didn't want to know who was Mr. Prideaux, what were his titles, his theories and so on.  I mean ‑‑ I am going to tell you ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, wait until you hear the question.  Don't tell us things that pop into your mind.  You are here to answer questions.  If there are other areas that need to be brought out, counsel for the Respondent will do that.  Just confine your answers to the questions.

         MR. FREIMAN:  One of my colleagues has given me an extra copy of HR-3.  It might be useful for you.

         Q.   I am asking you to look at page 4 of tab 2.  Do you have the list of references?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Which of those have you read?

         A.   I have not even read this page 4.  My‑‑

         Q.   Let me ask you the questions and maybe you can give me answers to them.

         I am not asking whether you read them in preparation for reviewing Professor Prideaux' work.  I want to know:  Have you read any of these books?

         A.   None of those books.

         Q.   Tell me what you have read on linguistic analysis?

         A.   Nothing in linguistic analysis.  What I have read is what you could find in a French, very thick book which is called "L'Histoire et ses méthodes" (Bibliothèque de la Pléiade), in which you have all sorts of analysis of historical matters, literary matters and so on, which is something quite different.

         I want to achieve my answer.  My work was precisely from page 5, beginning with "Discourse Analysis of Selected Passages", and I didn't want to know who was Mr. Prideaux, what kind of reading he had, what kind of publications, et cetera.  I worked only from page 5 where he begins his analysis of some Zundelsite notes.

         Q.   We have established so far that you have never studied linguistic analysis; you have not read any of the books cited by Professor Prideaux.  I take it you are not familiar with the French works on linguistic analysis either, are you?

         A.   No, we could not say that.  I am going to give you what we call the real reference book which is "Manuel de Critique Verbale" of Louis Havet, which is about especially analysis of text, the way the texts are transformed, and so on.

         Q.   You have read one book on analysis of text by M. Havet.  I take it you have studied Saussure?

         A.   Saussure, no, not even Saussure.

         Q.   Not even Saussure.  Saussure happens to be the founder of linguistic analysis who wrote in French, but you have not studied him.

         A.   I have not studied this because it is not my method.  It is not my way of doing.  I have been reading many other things ‑‑ practically, not theoretically.

         Q.   So your knowledge of linguistic analysis is practical, not theoretical.  You are not capable of commenting on the well-foundedness or not well-foundedness of any theories that we might find underlying Professor Prideaux' work.

         A.   Really, in history, in life, in anything, I am very suspicious about theories.  I need to see, for example, text of anything.  I want to see someone who is supposed to have read many, many books, who is supposed to be very literate, and I say, "Come.  I don't care about this.  You are going to read this.  I am going to watch you, whatever your food has been.  Perhaps your food is not mine; I do not know.  We are going to see."  No theory.

         Q.   No theory at all.

         A.   No.

         Q.   You also, I take it, did not consider it useful to read the passage on "Discourse Analysis."

         A.   No.  I began, I told you, on page 5.

         Q.   So you know nothing at all about the theory that Professor Prideaux takes toward linguistic analysis.

         A.   No, not at all.

         Q.   Not a word.

         A.   Not a word.

         Q.   How many hours did you spend analyzing the Zundelsite texts?

         A.   I took only the parts, as I said repeatedly, only the parts quoted by Mr. Prideaux.

         Q.   Did you analyze those separately from what Professor Prideaux says?  Did you apply the Ajax method to the Zundelsite excerpts?

         A.   Commented by him, yes.

         Q.   I am not asking on his comments.  Did you independently ‑‑

         A.   No, commented by him.

         Q.   Fine, the ones that are commented on by him.  You applied the Ajax method as well, did you, or not, on those passages?

         A.   Yes, of course.

         Q.   You did that separately from your analysis of Professor Prideaux?

         A.   No.  I took, for example, on page 5:

"More recently, Jewish historian Walter Laqueur 'denied established history' by acknowledging in his 1980 book, The Terrible Secret, that the human soap story has no basis in reality.'"

Which is a little more than two lines.

         Q.   You analyzed that?

         A.   I analyzed that.

         Q.   How?

         A.   You will see.

         Q.   How?  How did you do it?

         A.   By reading carefully.  I didn't even want to state that I know very well the book of Walter Laqueur, "The Terrible Secret."

         Q.   So you pretended that you didn't know the book, "The Terrible Secret."  That is the first thing you did.

         A.   No, I don't pretend.  I am fighting against this as I am fighting against prejudice, which is difficult.  I say, "I am not going to state in my analysis of this ‑‑ I am not going to say, 'Oh, I know how and when Mr. Walter Laqueur in his book put those two lines.'  I am not going to say, "Oh, but the context is different."  No, I am not going to do it.  I am going to take it at face value.

         This is what Mr. Prideaux brings.  Mr. Prideaux is extremely brilliant, perhaps; I don't know.  He says, "I am going to analyze those two lines."  Robert Faurisson comes and says, "I am going also to analyze," and I am not going to say I have done those kinds of studies, certainly not.

         This is an experience of life.  A professor might be totally stupid.  We have a saying in France which is:  There is nothing worse than a donkey with a  charge on it."  You have a simple donkey and you have a donkey who has been to university.  If they have been stupid at the beginning, at the end most probably they will be as stupid.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, do you remember what the question was?

         THE WITNESS:  Yes.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  I am beginning to forget myself.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   What was the question?

         A.   I forget.

         Q.   I thought so.

         The fact is, sir, that you know you Ernst Zundel is.

         A.   I know who he is.

         Q.   You know who Walter Laqueur is.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   You know whether he is a Jewish historian.

         A.   It happens that I know, but I do not care.

         Q.   And you have no linguistic theory that you apply to these; you are just reading them in a common sense way.

         A.   I try to read it in the common sense way.  Common sense is something rare.

         Q.   The real talent you bring to the analysis is your common sense.

         A.   We will see.  Common sense is a way of saying things.  We could perhaps say it another way.

         If I am qualified, I will be judged on the way I will explain what Mr. Prideaux explained.  It will be a kind of competition; that's all.

         Q.   Would you agree with me, then, that one of the things that the Triubnal should do in deciding whether you are qualified is perhaps analyze your common sense as you manifest it?

         A.   Analyze my common sense if you want.

         Q.   Let's get back to what we were doing yesterday.  By the way, did you bring the English translation with you today?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   We will look at that in a minute.  I would like to finish with this text, and then we will go back and look at the previous text as well.

         You will recall we were looking, I believe, at ‑‑ let me check my notes.  I want to look at a passage with you and ask if you would agree that, from your perspective, this is the ratio decidendi.  You know what that word means.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   This is what you understood was being said about you, about your work and about why your conviction was just.  It is at page 15 of 21 ‑‑

         A.   Sorry, of which document?

         Q.   Of this document, the one we were looking at yesterday, the Human Rights Committee.

         A.   Is it the one of 8 November, 1993?

         Q.   That is the very one.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  There is HR-41(a) and HR-41(b).

         MR. FREIMAN:  It is HR-41(a), the University of Minnesota.

         THE WITNESS:  Could you give me a copy, please?  Thank you.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   At page 15 of 21, paragraph 10 at the bottom, the court says:

"the French courts examined the author's statements in great detail.  Their decisions, and the interview itself, refute the author's argument that he is only driven by his interest in historical research."

         I understand that to mean ‑‑ and tell me if I am incorrect ‑‑ that the Committee here is saying that the decision of the French courts and the Human Rights Committee's reading of the passage complained about negate your statement that you are only interested in historical research, that in fact they find that you are interested in something else and that you go beyond historical research.

         A.   That is what they say.

         Q.   That is what they say.

         A.   May I make a comment on the first sentence?  You have two sentences.  The French courts examined the author's statements in great detail.

         Q.   And you disagree with that?

         A.   That is what they say.

         Q.   I am only looking at what they say.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  There is no argument at this point about that.  He is quoting to you what they say.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   I just want you to confirm that your understanding is the same as mine as to what the court found.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   I believe that in the first part what they are saying is that the French courts correctly found that your argument is not only driven by interest in historical research.

         A.   That's correct.

         Q.   Then they go on to explain that;

"In the interview the author demanded that historians 'particularly Jewish historians' ('les historiens en particulier juifs') who agree that some of the findings of the Nuremburg Tribunal were mistaken be prosecuted.  The author referred to the 'magic gas chamber' ('la magique chambre à gaz) and to 'the myth of the gas chambers' ('le mythe des chambres à gaz), that was a 'dirty trick' ('une gredinerie') endorsed by the victors in Nuremburg."

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Excuse me for interrupting, but my paragraph 10 is this, and it is obviously not the paragraph.

         MR. FREIMAN:  It is at page 15 of 21.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  There is more than one paragraph 10 then.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I am sorry.  I am very sorry.  I think Mr. Christie is correct.  I am reading from a concurring opinion.  I will get to that concurring opinion because it is very interesting, but we were, in fact, on page 12 of 21.  This is the majority decision.  I thank Mr. Christie for bringing this to my attention.

         Where we had stopped was at page 12 of 21 at paragraph 9.6.  What the majority said, the decision of the Committee itself, at 9.6 ‑‑ and I am looking at the sentence beginning "Since the statements made by the author ‑‑".  They say:

"Since the statements made by the author, read in their full context, were of a nature as to raise or strengthen anti-semitic feelings, the restriction served the respect of the Jewish community to live free from fear of an atmosphere of anti-semitism."

         Would you agree with me that on this page in this paragraph the Committee is finding that your statements, read in their full context, were of a nature to raise or strengthen antisemitic feeling?

         A.   What is the question, please?

         Q.   Do you understand, as I do, that what the Committee is saying is that your writings, read in their context, are of a nature that raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings?

         A.   That is what they say, and they say "in their full context."

         Q.   In their full context.

         A.   Of course, I wonder what is the full context.

         Q.   We don't have them here, so we can't ask them, can we?

         A.   There is a question there.

         Q.   That is the basic finding, that your works raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings and that ‑‑

         A.   No, "were of a nature as to raise", which is not the same.

         Q.   That is correct.  They have a tendency; their quality is such that they can raise antisemitic feelings or strengthen antisemitic feelings.  Is that what you understand?

         A.   They are of a nature as to raise ‑‑ exactly the words.  We have not to change those words.

         Q.   What does that mean to you?

         A.   To me, it means that those people affirm that, read in their full context, which is something that I do not understand, my statements were such that they could provoke or strengthen antisemitic feelings, which means:  You have the writings of Faurisson here, and you think that from those writings there might be a consequence in antisemitism, animosity perhaps, feelings.  We have the writings of Faurisson and we know what they are.  They have so many words.

         Then we have something which is "full context."  What is that?  Then we have "feelings".  Three things.  They put a link between those three things.

         Q.   So that is your understanding.

         A.   That is my understanding.

         Q.   Am I correct, sir, that you or your lawyer argued that this was incorrect, that your writings were not of a nature to raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings?

         A.   This is my absolute conviction, yes.

         Q.   And you argue that fully before the Human Rights Committee?  Your lawyer was able to argue whatever he wanted on that basis, was he not?

         A.   Sir, I had no lawyer.

         Q.   You argued it yourself in the terms ‑‑

         A.   I don't remember what I said in the paper I sent.  I had no lawyer.

         Q.   This is the same argument that you presented, or your lawyer presented, when you had one, to the French courts, that your works were not of a nature to raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings.

         A.   I wouldn't say that.

         Q.   You never argued that?

         A.   I think so, but we always insisted on the fact that the question is to see if what I say is exact or not.  What we have said many, many times in court is this:  I am not going to think now ‑‑ must I write down something that I think is exact.  Am I going to worry if Peter or Paul ‑‑ and this is the example that we take very often ‑‑ if Peter or Paul are pleased or displeased with what I am going to write. 

         The question is:  Is there a gas chamber in this place, in Auschwitz, in Majdanek, in Dachau, and so on?  If I conclude that there is one, I am not going to say, "Oh, this would be very bad for many people that I know" or "This will be good for some other people."

         This is what in French court my lawyer said repeatedly.  Sometimes maybe he has said, "And what about antisemitism?  Bring us the proof that the writings of Faurisson have done anything to develop antisemitism."

         Q.   I don't want your conclusions because we have not had you qualified as an expert.  If you were qualified as an expert, would you be giving an opinion about the qualities of Mr. Zundel's writing based on the same sort of theory that you enunciated here?

         A.   I would take the pieces quoted by Mr. Prideaux and, of course, I would answer the question:  Is it against the Jews?  Of course, I will answer this question, because we can say the conclusion of Mr. Prideaux is precisely that the writings of Mr. Zundel or any one of the Zundelsite ‑‑ I do not know ‑‑ are of a nature as to raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings, of course.

         Q.   What I am trying to get at is whether the argument or the way you are going to develop your ideas, if you are qualified as an expert, is different from what you just told us now, which is that your only concern is for historical truth and that consequences don't enter into your publication.

         A.   No.

         Q.   It will be totally different.

         A.   It will be different because I have been told ‑‑ is it right, is it wrong ‑‑ that truth is no defence.  If it is not a defence, I cannot use it.

         Now, be careful.  I told you that in French court I used all the same this argument, which is that it is not antisemitic.  But afterward ‑‑

         Q.   Afterward, and every time you used it it was rejected.

         A.   As long as I have been condemned ‑‑ sometimes I have not been condemned.  It happened, yes.

         Q.   And 12 times you have been convicted, or is it 13 now?

         A.   More than that probably.  Quite recently I have been once more condemned on Friday. 

         Q.   On November 13, was it?

         A.   No, no, in December in Amsterdam.  You should go and try to get the judgment.  I did get it already.  I have been condemned in Amsterdam.

         Q.   Who condemned you in Amsterdam?

         A.   A court.  I didn't send any lawyer, nothing.  A court about the Anne Frank diary.

         Q.   And they condemned you for what?  What was the charge?

         A.   I have not the judgment.

         Q.   I don't care about the judgment.  I want to know what the charge is.

         A.   I am going to tell you.  A Jewish foundation, the Anne Frank Foundation, in Amsterdam and the Anne Frank Fonds in Basle, Switzerland, were fighting each other and got united to lodge a complaint against Faurisson.  Why?  Because they say, as you have yesterday, that "Is the Anne Frank genuine?" was translated into Dutch, was distributed by a Belgian, I think, at the beginning of 1991.  This is the complaint.

         The complaint is that Mr. Faurisson is doing harm to the Anne Frank institution of Amsterdam because ‑‑ there are two reasons.  Number one, the number of visitors might decrease after reading Mr. Faurisson, and it will be what we call a reduit des financiers; it will be bad for their money.

         Number two, we are obliged to train our guys, which costs money, to answer visitors asking them questions asked by Faurisson.  This costs money also.

         Q.   That, I understand, is the nature of the damage they suffered.  What were you accused of?  What did you do wrong?  What do they say you did wrong?

         A.   I don't know.  I received by fax a copy of an article in a newspaper saying that I had been condemned.  I do not know ‑‑

         Q.   You don't know what they found ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Could you allow him to finish? 

         MR. FREIMAN:  I have allowed him to finish.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  He was speaking when you interrupted him.  Is that how you signify the next question?

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Dr. Faurisson, you received a copy of the complaint against you at some point, didn't you?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   And you read it?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   What did it say?

         A.   I told you.

         Q.   That's all it said?  It didn't say you did anything else wrong, other than you caused financial prejudice to these institutions?

         A.   Of course, they said it was antisemitic and things like that.  Of course.

         Q.   That goes without saying.

         A.   Of course.  Or perhaps they didn't say even antisemitic.  I would need the text here.  Perhaps they said that it was bad for the memory of Anne Frank, without talking about antisemitism; I am not sure.

         Q.   You take these matters so seriously that you don't pay any attention?  You don't know what it is that they ask.

         A.   I have a difficult life.  I have many, many trials.  I receive many papers, many complaints.  I received this perhaps in 1992.  I don't remember.  I would need to have those papers.

         So I brought you a piece of news.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Was this a hearing before a tribunal in Amsterdam?

         THE WITNESS:  Before a tribunal, meaning in front of a tribunal?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.

         THE WITNESS:  No.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Was it a court?

         A.   It was a court, yes.  I had the visit of the French police at home, and they served me a paper saying, "There is a complaint against you", and that's it.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  And did you appear before the tribunal or the court?

         THE WITNESS:  No.  I have no money; I have no time.  I cannot go to Amsterdam.  The next morning perhaps it will be in Lithuania ‑‑

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Or Toronto.

         A.   Or Toronto.  For my friend I am ready to do anything.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  So you did not appear.

         THE WITNESS:  No, I didn't appear.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You didn't' appear and you didn't ask anyone to appear for you.

         THE WITNESS:  No.  My publisher, to answer more completely ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You have answered it.  This is not a debate.  We are just trying to get answers.

         THE WITNESS:  My publisher, of course, when he had to defend himself ‑‑ I don't know if he went to Amsterdam.  Perhaps he said something for my defence; that is possible.  I wrote one letter, I think, to the lawyer of my publisher saying that my argument was only this one, that my work on the Anne Frank diary had been made for someone who had to appear in a tribunal in Hamburg 20 years ago. 

         I cannot understand how something which has been made for a tribunal or for someone accused, how it could be possible to sue me 20 years after.  That's all.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Next question, please.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   While we are on the topic of Anne Frank, when you were discussing with Mr. Christie your work on Anne Frank, I didn't hear you refer to the fact that the Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation published a 250-page refutation of everything that you said.

         A.   But I am totally ready to talk about that.

         Q.   That did happen, did it not?

         A.   I didn't ‑‑

         Q.   Did it happen or not?

         A.   It did not happen, but I am totally ready to do it at any time.  I would be pleased, because I know very much about that, I can tell you.

         Q.   I am sure you know an awful lot about it.  I just want the fact that the Netherlands State Institution for War Documentation ‑‑ that is a government institution.  Correct?

         A.   It's an institution for war documentation.

         Q.   It's a government institution?

         A.   Yes, it is.

         Q.   And it conducted a study.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   And its conclusions were opposite to yours.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Thank you.  Now let's get back to ‑‑

         A.   I have something to add.

         Q.   So this is not a debate about ‑‑

         A.   How is it that I cannot put any precision.  You ask me:  Do you agree with something?  I agree, but do I have the right to say back.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  You agreed with the proposition that your view differed from the government's findings.  Is that correct?

         THE WITNESS:  But in this book my views were summarized in a totally stupid way.  That is what I wanted to add.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Can we now get back, then, to the decision of the Human Rights Committee?  Could we look at page 13 of 21.

         You will notice that after the opinion of the Committee, there is a number of concurring opinions.  You know what a concurring opinion is.  Before we get to the concurring opinions, there is one member of the Committee who excused himself.  Can we look at the "A" on page 13 of 21 ‑‑

         A.   I remember very well.

         Q.   You remember.  This is Mr. Thomas Buergenthal, and he says:

"As a survivor of the concentration camps of Auschwitz and Sachsenhausen whose father, maternal grandparents and many other family members were killed in the Nazi Holocaust, I have no choice but to recuse myself from ‑‑

         A.   To recuse.

         Q.   Yes, recuse.

"‑‑ myself from participating in the decision of this case."

         Is Mr. Buergenthal a liar?

         A.   I would never say that he is a liar because I do not know this man.  I do not have the list of the people that he said disappeared or were killed ‑‑ he said "killed", not "disappeared."  I have no means to go and check what he says.  I have not to believe or disbelieve what he is saying.

         My duty as a scholar in such cases would be, if I was free to do it, to go and check, and I can tell you exactly where.

         Q.   Exactly where?

         A.   Exactly.

         Q.   You could tell me.

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Let's look at some of the concurring opinions now.

         A.   And I am ready to tell you where.

         Q.   That's fine.  You are not ready now to say that he is a party to a dishonest fabrication, Mr. Buergenthal.

         A.   He is a party to...?

         Q.   To a dishonest fabrication when he talks about his grandparents and many other family members being killed in the Holocaust.

         A.   I repeat that I do not know if he says something which is exact or not, so I am not going to judge the man.

         Q.   On the whole, though ‑‑

         A.   On the whole, though, I would say something.  I find all the same very surprising that an American citizen doesn't take the defence of freedom of speech in that case since in the United States it's absolutely permissible to say what I say, and this man comes and he says, "I have suffered so much that I am not going to say, as an American representative, that Faurisson should have the right to speak his mind."

         Q.   I see.  Looking at the concurring opinions which is really where I was looking before ‑‑ and I apologize for not pointing out that it is a concurring opinion.  If you look at "C" on page 13 of 21, you find that these are concurring opinions by Elizabeth Evatt, David Kretzmer,  Eckart Klein.  Then if we look farther on at page 16 of 21, we also find a Cecilia Medina Quiroga concurred with that opinion.  So we have four members of the Committee agreeing with the decision and giving their explanations.

         This is their declaration.  I would like to read with you a couple of the passages and see if they conform to your understanding of what the Committee had decided.

         At paragraph 6 they say:

"The notion that in the conditions ‑‑"

         A.   At page...?

         Q.   14 of 21.  We will get back to page 15, but I want to be fair and read the whole thing insofar as it bears on paragraph 6.

"The notion that in the conditions of present-day France, Holocaust denial may constitute a form of incitement to anti-semitism cannot be dismissed.  This is a consequence not of the mere challenge to well-documented historical facts, established both by historians of different persuasions and backgrounds as well as by international and domestic tribunals, but of the context, in which it is implied, under the guise of impartial academic research, that the victims of Nazism were guilty of dishonest fabrication, that the story of their victimization is a myth and that the gas chambers in which so many people were murdered are 'magic'."

         I understand that to mean that these members of the Committee find that Holocaust denial, such as practised by you, can constitute, may constitute, a form of incitement to antisemitism because they see that under the guise of impartial academic research the victims of Naziism are being accused of being guilty of a dishonest fabrication.

         Is that your understanding as well?

         A.   Absolutely.  This is what they say.

         Q.   And you disagree; I understand.  You disagree entirely.

         A.   I disagree especially with the beginning.  We have to begin by the beginning, which is:

"The notion that in the conditions of present-day France, Holocaust denial may constitute a form of incitement to anti-semitism cannot be dismissed."

I disagree totally, since there is, according to Pierre Vidal-Naquet, quite recently ‑‑

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just a moment, Witness.

         THE WITNESS:  ‑‑ absolutely no antisemitism.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just a moment.  We are not going to debate the two sides of the issue represented in this paragraph.  We know that you disagree with the findings of this tribunal.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   I want to direct your attention to that paragraph in order to get back to paragraph 10, which I had improperly put to you before without noting that it is the decision of four members of the Committee.

         Having said that, they go on ‑‑ and let's read it again and I will ask you the question I asked before:

"the French courts examined the author's statements in great detail."

And you have talked to us about that.

"Their decisions, and the interview itself, refute the author's argument that he is only driven by his interest in historical research."

         A.   Only driven.

         Q.   "He Is only driven by his interest in historical research."

         The first conclusion they come to ‑‑ and this follows up, I put to you, from what they said in paragraph 6 ‑‑ is that the decision of the French court, as well as their reading of your work, the interview that was complained about, leads them to conclude that you are not only driven by historical research; there is something else that drives you.  Correct?

         A.   That's right.

         Q.   They go on to illustrate that:

"In the interview the author demanded that historians 'particularly Jewish historians' ('les historiens en particulier juifs') who agree that some of the findings of the Nuremburg Tribunal were mistaken be prosecuted.  The author referred to the 'magic gas chamber' ('la magique chambre à gaz) and to 'the myth of the gas chambers' ('le mythe des chambres à gaz), that was a 'dirty trick' ('une gredinerie') endorsed by the victors in Nuremburg."

         They conclude:

"The author has, in these statements, singled out Jewish historians over others, and has clearly implied that the Jews, the victims of the Nazis, concocted the story of gas chambers for their own purposes.  While there is every reason to maintain protection of bona fide historical research against restriction, even when it challenges accepted historical truths and by so doing offends people, anti-semitic allegations of the sort made by the author, which violate the rights of others in the way described, do not have the same claim to protection against restriction."

         As I understand it, their conclusion is that the antisemitism in your work surpasses or goes beyond anything that should be protected in bona fide historical research and goes on to violate the rights of others.  That is their conclusion, is it not?

         A.   That is their conclusion, yes.

         Q.   Again, I understand that you disagree with that.

         A.   Of course.

         Q.   Yesterday you objected and, in fact, gave me a very failing grade for refusing, as you said, to look at certain passages.  I thought that, in fairness, we would look at some passages, because I am going to put to you the proposition that, when we

look ‑‑

         A.   Passages of what?

         Q.   Of the decision of the 26th of April, 1983.  I am going to put to you the proposition that, when we look at those passages, the Court of Appeal comes to exactly the same conclusion as the members of the Human Rights Committee, namely, that your work goes beyond the bounds of history and into polemical antisemitism.  That is correct, is it not?

         A.   That is correct.  We don't even need to read.  I totally agree.

         Q.   I want to be fair to you; I don't want to be unfair to you.  I want you to understand that I accept your translations that you gave yesterday, that you were correct.  You are the expert in French; I am not.  "Convaincre" means to condemn or convict or to lay at the feet of, and I accept that that is correct.

         I still put to you that at the end of the day the Court did not find that you were a careful historian who was serious.  What they found was, as the Chair said, a Scotch verdict ‑‑ that is, it was not proven the opposite.  They were not able to come to a conclusion for the opposite proposition.

         A.   I do not agree, because they came to a conclusion by saying, "Therefore, it is permitted to say that the gas chambers did not exist," which is a conclusion.

         Q.   Where do they say that?

         A.   I will show you.

         Q.   Show me.

         A.   You take your French text, and I am going to read the English translation.

         Q.   Fine.  Just tell me where it is.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Do you want a copy of this?

         MR. FREIMAN:  Sure.  I would like to make this an exhibit.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  This is a translation of HR-40, is it?

         MR. CHRISTIE:  May I, for the record, identify that we are providing a translation prepared of the 26th of April, 1983 judgment of the Court of Appeal in Paris.  The translation is into the English language.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Do we know who made the translation?

         A.   Yes, I can tell you.  I remember the name.  Must I give the name or say who is the man?

         Q.   Say who is the man.

         A.   It is a German who was a translator in the American army.  His name is Hans Rudolf van der Heide.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  For what purpose was this translation made?

         THE WITNESS:  It was made, I think, for the ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  May I answer?

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Yes.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  This was provided to the District Court in Ontario in 1985, before His Honour Judge Locke.  I believe it was accepted as the translation at that time.

         THE WITNESS:  I have the original, if I may read the signature.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Just a moment.

         MR. FREIMAN:  My position on this is that I am glad to let it in as something that the witness has prepared.  I don't accept its authenticity or its reliability as a translation.  There is no ordinary attestation; there is no jurat.  There is nothing to it.  It is simply someone's version of what this is.  If it is of assistance, that's great, but it has no special status.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Are you suggesting that we mark it for identification?

         MR. FREIMAN:  It can be marked for identification only.

         THE REGISTRAR:  This translation will be marked for identification as "C".

EXHIBIT NO. "C" (for identification:  English translation of Exhibit HR-40

         MR. FREIMAN:  I just note that one of the reasons that it is important to do that is that there is a number of notations which are properly recorded as having been inserted by Mr. Faurisson himself.  It is this witness' translation, for better or for worse.

         Q.   Tell me where it is said.

         A.   You will remember that I said that there was a "therefore" and this was a conclusion by the court.

         Q.   Yes.

         A.   I am going to it.  It is on your page 9 of the French version, paragraph 5, line 2.  You have "donc" which means "therefore."  I am going to give the translation of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  On page...?

         THE WITNESS:  In the translation it is page 8.  On the original it is page 9, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5.  In the translation it is page 8, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5.  I am going to read ‑‑ Mr. Pensa, do I have a right to read?

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   You tell me where it says that it is all right to deny the gas chambers.

         A.   It's paragraph 5.

         Q.   "Therefore, the value of the conclusions defended by Mr. Faurisson rests solely with the appraisal of experts, historians and the public."

         A.   Yes.  It must be quite clear.  It has been so unclear up to now; I wanted to be quite clear.

         Q.   Let me stop you for a moment.  This is an example again of your Ajax method, is it?  You are now going to give us an explication du texte of ‑‑

         A.   I am going to read the translation.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, don't talk while the lawyer is speaking.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Is that what you are going to do?  You are going to give us an explication du texte of this paragraph?

         A.   Not at all.  I want to read the translation of this so important part of the judgment to show that it is not a court who said, "Maybe yes, maybe no."  On the problem of the gas chambers, the court was so clear, so clear.  I want only to read the translation.

         Q.   Read the translation.

         A.   I begin at "Considérant qu'à s'en tenir provisoirement ‑‑".

         Q.   Read what you like.  I am waiting to hear the defence of denying the gas chambers.

         A."Limiting ourselves," says the court, "for the time being to the historical problem that Mr. FAURISSON wanted to raise with this precise point, it is proper to state that the accusations of frivolity made against him are lacking in pertinence and are not sufficiently proven; FAURISSON's argumentation (that he thinks is) of a scientific nature, ‑‑"

Please, a detail.  First it was typed "argumentation of a scientific nature" and then in the margin someone put in a handwritten addition "that he thinks is of scientific nature.

"‑‑ that the existence of the gas chambers such as they have usually been described since 1945 runs into an absolute impossibility, which would be sufficient by itself to invalidate all of the existing testimonies or, at least, to make them suspect;"

Next paragraph:

"It is not the job of Court to speak up on the legitimacy of such a method

or ‑‑"

         Q.   Let me just pause to note that just reading this English translations informs us of how accurate it is likely to be.  But continue.  "It is not the job of court to speak up on the legitimacy of such a method ‑‑"

         A."‑‑ or on the full significance of the arguments ‑‑"

Which means that there are arguments.

"‑‑ set forth by Mr. FAURISSON, nor is it any more permissible for Court, considering the research to which he has devoted himself, to state that Mr. FAURISSON has frivolously or negligently set the testimonies aside or that he has deliberately chosen to ignore them."

Next paragraph:

"Furthermore, this being the case, nobody can convict him of lying when he enumerates the many documents that he claims to have studied and the organisations at which he supposedly did research for more than fourteen years."

This was in 1983.

         Q.   May I stop you there for a moment, sir?

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   The way that I read that is that the court comes to a conclusion that you cannot be called a liar when you say that you read a number of documents and you cannot be called a liar when you say that you did research at a number of organizations for 14 years.  Is that the way you read it as well?

         A.   Yes, because the accusation was frivolousness in this, negligence in that, deliberate ignorance in that, and lying when I was enumerating, and so on.

         There we have the conclusion:

"Therefore, the value of the conclusions defended by Mr. FAURISSON rests solely with the appraisal of experts, historians and the public."

         So I was right when I said that there was "therefore", that it was a conclusion and that the conclusion was clear.

         Q.   You were right because you translated the word "Que" as "therefore."

         A.   No.  It's "donc."

         Q.   You see "donc"; I see "Que."

         A.   No.  Considérant que ‑‑

         Q.   Monsieur, would you look at page 9 in the French, the second-last paragraph.  Read the second-last paragraph, the one before the paragraph that says "Mais considérant ‑‑"

         A.   "Considérant qu'il ressort ‑‑"

         Q.   No, no, no.

         A.   Which one?  Tell me the French words.

         Q.   "Que la valeur ‑‑."

         A.   Yes.

         Q.   Read it.

         A."Que la valeur des conclusions défendues par M. FAURISSON relève donc de la seule appréciation des experts, des historiens et du public."

         Q.   So you say that the "donc" ‑‑ what do you say the "donc" proves?

         A.   Excuse me...?

         Q.   What do you say the "donc" prove?

         A.   That it is a conclusion.  It is "therefore."  Therefore, from all this the court concludes by saying ‑‑ it seems extremely clear:  Considering this and this and that, the court decides that you will have the right to say that the gas chambers did not exist, or did exist, as you like it.

         Q.   That is what you read.

         A.   It is crystal clear.  I want to go back to what you said about "Que."

         Q.   Fine.

         A.   No, no.  You made one more mistake.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness ‑‑

         THE WITNESS:  One more mistake.  So many mistakes.

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Witness, stop.  When the Chair or a Panel Member asks you to stop, you stop.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  May I raise an objection?

         My learned friend has put to the witness that the word "Que" is at the beginning of the paragraph rather than the word "donc."  The word "donc" appears in the middle of the paragraph.  With Mr. Freiman's interpretation, it doesn't appear to have any significance. 

         Therefore, I wonder if it is possible to allow the witness to explain why the presence of the word "donc" in the middle of the paragraph could, in translation, move that to the beginning of the paragraph.  I don't think there is a fair opportunity ‑‑

         MR. FREIMAN:  I am willing to allow the witness the conclusion that it is a "therefore."  I withdraw my objections; it is not worth the time.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  It is worth the time.  If there is a suggestion that it is a matter of time, I think we should allow the correct answer.

         MR. FREIMAN:  I am allowing the "therefore."

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  He is conceding the witness' interpretation, as I understand it.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  Thank you.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Monsieur Faurisson, can you tell me how that differs in any way from what the court began by noting at page 7, under "Cela Etant Expose . La Cour"

"Considérant que les premiers juges ont rappelé avec raison ‑‑"

         A.   Excuse me, page 7 you said?

         Q.   Page 7, at the beginning of the Reasons.

         A.   And I am going to give you the page of the translation.  Which paragraph, please?

         Q.   The very first one under "Grounds for the Court's Decision".

         A.   I am going to find the translation.

         Q.   Page 6.

         A.   It's page 6, paragraph 3:

"Grounds for the Court's Decision

The previous judges have rightfully recalled that the courts are neither competent nor qualified to give judgment on the value of the historical work submitted by the researchers to the public and to decide on the controversies or disputes which such research work seldom falls to bring about."

         Q.   Now tell me how that differs in any way from your conclusion, even with the "donc" in it.  Isn't that exactly the same thing as they said at the end?  Is anything different?  Does it say anything different ‑‑

         A.   In this place ‑‑

         Q.   In this place ‑‑

         A.   And the other one.

         Q.   ‑‑ and the other one, yes.

         A.   Let's look at it carefully.

         They say that they have no right to give judgment on the value of the historical work submitted to them, but later on they are judging my method and my arguments.  They are looking not for the value in itself of my work, but is there anything that the accusations ‑‑

         Q.   You have misunderstood my question.

         MR. CHRISTIE:  No, unfortunately, he did not misunderstand the question.  He is directing an answer to it.  My friend cuts him off because he does not like the answer, and I object to that.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   The question that I asked, sir, was:  Is there any difference between that paragraph and the paragraph which states:

"Que la valeur des conclusions défendées par M. FAURISSON relève donc de la seule appréciation des experts, des historiens et du public"? 

Is there any difference between what is being said in that paragraph and what was said in the very first paragraph of the court's Reasons?

         A.   I think that there is.  It's a complement; it's not a difference.  They begin the decision by saying, "We have no right to judge the value," and then they judge method, arguments and so on.

         Q.   That is what you say.

         A.   That is what they say, unless you find something else.  That's okay.  It's so clear.

         Q.   Let's continue, then, with what they say after what you call this ringing endorsement of your work ‑‑

         MR. CHRISTIE:  He didn't use those words, and I object to those words being put to him.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   After the important victory that you talked about yesterday ‑‑ and you did talk about an important victory ‑‑ can we look at the next paragraph?

         A.   In the French version?

         Q.   In the French version or the English version.  I prefer the French because at least we can see what the actual words were.

         A.   At page...?

         Q.   At page 9:

"Mais considérant qu'une lecture d'ensemble des écrits soumis à la COUR fait apparaître que M. FAURISSON se prévaute abusivement de son travail critique pour tanter de justifier sous son couvert, mais en dépassant largement son objet, des assertions d'ordre général qui ne présentent plus aucun caractèrs scientifique et relèvent de la pure polémique; qu'il est délibérément sorti du domaine de la récherche historique et a franchi un pas que rien, dans ses travaux antérieurs, n'autorisait, lorsque, résumant sa pensés sous forme de slogan, il a proclamé que 'les prétendus massacrés en chambres à gaz et le prétendu génocide sont un seul et même mensonge.; que par delà la négation de l'existence des chambres à gaz, il cherche en toute occasion à   attinuer la caractère criminel de la déportation, par exemple en fournissant une explication personnelle mais tout à fait gratuite des 'actions spéciales' mentionnées à quinze reprises et avec horreur dans le journal du médecin KREMER;"

         A.   May I give the translation?

         Q.   Let me give my translation, and we will see if it is at all close to what is there.

         "But, taking into account that a reading of the totality of the writings submitted to the Court makes it appear that M. Faurisson has taken advantage in an abusive manner of his critical work in order to try to justify under its cover, but going beyond its object or its goal, assertions ‑‑

         A.   Your forgot "largement". largely.

         Q.   "‑‑ assertions of a general order that don't present any scientific character ‑‑"

         A.   No, a very serious mistake.

         Q.   "‑‑ no longer present ‑‑

         A.   No longer.

         Q.   "‑‑ no longer present any scientific character: ‑‑ and what would you say for relèvent", "relèvent de la pure polémique."  How would you translate "relèvent?"

         A.   I will tell you.

         Q.   Your friend translated it as "are."  I would say "and rise to pure polemics."

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  Is that fair?

         THE WITNESS:  No; "are nothing but polemics."

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   You are reading the translation.

         A.   And the translation is quite correct.

         Q.   What does the word "relèvent" mean?

         A.   It is of the nature of.  The translation is quite good.

         Q.   "‑‑ and that he has deliberately left the field of historical research and taken a step which nothing in his previous work authorizes when summarizing his thought in the form of a slogan.  He has stated that the alleged massacre in gas chambers and the alleged genocide are one and the same lie. By this means, the denial of the existence of gas ‑‑

         A.   No, not "by this means", not at all.

         Q.   Then what?

         A.   I will tell you.  "In addition to".

         Q.   I am not sure that that is what "par delà" means, but if you want to say "in addition

to" ‑‑

         A.   What?

         Q.   I am not sure that is what "par delà" means.

         A.   "Par delà" means "in addition."

         Q.   All right.

         "‑‑ and in addition the denial of the existence of gas chambers"  ‑‑ it is "par delà", by means of the denial of the existence of gas chambers is what it should say ‑‑

         A.   No, no, delà.  I think it would be much better to read this translation.

         Q.   I don't trust your translation, sir.

         A.   Okay, so you could say "I do not agree."  In the same way I am saying, "I do not agree," this gentleman could say, "I do not agree."

         THE CHAIRPERSON:  He is not a witness, and you are.  Let's get on with it.

         MR. FREIMAN:

         Q.   Do you wan to say "In addition to?"  All right.

         "In addition to the denial of the existence of gas chambers, he tries at every occasion to mitigate the criminal nature of the deportation, for example, by providing a personal explanation or explication" ‑‑ what would you say is "tout à fait gratuite?"

         A.   I have to go back ‑‑

         Q.   Totally gratuitous, totally unfounded.

         A.   "He avails himself of every opportunity to mitigate the criminal nature of the deportation, e.g. by furnishing a personal, but altogether unfounded explication of those 'special acts' mentioned on fifteen occasions and with horror in the diary of Dr. Kremer."

         Q.   Then he goes on:

"Que sans doute il proteste dans ses dernières conclusions contre les 'falsifications' de sa pensée qui lui prêteraient l'opinion 'qu'il n'y a pas eu de victimes juives' de l'Allemagne nazis;"

         It says:  Undoubtedly, you protest in your last submissions against what you call the falsification ‑‑

         A.   Not "last;" "recent."

         Q.   "‑‑ recent publication against what you call the falsification of your thought which attributes to you ‑‑"

         A.   There is no "you."

         Q.   It's "he".  I am saying "you"; the "he" is you.

         A.   Yes, but, if you read it, don't say "you."

         Q.   Put me down to three instead of four.

         A.   I agree.

         Q.   We will see if I can escape with one by the time we are done.

         A.   We will see.

         Q.   "He" meaning you, "protests in his recent submissions against the falsification of his thought that attributes to him the opinion that there were no Jewish victims in Nazi Germany, but nevertheless ‑‑

         A.   "Of" Nazi Germany.

         Q.   All right.  I think it probably is "in," but that's okay.

         A.   No, it's de l'Allemagne.

         Q.