A) “Does Germany claim extraterritorial jurisdiction for all acts that are illegal under German law and committed in other nations or just for issues related to the authenticity of the “Holocaust” narrative?
Monika Schaefer read out her personal statement, which according to the judge is usually not permitted. But the judge accepted that Monika dos not speak German perfectly, hence he decided to make an exception. Monika related how she became engaged politically and how she felt herself deeply drawn to Green politics. She campaigned many times for political office. That had all continued till she had learnt that Israel’s wars were being justified by false claims. There-upon she left the party. She had learnt very early to think for herself.
She had made the video herself. Once she had made the film and put it in the public domain, she then felt a feeling of relief and felt freed from a heavy burden. She had always held her parents under a general suspicion, but now she knew that there was nothing to reproach them with, because History was quite contrary to what we had been told since 1945. This was this reason why she had apologized to her mother.
As a consequence of the success of the video, she had lost many friendships; and a campaign of ritual defamation commenced against her. For example, in a small newspaper of a town with five thousand inhabitants, readers’ letters started appearing, written by readers from quite other districts, who would not normally read the news-paper. These readers’ letters served the purpose of defaming her. At the beginning, she had to force herself to go to her front-door. However when one deliberately and with conviction breaks such a taboo, because one knows that the official claims regarding the period 1933 -1945 are a shabby lie, then such ritual defamations are easier to bear. Every attempt had been made to intimidate her. For example, she always rides by bicycle, and one day at the traffic lights a car had sped away from her throwing the sand of the street against her. Also attempts had been made to ruin her financially. Not a single student from her locality came any more to take instruction on violin-playing. A regular witch-hunt was organised against her. This witch-hunt had split the community in which she lived. Whilst many had turned away from her, on the other hand, many others whom she did not know had come to her; and they could not understand what was happening. In July 2016 a new local law gave permission for music to be played in the local park close to her. A licence for this was needed, but this licence was refused to her. Finally her brother had made the offer, that it was better to come to Germany, if the situation in Canada should become too dangerous for her.
The judge asked, why she had made a video rather than chosen to write an article. Also he wanted to know why she had given advice as to where information on the subject could be found, for example referring to the video about Ernst Zundel or “Questions about the HC.” Monika replied that she herself had found the sources very helpful in order to understand everything. She wanted to invite everybody to learn more in order to understand what had really taken place in the period of 1933 to 1945. In reply to the question from the judge, why she found the lie so shabby [threadbare, seedy, mean], Monika declared because the intention was that the guilt feelings should continue for ever. The fact that she was in prison proved that. — Richard Edmonds
Report Day 4 of Political Prisoners Monika & Alfred Schaefer Trial in Munich: Spectator Jailed 4 Days For Having Told Prosecutor She Should See A Prison From The Inside & Alfred Schaefer Screens Videos Showing His Awakening
Der vierte Tag in München begann wieder sehr spektakulär.
The fourth day in Munich started again very spectacularly. But let us have a process observer report who has already gathered some information for us over the past few days:
Der heutige Tag begann recht turbulent. Nach dem Erscheinen des Inquisitionsgerichtes fragte der Vorsitzende in den Zuschauerbereich, wer ein Herr X sei. Als dieser sich meldete wurde er konfrontiert mit dem Vorwurf, daß er am Vortag im Vorraum eine Staatsanwältin beleidigt haben soll, indem er zu ihr gesagt habe, er wünsche ihr, daß sie auch mal einen Knast von innen sehen würde, was der Richter – außer sich vor Erregung – mit 4 Tagen Ordnungshaft bestrafte.
Today began quite turbulently. After the appearance of the Inquisition court, the chairman asked the audience who a Mr. X was. When he reported himself, he was confronted with the accusation that the day before he allegedly insulted a public prosecutor in the lobby by saying to her that he wished that she would also see a prison from the inside, which the judge punished – besides himself with excitement – with 4 days in custody.
Unmittelbar nach dieser Verkündigung wurde Herr X von Polizisten aus dem Raum geführt. Sein Hinweis, daß doch sein Auto noch irgendwo dort draußen stünde, wurde vom Richter wütend beantwortet mit der Aussage, das sei ihm egal. Er schrie Herrn X regelrecht an: „Gehen Sie rauß, ich will sie hier nicht mehr sehen“. Unvermittelt wendete er sich auch an Alfred Schäfer mit der Frage, was er denn davon halte. Alfred Schäfer antwortete, er wolle sich dazu nicht äußern, weil Wörter in diesem Gericht stets uminterpretiert würden und ihm ein Kommentar dazu deshalb zu gefährlich sei. Die Sitzung wurde anschließend für kurze Zeit unterbrochen, weil der Richter erklärte, er brauche jetzt erst einmal 5 Minuten, um sich zu beruhigen.
Immediately after this announcement, Mr. X was led out of the room by police officers. His statement that his car was still out there somewhere was angrily answered by the judge with the statement that he did not care. He really shouted at Mr. X: “Get out, I don’t want to see you here anymore”. Suddenly he also asked Alfred Schaefer what he thought of it. Alfred Schaefer replied that he did not want to comment, because words in this court are always reinterpreted and a comment is therefore too dangerous for him. The hearing was then suspended for a short time because the judge said he needed 5 minutes to calm down.
The fourth day, From a process reporter:
Als die Sitzung wieder eröffnet wurde, hat der Rechtsanwalt von Alfred Schäfer den Antrag gestellt, den Richter wegen Befangenheit abzulehnen. Daraufhin wurde die Sitzung für 2 Stunden unterbrochen, der Antrag jedoch mit Beginn der Verhandlungswiederaufnahme vom Staatsanwalt wegen „Aneinanderreihung von Vermutungen“ abgelehnt.
The fourth day, From a process reporter:
When the hearing was reopened, Alfred Schaefer’s lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the judge on the grounds of partiality. Thereupon, the sitting was suspended for two hours, but the motion was rejected by the public prosecutor at the beginning of the resumption of negotiations on the grounds of “juxtaposition of suspicions”.
Anschließend erfolgte die Fortsetzung der bereits am Vortag begonnen Videovorführungen. Erneut wurde auf zwei Symbole hingewiesen, die in dem Video einander gegenüber gestellt werden. Links im Bild wird ein Judenstern gezeigt und als Pendant dazu rechts im Bild ein Hakenkreuz, was in dem Video von Alfred Schäfer als Symbol des Bösen dargestellt wird, da er seinerzeit noch geglaubt habe, das Hakenkreuz stehe für das Böse. Diese Gegenüberstellung der beiden Symbole ist offenbar Gegenstand der Anklage.
Afterwards, the video presentations, which had already begun the day before, continued. Again, two icons were pointed out that are juxtaposed in the video. On the left side of the picture a Jewish star is shown and on the right side a swastika, which is shown in Alfred Schaefer’s video as a symbol of evil, because at the time he still believed that the swastika stood for evil. This juxtaposition of the two symbols is apparently the subject of the charge.
In dem Video, dessen hohe Verbreitung großes Erstaunen bei Gericht auslöste, wird Prof. Noam Chomsky von einer Universität in Amerika zu 9/11 befragt. Prof. Chomsky erklärt in dem Interview, daß keine Beweise für eine Involvierung der amerikanischen Regierung in den Terroranschlag vorlägen. Alfred Schäfer hatte Prof. Chomsky aufgrund dieses Interviews angeschrieben und verliest in dem Video seine Briefe an Prof. Chomsky sowie dessen Antwortbriefe. Prof. Chomsky hat die Briefe von Alfred Schäfer zwar beantwortet, allerdings ohne die von Alfred Schäfer gestellten Fragen konkret zu beantworten, was Alfred Schäfer dazu veranlasste, seine Briefe strenger zu formulieren.
In the video, that had a high distribution rate that caused great astonishment in court, Prof. Noam Chomsky from a university in America is questioned about 9/11. Prof. Chomsky explains in the interview that there is no evidence that the American government was involved in the terrorist attack. Alfred Schaefer had written to Prof. Chomsky based on this interview and read out his letters to Prof. Chomsky and his reply letters in the video. Prof. Chomsky answered Alfred Schaefer’s letters, but without specifically answering Alfred Schaffer’s questions, which prompted Alfred Schaefer to formulate his letters more strictly.
Als der Richter einen „aggressiven Umgangston“ bei seinem Briefwechsel mit Prof. Chomsky rügt, erklärt Alfred Schäfer, man müsse schließlich verstehen, daß Prof. Chomsky im englischsprachigen Raum „ein Guru“ sei und seine Ausführungen über 9/11 aber doch eine große Enttäuschung darstellten, weshalb er ihn als „feigen Verräter“ und „Zionistenfaschisten“ bezeichnet habe. Prof. Chomsky habe eine große Chance vertan, denn er hätte sich rehabilitieren können. Stattdessen habe er für seine „Glaubensbrüder“ seinen guten Ruf auf‘s Spiel gesetzt und sich mit dieser Einlassung selbst seine ganze Größe vernichtet, obwohl er ihm doch eine eindeutige Faktenlage präsentiert habe.
When the judge reprimands an “aggressive tone” in his correspondence with Prof. Chomsky, Alfred Schaefer explains that one must understand, after all, that Prof. Chomsky is “a guru” in the English-speaking world and that his statements on 9/11 were nevertheless a great disappointment, which is why he called him a “cowardly traitor” and “Zionist fascist”. Prof. Chomsky missed a great opportunity because he could have rehabilitated himself. Instead, he risked his good reputation for his “fellow believers” and with this statement destroyed all his greatness, even though he had presented him with a clear factual situation.
Der Richter warf Alfred Schäfer auch vor, er habe auch gegenüber allen „jüdischen Freunden“ von Prof. Chomsky eine Drohung ausgesprochen, in dem er im Video sagt, sie würden sich mitschuldig machen, wenn sie weiterhin über die Wahrheit von 9/11 schwiegen. Wie aus der Pistole geschossen erklärt Alfred Schäfer dem Richter den Unterschied zwischen einer Drohung und einer Warnung anhand eines praktischen Beispiels. Er erklärte auch, daß dieses Video sein erstes Video war und mehr oder weniger den Beginn seines Aufwachprozesses darstellt. Als er erkannte, daß sich manche Leute durch Betrug und Manipulation mehr Geld ergaunern können, als Heerscharen von Arbeitern durch ehrliche Arbeit, habe das bei ihm einen politischen Denkprozess angestoßen.
The judge also accused Alfred Schaefer of also making a threat to all of Prof. Chomsky’s “Jewish friends,” by saying in the video that they would be complicit of guilt if they continued to remain silent about the truth about 9/11. Alfred Schaefer explains the difference between a threat and a warning to the judge using a practical example. He also explained that this video was his first video and more or less represents the beginning of his awakening process. When he realized that some people can obtain more money through fraud and manipulation than armies of workers through honest work, this triggered a political thinking process in him.
Das zweite gezeigte Video ist ein Interview mit Henry Hafenmayer zum Thema „Die Drahtzieher unserer heutigen Situation“. Die Kommentierung dieses Videos wurde auf die folgende Woche vertagt.
The second video shown is an interview with Henry Hafenmayer on the topic “The masterminds of our current situation”. The commentary on this video has been postponed to the following week.
Anschließend wurde ein Zeuge vernommen, der behauptete, Alfred Schäfer habe mit seiner Rede auf der Gedenkveranstaltung in Bretzenheim am 25.7.2017 Hetze betrieben. Außerdem habe Alfred Schäfer seine Rede noch mit einem römischen Gruß für 2 oder 3 Sekunden abgeschlossen. Der Richter befragte den Zeugen noch, ob die Rede vom Publikum mit Applaus quittiert worden sei, woran sich der Zeuge jedoch nicht mehr erinnern konnte. Dem Gericht wurde ein Foto aus dem Video gezeigt.
Subsequently, a witness was called who claimed that Alfred Schaefer’s speech at the commemoration ceremony in Bretzenheim on July 25, 2017 was instigation (hate). In addition, Alfred Schaefer concluded his speech with a Roman greeting for 2 or 3 seconds. The judge asked the witness whether the speech had been acknowledged by the audience with applause, which the witness could not remember. The court was shown a photo from the video.
Alfred Schäfer erklärt anschließend dem Gericht, daß er in dieser Rede schlicht das wiedergegeben habe, was ihm sein Vater über die Rheinwiesenlager erzählt hat und, daß er sich dagegen verwahre, seinen Vater als Hetzer zu verleumden. Sein Vater habe als Kriegsgefangener in den Rheinwiesenlagern beobachtet wie Gefangene gesund hinein gebracht wurden, aufgrund der vorsätzlich herbeigeführten lebensbedrohlichen Umstände bald jedoch erkrankten und wie täglich LKWs mit den Leichen der verstorbenen Kriegsgefangenen abtransportiert wurden, ohne daß man erfuhr wohin. Sein Vater habe die Rheinwiesenlager nur durch glückliche Umstände unbeschadet überlebt.
Alfred Schaefer then explained to the court that in this speech he simply reproduced what his father had told him about the Rhine meadow camps and that he would not slander his father as an agitator. His father had observed as a prisoner of war in the Rhine meadow camps how prisoners were brought in healthy, but soon became ill due to the deliberately caused life-threatening circumstances and how daily trucks with the corpses of the deceased prisoners of war were transported away without being told where. His father survived the Rhine meadow camps undamaged only by fortunate circumstances.
Der Antrag auf Haftverschonung von Monika Schäfer wurde abgelehnt mit der Begründung, daß sich am Tatvorwurf nicht geändert habe.
Monika Schaefer’s application for exemption from detention was rejected on the grounds that the accusation had not changed.
Auch heute war die Verhandlungsführung im Zuhörerraum teilweise wieder sehr schlecht zu verstehen.
Die Termine für die weiteren Verhandlungstage sind der 12. und 13. Juli jeweils ab 9:15 Uhr. Quelle: http://die-heimkehr.info
Again today, the conduct of negotiations in the auditorium was sometimes very difficult to understand.
The dates for the further hearing days are July 12 and 13, each starting at 9:15 a.m. Source: http://die-heimkehr.info
Es wunderte uns nun nicht, daß die Tänzerin der ersten Verhandlungstage wieder zugegen war. Schließlich musste sich die – mit solch schrecklich bösen „Flüchen“ belegte – heute gleich ärztlich versorgen lassen. Während ihres Auftritts am gestrigen Tag ließ die ärmste nicht erkennen, daß sie so zart besaitet ist. Wenn wir beobachten was die Verfolgten der BRD alles über sich ergehen lassen müssen – unsere Monika wird schon seit 3. Januar gefangen gehalten – möchte man nur noch brechen. Willkommen im jüdisch-bolschewistischen Rechtsstaat.
We were not surprised that the dancer [nickname by the author for the female prosecutor] from the first days of the hearing was present again. After all, she had to get medical care today – after being covered in such terribly evil “curses” [not meant literally]. During her performance yesterday, the poor woman did not reveal that she was so delicately strung. When we observe what the persecuted in Germany have to endure – our Monika has been held captive since January 3 – one only wants to just puke. Welcome to the Jewish-Bolshevik constitutional state.
Dennoch gibt es auch immer etwas erfreuliches zu berichten. Immer wieder erscheinen zu solchen Prozessen neue Zuschauer, denen nun auch die Augen geöffnet werden. Nicht nur wegen dem Material was in der Verhandlung gezeigt und besprochen wird, sondern auch wegen den Zuständen die in einem BRD Gericht herrschen. Die Menschen sind regelrecht erschrocken darüber, daß sie so viele Jahre die Augen davor verschlossen haben, so uninteressiert waren.
Nevertheless, there is always something pleasing to report. Again and again new spectators appear for such processes and their eyes are now also opened to them. Not only because of the material that is shown and discussed in the trial, but also because of the conditions that prevail in a FRG court. People are really shocked that they have closed their eyes to it for so many years and were so uninterested.
Jetzt aber, manche nach nur einem Tag als Zuschauer, sind sie sich darüber im klaren: Wir müssen diesen Wahnsinn beenden, so lange wir noch ungestraft atmen dürfen!
But now, some, after only one day as spectators, they are aware of this: We must stop this madness while we can still breathe with impunity!
COURT DAY 2 July 3rd Tuesday: Caption: Alfred Schaefer Released After One Night in Prison!(a small victory)
Court case of today, July 2nd Monday, First Day. People clapped as Monika entered. Alfred was already seated or at least in Court and was giving a rather long address that went on quite a long time. The Press seemed to be inside the Court area and took a lot of photos of Monika and Alfred greeting each others. Then the cameras disappeared. We kept on having breaks because of Alfredʼs defiance and refused to recognize the Court as official. He refused to get up for the entrance of the Judges. He used expressions like “Muppet Show” and “Inquisition”. He also stated something to the Judge like, that we should change positions and that you(the Judge ) should be judged by the Volk.
SCHAEFER TRIAL, MUNICH, DAY #1, July 2, 2018 — Report by Lady Michele Renouf
From the Right End of the Horse
I am here in Munich on the first day of the Schaefer trial (of the Canadian-born Monika and her German-citizenbrother Alfred). Upon my arrival at the Munich courthouse this morning, my attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath ( who also acts today for Monika Schaefer) warned me not to remain in the courthouse building (much less enter the courtroom ) as likely the same trick will occur upon me as played when the German police seized Monika ( while she attended the attorney Sylvia Stolz trial on January 3, 2018). This was when the judge interrupted that hearing to have Monika dragged off from the public gallery to the cells (for these past 6 months) to the Munich Prison and likely could be repeated today once court officials spotted me, as he says they certainly would, in the public gallery. Since February this year, I have been under criminal investigation having been charged with Volksverhetzung para 130/ populace incitement which carries a five years’ custodial penalty following my ad-libbed speech at the Dresden Commemoration. Wiser our attorney says – but my call – that I leave immediately the risky vicinity to instead make reports from a nearby cafe when they provide me with a full account during the intervals of the day’s proceedings – as a more useful option especially as I not able to comprehend German language proceedings anyway if witnessing the process behind enemy lines.
I decided to take my attorney’s advice as a more effective option (than uselessly being hauled off to a prison cell ) and so am now sitting with Henry Hafenmeyer as he is not allowed inside the courtroom at this time. Henry awaits being called as a witness for the Prosecution for being considered as the video maker ( though in fact, he was not Monika’s video maker).
Though RA Sylvia Stolz warmly thanked me for coming to show “International affection for the Schaefer siblings” she agrees that my making a report to include this advice as given by my own attorney in fact serves to strengthen the drama of the situation Alfred and his sister Monika are facing in this Alice in Wonderland anti-National Socialist non-Sovereign German legal-land where – ‘first we have the verdict then maybe or maybe not we hear the defendants’ evidence’ – is the nonsensical norm for historical sceptics.
Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his awakening via the videos he has made. I am only anxious that the judge may manage to forbid this exposee by him . The great disadvantage here in Germany is that no transcripts are made of these processes. I shall do my best to give you the proceedings from the horse’s mouth.
Day one began at 09.15. The following was reported to me by Attorney Sylvia Stolz. Before the entrance of the two professional judges and the two lay judges, Alfred was able to hug his handcuffed sister while the Press photographed them and while Alfred gave the Roman salute ( a harmless gesture ludicrously outlawed in still Allied / all- lies occupied Germany. Judge Hofmann and Judge Federl entered with the two lay/Schaffe judges but Alfred refused to stand in any acknowledgment of their authority. To this, the judges declared Alfred’s disdain as an offence to the rules whilst Alfred declared them and the Federal Republic of Germany illegitimate since he adheres to the standing legitimacy of the German Reich.
In the “curiouser and curiouser” world of occupied-German law, the judge declared the defendants would not be allowed anything to drink, and if they insisted, the court proceedings would have be interrupted in recess while they drank water! Alfred instantly demanded a drink which resulted in Monika in handcuffs being temporarily removed from the courtroom. Truly a farcical act of “inquisitional” (as Alfred stated) power-playing to which fittingly Alfred added that the court was but a clownish “Muppet Show”.
Alfred was told if he offended again he would be heavily fined for complaining that the proceedings were inaudible to him and to the public gallery because Judge Hofmann had ordered that the attorneys not press the live microphone buttons. This instruction wilfully denies due public access to hear the proceedings. When Alfred commenced to read his introductory remarks, the judge demanded he give only a summary. At this, his attorney and Monika’s called for an interruption for two hours in order to draw up a rejection of the sitting judges whom they declared patently prejudicial to the defendant’s right to express his defence in full. The “Holocaust”-denial laws adhere to those of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland wherein these nonsensical trials precede via “first the verdict then the evidence”. No wonder historical Revisionists are called religious heretics since the International Guidelines for Teaching About the Holocaust on page 11 determine that: “Care must be taken not to disprove the deniers’ position with normal debate and rational argument”!
Even in the Allied occupier’s land of Britain, not since 2008 has the BBC permitted another World Service broadcast under the title” Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” In this unique broadcast, when I and Jewish Prof Deborah Lipstadt were invited as the main guests on this hour-long worldwide phone-in radio show, has the public had the normal opportunity to hear some of the Revisionist victories presented instead of the standard Hollywood version of WW2 history.
Ever since the German ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassimer and Hoffman-Reim called for the repeal of the “Holocaust”-denial laws there have been numerous valiant attempts to enlighten and embolden the law-makers and law-proponents in today’s Germany. Notably these valiant attempts in Germany and Austria were made by the late greats Ernst Zuendel, Dr Herbert Schaller, RA Rieger, Gerd Honsik, – and Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Henry Hafenmeyer, Dr Rigolf Hennig, Werner Keweloh, Dr Hans Berger, Gunter Deckert, Herr Froerlich, Ursula Haverbeck, Sven L and Christian H to name but a few. Today’s opportunity by Alfred and Monika Schaefer may justly capture the tide to call for this anti-debate law to be called into question and repealed.
Alfred Schaefer in person confirmed the report above given to me by Sylvia Stolz. At 12.30 they returned to the court which has since resumed and I await further news from the right end of the horse…
Meanwhile, persons in the public gallery (only about 6-8 which included two supporters from Japan) have recognised some of the Press as Antifa they recall from Pegida demos. There are about 6 in the Press benches, and one from Bild the popular scandal sheet.
The Schaefer trial in Munich, afternoon session, Day one, Monday July 2nd, 2018.
The trial resumed at 12.30 following the two hours’ interruption while the attorneys for Monika and Alfred Schaefer filed a demand that the Chairmen of the four judges, Judge Hofmann, be removed from the Process because of his evident bias towards the Defendant Alfred Schaefer. The Chairmen ruled that the trial would continue under his authority until Wednesday July 4th when the matter would be weighed.
The afternoon’s session commenced with the assistant of the State Prosecutor (who was not named) handed Alfred an arrest warrant that he must spend an open ended period in police custody (not jailed as such) until the Judge decides on the case.
Monika Schaefer achieved her commonsense input when, after she persisted that she and the public gallery could not hear the proceedings, Judge Hofmann finally permitted microphones to operate. By now the day’s session was already half over! Alfred gave a four hour well-documented presentation of why the Federal Republic was illegitimate. The Judge complained at the “broader horizon” of the matters Alfred included. His 77 page statement was shortened to 65, yet even so, observers said Alfred pulled no punches with his historical and current accusations in support of his appeal for the dismissal of the case brought against him and his sister. At the end of this, after which the Judge had declared that Alfred must be detained for two days in police custody (as opposed to jail) because of his disdain for the authority of the Court, Sylvia Stolz exclaimed the Process was unbelievable: “This is terror”. After all, Alfred’s disdain of the court authority was of the essence to his own defence!
When Sylvia then declined to explain to the Judge what she meant by accusing the court rulings as terror, she simply said “I am lost for words”, as were the stunned public gallery who had never before witnessed such surreal events. By now Attorney Wolfram Nahrath had removed his robe since the Judge had ended the day’s session. Yet the Judge insisted that Sylvia Stolz had interrupted the proceedings rather than made her outcry allowable after the afternoon session’s end. Sylvia was then given two days in the cells for contempt of court. Oddly, the Judge failed to offer her the usual option of a fine. Some in the public gallery wondered that perhaps no such option was given in order to preclude Sylvia’s percipacious presence during the coming days.
The State Prosecutor refused the request from Attorney Nahrath for the Schaufer siblings to have a few moments to say goodbye. But the Judge decided by himself to give Monika Schaefer permission to have five minutes with her brother. He instructed the court clerk to note the Protocol that first the public gallery must leave the courtroom, presumably to avoid experiencing empathetically the moving pathos they would witness that may pass between the siblings.
|Birobidjan – capital of the first Jewish homeland option
Sorry, you don”t appear to have frame support. Go here instead – Birobidjan – capital of the first Jewish homeland option
Lawyer/advisor Sylvia Stolz, Wolfram Nahrath, Mr. Miksch (lawyer for Monika Schaefer), lawyer for Alfred Schaefer, Alfred Schaefer, Lady Michele Renouf
*Updates on the Alison Chabloz, & Monika & Alfred Schaefer
* Updates on Canadian cases — YOUR WARD NEWS, Bill Whatcott, now charged by the outgoing Pakistani, Moslem AG for “hate” & other
LETTER TO FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER CHRYSTIA FREELAND CALLING FOR CONSULAR MONITORING OF MONIKA SCHAEFER’S FREE SPEECH TRIAL IN MUNICH
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
June 21, 2018
Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
House of Commons
Re: MONIKA SCHAEFER, JAILED IN MUNICH
Dear Minister Freeland:
I am writing out of deep concern about a Canadian now languishing in a German prison and now about to face trial under a law, Sec. 130 of the German Criminal Code having to do with racial incitement.
The woman, Monika Schaefer was born in Canada and is a Canadian citizen. On January 3, while visiting her brother and attending a trial in Munich, she was seized and arrested and sent to Stadelheim, a maximum security prison in Munich. She was visited by an official from the Canadian Consulate who offered her some help with matters in Canada but informed her they were only allowed to visit every six months. She remained imprisoned WITHOUT being charged until mid-May. Her trial begins July 3.
Several weeks ago her brother Alfred was advised by the Canadian Consul in Munich that, on Ottawa’s orders, there would be no consular observer at her two week trial. This is a matter of free speech and protection of Canadians travelling abroad. Let’s be clear: Ms Schaefer could face five years in prison. The issue before the court is a video she recorded in June, 2016 in which she apologizes to her late mother for haranguing her as a teenager for not having “done something” to stop the killings of Jews in WWII.
Actually, if we believe in freedom of speech, her views, like them of not as expressed in her six minute video “Sorry, Mom, I Was Wrong About the Holocaust,” should not matter.
The absence an observer from the Consulate sends a distinct message to the German authorities: We are not interested in this woman; do as you please. That is appalling.
When I and others have sought to inquire from various government officials about what is being done for Monika Schaefer, we are shuffled aside by the invocation of the Right to Privacy Act. This is the typical response: “Please know that consular officials are bound by the Privacy Act and cannot release details about consular cases. This also applies to the case of Ms. Schaefer. I can, however, confirm that Canadian officials in Germany are providing consular assistance to her.”
This is one of the most misused bureaucratic excuses for keeping matters secret. We are not inquiring about Ms Schaefer’s sex life (or lack of it) in prison or about any allergies she might have but about what is being done to assist her.
We urge you to reconsider the decision and send an observer to Ms Schaefer’s trial. She is a violinist and has long taken a passionate interest in her community, having four times run in elections for the Green Party, which, I trust will not be held against her. An observer lets the German authorities know that Canada’s government cares and is concerned about freedom of speech. We had hoped that more active interest on the part of the Canadian Government might have convinced the German authorities to avoid a trial and simplydeport her and send her home to Canada.