{"id":2472,"date":"2018-08-18T03:31:41","date_gmt":"2018-08-18T07:31:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=2472"},"modified":"2018-08-18T03:31:41","modified_gmt":"2018-08-18T07:31:41","slug":"the-schaefer-siblings-trial-in-munich-a-report-by-michele-lady-renouf","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cafe.nfshost.com\/?p=2472","title":{"rendered":"The Schaefer Siblings\u2019 Trial in Munich – a report by Mich\u00e8le, Lady Renouf"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Schaefer Siblings\u2019 Trial in Munich<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

– a report by Mich\u00e8le, Lady Renouf<\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n

for The Barnes Review<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

DAY 8<\/strong>, Tuesday July 17^{th<\/sup> 2018.<\/strong><\/p>\n}

<\/p>\n

Fear to Think out Loud; Canada and Germany are contrary to international law. <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

POSTCARD: \u201cJews like treason; but hate the traitor\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

A new development:\u00a0 The \u201chate\u201d Law that actually Incites Family Treachery. \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Is that its real intention?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The trial session commenced with the judge informing the court about the continuation of the trial.\u00a0 The plan is to end the hearing of the evidence by August 16th., and on August 17th. the verdict is to be pronounced.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The application for release from detention, in the Alfred Schaefer case, was rejected by the court because two postcards Alfred Schaefer had sent to his relatives were deemed \u201cthreatening.”\u00a0 As the postcards were sent openly without an envelope, it is not clear who may have denounced them first since any post office worker could readily read them, and Alfred did not conceal his sender address.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Now it is made clear to all in the courtroom why the police arrested my host at his home on July 6th – released him \u2013 then re-arrested him and now he remains in prison for his trial\u2019s duration. Family betrayal.\u00a0 People in careers that are especially vulnerable to political-incorrectness such as schoolteachers are generally in fear and trembling of politically-incorrect \u201cassociation\u201d.\u00a0 It has been known for them to denounce a colleague in such circumstances to keep their job.\u00a0 Such is the appalling effect of these crude \u201chate\u201d laws, that colleagues will feel forced to abandon decency and honour in order to spare their careers from being axed. \u00a0Citizens dare not listen whose livelihood depends on their not listening.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As in Orwell\u2019s \u201c1984\u201d, confronted by fear of his worst nightmare, Winston, the central hero, ultimately succumbs to his contrariwise-conditioning inquisitor to denounce fiance\u00e9 Julia, screaming in tortured terror: \u201cDo it to Julia! Not to me! Do it to Julia!\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The legal team for the siblings\u2019 defence has explained to me the following.\u00a0 Today their request to have Alfred released from prison during his trial is refused by the leading judge.\u00a0 The reason Alfred is being held in prison is not only because of his so-called \u201cthreatening” tone or Roman salutes in the courtroom or that the alleged effect of Alfred\u2019s \u201caggressive tone\u201d influenced someone\u2019s behaviour in the public gallery who decried the Prosecutor as cruel after she left the courtroom.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The main reason is now made public.\u00a0 Alfred himself did not speak publicly of this denunciation by his relatives – the issue has only come out into the public domain because now it seems these relatives do not wish him released! His attorney\u2019s appeal for his release was again denied. Apparently the judges consider Alfred may try to influence these family witnesses and so he should be behind bars during his trial.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The leading judge read to the court what Alfred had written on these postcards – postcards picturing Monika with her violin in a photograph with the caption “Freiheit f\u00fcr Monika”, and addressed on the back as \u2028”Prisoner of war Post” (Kriegsgefangenenpost).\u00a0\u00a0 Alfred is alleged to have written on the postcards the leery message: “the Jews like treason, but hate the traitor”\u00a0\u2013 adding something like “we ask to remain anonymous”. \u00a0Alfred also put his own sender’s address on the postcards.\u00a0\u2028I have seen these type of postcards which are addressed to the prison: \u201cMonika Schaefer, Schwarzenbergstr. 14, 81549 M\u00fcnchen\u201d.\u00a0 If they were sent openly, and therefore addressed to the prison, I remain baffled as to how his relatives are involved at all?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The reason for his arrest was, according to the judge, because with these two postcards Alfred had been trying to influence witnesses by intimidation and threats.\u00a0\u2028Alfred said, the reason why he sent these postcards was mere frustration and to “let off steam”. He never intended to influence, threaten or intimidate anybody.\u2028 Besides, the judge argued, Alfred had shown already repeatedly his expressed threats in his speeches and videos, which would show, that making threats is part of Alfred’s personality.\u00a0\u2028Whereas Alfred stressed again, like he had done already during the trial and several times, that his statements are never threats at all, they are mere urgent warnings!\u2028 This whole trial seems to be about interpreting seemingly trivial things the way they want them to be to generate, seemingly a specious significance …<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Alfred\u2019s own school-teacher relatives, it would seem, denounced him to the police!\u00a0 It seems they are claiming they are \u201cthreatened\u201d by him and so they wish him locked away (!).\u00a0 This is in consequence of their fear from his so-called Drohen (threatening) behaviour as in these two postcards.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Our culture once taught as per Plato that: \u201cHonour not men more than truth\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Continuing from the day before, the video \u201cPavlov\u2018s Dog, Brainwashing 9\/11 Part 3\u201d is screened.<\/p>\n

Alfred explains, by these means, how we are manipulated with forbidden symbols, gestures (like his Roman salute) and words. When we see one of these symbols or hear these words we react like a Pavlovian conditioned dog, with fear, denial, or denunciations.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Alfred refers to the book \u201cHistory of Central Banking\u201c by Stephen Mitford Goodson, when illustrating what he agrees have been the ethically undesirable influences of certain Jews down the centuries.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The \u201chate law\u201d\/\u201dpopulace incitement\u201d, that is, personal opinions mis-defined in his observations as \u201csedition\u201d, is fostering such overwhelming fear and trepidation in the mindset of populations that we are witnessing an evermore sinister, new development. \u00a0The Schaefer siblings\u2019 trial itself is proving that \u201chate\u201d\/\u201dpublic incitement\u201d laws\u00a0 – in Germany, known as \u201cparagraph 130\u201d – the one that seeks to criminalise certain historical debate \u2013 actually<\/u> creates<\/u> hate among family members out of fear of relationship within ordinary families. \u00a0During this very trial, family members are readily betraying other family members to avoid \u201cassociation\u201d with their family \u201cthought criminal\u201d. The Schaefer siblings\u2019 senior attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath, says this is a new development for him, this denunciation among relatives.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A thought criminal is one who questions current affairs and historical consensus accounts of what the world syndicated monopoly media narrative asserts as the politically-correct interpretation they MUST adopt or risk ostracism, persecution, and prosecution.\u00a0 Alfred and Monika want this brought to light.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

It is common knowledge that George Orwell\u2019s book \u201c1984\u201d warns about the tyranny of politica-correctness.<\/p>\n

In Alfred\u2019s videos he deploys telling scenes from the movie of \u201c1984\u201d which demonstrates the very fear-inducing and hate-conditioning techniques which have led to the sickening mentality very prevalent within work, social, home-life, self and communal opinion censorship as is being made manifest during the very trial of the Schaefer siblings.\u00a0 In this dystopian novel – (already a reality in 1948 when he wrote it) – the 7 years\u2019 old daughter (a fanatical Party member) \u2018dobs in\u2019 her father to \u201cBig Brother\u201d for liquidation because her father, let slip in his sleep, his deeply repressed hatred of \u201cdouble-speak\u201d (the swindle-speak) of the State Party.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201c ‘What are you in for?’ said Winston.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

‘Thoughtcrime!’ said Parsons, almost blubbering. [\u2026]’You don’t think they’ll shoot me, do you, old chap? They don’t shoot you if you haven’t actually done anything — only thoughts, which you can’t help?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

What is also common knowledge \u2013 though unacknowledged by citizens for fear of severe penalties for showing their \u2018knowing\u2019 \u2013 is that there are \u201cpowers that be\u201d which must never be named.\u00a0 These \u201chate laws\u201d – effectively undermining both academic freedom and political free speech – go mostly unchallenged for the personal and professional lives they \u2018liquidate\u2019.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Further evidence comes from Canada of a global organisation\u2019s tyrannical \u2018liquidation\u2019 of an academic\u2019s his university post.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In a letter from her prison cell in Germany, Monika wrote: \u201cAlfred mentioned [in court] an\u00a0example the other day\u2026He said that more and more American universities are disallowing anti-semites entry into their programs of indoctrination I mean oops, into their programs of study<\/em>… I guess those universities\u00a0would have disallowed Jesus Christ entry into their hallowed institutions\u201d.\u00a0 <\/em>As she has no access to the internet, Monika is kept likely unaware that this applies also to Canada and specifically to her friend Professor Anthony Hall.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Deploying swindle-speak to call their admittedly bullying racist victory as \u201ca victory for human rights\u201d B\u2019nai Brith Canada mis-describes that: \u00a0\u201cThis is a monumental and precedent-setting victory for human rights in Canada,\u201d said Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B\u2019nai Brith Canada, in a release to The Herald <\/em>(August 9^{th<\/sup>). \u201cB\u2019nai Brith commends our supporters for keeping pressure on the university, the Government of Alberta, and ultimately on Hall himself.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n}

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Here again is the B\u2019nai Brith Canada onslaught action from a racist minority interest organization, boasting of their power to crush the free speech in Canada of Professor Anthony Hall.\u00a0 During the Schaefer siblings\u2019 trial session we learnt that Prof. Hall had given an interview which was used by the American based historical Revisionist forum, CODOH (Open Debate On the Holocaust) along with interviews by Monika and Alfred and made available in an online video.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Another video, not made by Alfred, entitled \u201cWhy do you support open debate on the Holocaust?\u201c was presented in court.\u00a0 Three people were asked why they supported the open debate about the \u201cHolocaust\u201d.\u00a0The court wanted to know where Alfred and Monika Schaefer knew the interviewees and if there had been a script for the video?\u00a0 Monika Schaefer explains that there was no script, because everyone tried to describe his point of view and each person had only wanted to give food for thought.\u00a0 This video, she said, was made for the English-speaking countries and was only intended for an open and honest debate to find the truth.\u00a0 Monika and Alfred Schaefer say and demonstrate that they are always ready to revise their views if they would be provided valid evidence. That, they say, is the nature and method of traditional historical source critical research and should be maintained without legalese-terror and scare-enforced exceptions.\u00a0 I am reminded by RA Nahrath that laws and sentencing for politically-incorrect opinions are far harsher in Austria for nationals and foreigners alike.\u00a0 David Irving was given a three years\u2019 sentence for ten words he uttered to an undercover journalist sixteen years after he had last visited Vienna. G\u00fcnter Deckert was prosecuted for simply translating someone\u2019s politically-incorrect article.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The CODOH-Video \u201cWhy do you support open debate on the Holocaust?\u201c, shown to the court, where Professor Anthony Hall, Monika and Alfred give their statements, was simultaneously translated into German by the court appointed professional. \u00a0Alfred did not produce this video.\u00a0 The three of them each sent their answers by email to the CODOH Forum, which then published the video.\u00a0 The Prosecutor wanted to know if Alfred and Monika got money for this. \u00a0The answer was \u201cof course, no!\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Alfred mentions the book from Michael Collins Piper about the murder of John F. Kennedy (one of many political murders by Jews quotes Alfred), where Piper also names specific Jews.\u00a0 There are a lot of non-Jews who are even worse behaved than Jews, regrets Alfred.\u00a0 He sees the danger, that all Jews will encounter a destiny they will not want, if we don\u2018t manage to solve this problem in a civilized way.\u00a0 This he says is a sensible warning, not a threat.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The Lethbridge Herald continues: \u201cHall, who was a tenured professor who taught Globalization studies, Native American studies and liberal education at the U of L since 1990, was suspended without pay in October 2016 over concerns he had contravened Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act, including providing a platform for hate speech regarding some of his online activities.\u00a0 Hall had maintained some of the issues involve academic freedom and that he should be allowed to promote his work as he sees fit. He was reinstated in 2017, but was recently dropped from class listings for the coming fall semester.\u201d\u00a0 <\/em>Hall added: \u201cSometimes the difficult times have proven to be the most significant in terms of my own experiential learning about how power is structured and exercised in the academy.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The Herald notes that: \u201cLast week, B\u2019nai Brith Canada reported that Hall was listed as teaching two courses during the fall 2018 semester. After registering a complaint, the university immediately removed Hall\u2019s name from the syllabus.\u201d <\/em>In an email statement to The Herald,<\/em> Prof. Hall gave his track-record: \u201cI have been a full-time faculty member in Canada for 36 years, the last 28 of which have been at the University of Lethbridge\u201d.\u00a0 It seems that his opinions may have been limited for publication.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Yet, as in the Brothers\u2019 Grimm cautionary tale \u201cRumpelstilskin\u201d, we used to learn that naming the \u2018powers that be\u2019 ends their magic power of usury over Kings and States thus bound in its thrall.\u00a0 Alfred and his sister Monika have decided to name whom they believe is \u201cRumpelstilskin\u201d.\u00a0 Whether they are \u201chunting the devil in the details\u201d or not, it is plain for all to see that they are being persecuted by the external \u2018powers that be\u2019, self-namely the B\u2019nai Brith Canada.\u00a0 Whose sedition is it if concerned citizens complain of external international groups interfering to have a Canadian citizen arrested in Germany? Is the international group\u2019s action rather more of the seditious variety, or the parties who are complaining of their internationally interfering activities?<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Because, since 1958, and never democratically elected by the citizenry but imposed on them by the ongoing wartime Allied-victors, the Federal Republic of Germany\u2019s Basic Law was (and remains) externally imposed.\u00a0\u00a0 German citizens have not been given a choice to have their sovereignty returned or asked whether they wish to remain under the holding laws of the Allied war victors\u2019 Basic Law\u2019s hostility to German nationalism.\u00a0 This aspect is part of the trial\u2019s underlying \u2018foundation\u2019…as is Professor Carlo Schmid\u2019s recorded on film expose\u00e9 in 1948 that the German Federal Republic\u2019s Basic Law was never democratically elected by the citizens which means the citizens have no free will to hold a dissident opinion for they accept Allied victors\u2019 rule though WW2 ended in 1945.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This state of affairs did not change with the partial reunification of West and East Germany. When Prof. Schmid made that speech, it was expected, not only by Schmid but by other constitutional experts, that the Basic Law would be superseded be a future German constitution \u2013 not imposed by military occupiers but freely adopted and voted on by the German people in a future reunited Germany.\u00a0 After the fall of the Berlin Wall, they got the partial reunification but not the new freely adopted sovereign constitution.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cPara 130\u201d, today\u2019s advance towards a Medieval blasphemy law<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The little-known, yet classic Orwellian case of Monika Schaefer may yet establish, if it were to become common knowledge, dystopian precedent\u00a0in terms of the power of a special-interest group in exerting its influence beyond jurisdiction, beyond international borders and beyond our universal principles of\u00a0human rights. It is now of public media record that B\u2019nai Brith Canada brought this hateful prison plight upon a fellow Canadian citizen.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

According to\u00a0The Star<\/em> newspaper in Toronto the Schaefer case involves: \u201cseveral videos of the siblings questioning the existence of Nazi death camps during the Second World War\u201d.<\/em>\u00a0 Rather one-sidedly, the paper neglects to assist the readership to comprehend that these videos do not deny the existence of wartime concentration camps \u2013 only that the Schaefer siblings quote serious historical revisionist scholars and Red Cross reports that these camps were labour or prison camps, not homicidal mass death camps as maintained by a literal set-in-stone consensus (like holy writ). Yet all history is constantly revised to varying degrees, except this one.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Monika says the very thing that many people suspect but dare not ask out loud, were the National Socialist era concentration camps for forced-labour, or for extermination? \u00a0If the latter, why did they have hospitals where Jews themselves say they received curative treatment? \u00a0Monika explains: \u201cJews (and others) died en masse of typhus outbreaks, not mass homicidal gas chambers\u201d<\/em>.\u00a0 If not, it does not kill or harm anyone (other than the skeptic) if discussion of these issues were permitted to be the norm as is the case for all other eras of war and wartime propaganda.\u00a0 Otherwise tyranny is the word we use to describe the undermining of both academic freedom and political speech.\u00a0 In fact, a ninety years\u2019 old woman, Ursula Haverbeck, sits behind bars simply and only because she asks these forensic questions.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As pointed out in the official judgment of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial (which took place from 1963 to 1965), the court \u201clacked the bodies of the victims, autopsy records, expert reports on the cause of death and the time of death; it lacked any trace of the murderers, murder weapons, etc. An examination of the eyewitness testimony was only possible in rare cases\u201d<\/em>. \u00a0Ursula Haverbeck continues to ask a great number of 21^{st<\/sup> century \u201cHolocaust\u201d education bodies and official authorities for clear statements as to the murder weapons, locations etc.\u00a0\u00a0 She is following up the open acknowledgment by the Frankfurt court that they did not have such evidence. One might expect that half a century later, once the Iron Curtain was opened with access to all relevant archives, it would be normal to answer such questions.\u00a0 Yet Ursula has met an implacable wall of silence, and mere assertions that the historical facts are offenkundig<\/em>, \u201cmanifestly obvious\u201d, not requiring evidence or discussion.<\/p>\n}

<\/p>\n

Jacob Mchangama, the director of Justitia, a Copenhagen-based think tank focused on human rights and rule of law, says they are\u201cbuilding their foundational discourse on the urge to avoid the misfortunes of World War II through European integration and acknowledgment of foundational atrocities\u201d. <\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cNever again\u201d<\/em> would be a fitting raison d\u2019\u00eatre for the institutions that underpin modern Europe. But it is not clear that \u201cnever again\u201d<\/em> includes \u2018Jew versus Gentile\u2019, Gentile versus Jew, and Gentile versus Gentile, and Jew versus Jew \u2013 all such manifestation have occurred – otherwise \u201cnever again\u201d<\/em> should not be accomplished through limiting freedom of enquiry and expression for the sake of victor one-sided sensitivities.\u00a0 If one says to a German in the street that Britain and France begun WW2, he\/she will insist fiercely, no! A non-fact, as Alfred says when so deeply embedded by conditioning will so affect the subject that he\/she will denounce family members for fear of \u2018association\u2019 with the heretic. \u00a0A politically correct non-fact yet, as Alfred proves, this is a deeply imbibed conditioned reflex which effectively terrorises people to close their ears, eyes, and mouth.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

An American commentator, Carolyn Yeager, reports that: \u201c<\/em>The Constitutional Court rejected Haverbeck’s appeal on the grounds that \u2018Holocaust denial is not covered under the constitutional right to free speech.\u2019\u00a0<\/em>Think about that.\u00a0<\/em>She cannot be found guilty of saying \u2018Auschwitz has not been proven to be a death camp\u2019 because that is totally true. She can only be found guilty of saying something that is not covered by the \u2018constitutional right to free speech.\u2019 In Germany, you are not free to question that Auschwitz was a ‘death camp’ because that is some kind of Holy Writ.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Alfred quotes the late Anthony Lawson from his video where he states: \u201cMany organisations have managed to persuade the governments of many otherwise civilised countries to criminalise any adverse discussions about the details of the \u2018Holocaust\u2019 on pain of imprisonment or a heavy fine.\u00a0 Merely imparting information is not incitement to commit a crime.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

In this same documentary video, Lawson quotes the eminent American judge Chief Justice Charles Wennerstrum, who served on the Iowa Supreme Court, 1941-1958, and was a judge at one of the later Nuremberg trials in 1947-8.\u00a0 Wennerstrum was highly critical of the way in which the Nuremberg trials were conducted.\u00a0 His thoughts were published in 1948 in the Chicago Daily Tribune, <\/em>yet such dissident voices like his were eventually drowned out.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Justitia informs that: \u201cFrance has had a ban on Holocaust denial in place since 1990. Austria\u2019s ban was adopted in 1992, and Belgium\u2019s is from 1995. Germany itself did not adopt an explicit ban until 1994, though it countered Holocaust denial before then through laws against defamation, incitement, and disparaging the memory of the dead. The European Union also took steps in this direction through a joint action\u00a0adopted in 1996, which obliged member states to take steps toward criminalizing the \u201cpublic denial\u201d of the crimes that formed part of the Nuremberg trials. Holocaust denial laws were also approved in the 1990s by the European Court of Human Rights (under the Council of Europe), which\u00a0<\/em>stated<\/em><\/a>\u00a0that the negation or revision of \u201cclearly established historical facts \u2014 such as the Holocaust \u2014 \u2026 would be removed from the protection\u201d of free speech under the European Convention on Human Rights. The joint action was given more bite in 2008 with the adoption of a much more detailed framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

An ever-growing number \u2013 what Alfred calls the exponential curve \u2013 of online citizens are wishing to see free academic discourse on these topics as per our democratic right, and not the opposite, the sinister acceleration jailing of unarmed dissidents for their opinions.\u00a0 These laws banning normal scientific enquiry into a unique method of mass murder, by their sinister prohibition from the forensic norm, in themselves cast doubt in minds of skeptical thinkers, finds Alfred.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

To quote just two Canadian citizens from their Letters to the Editor of the National Post, Toronto, in response to:\u00a0 Cherry picking and the Holocaust (Editorial July 24, 2014)<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

John Mortl : \u201c<\/em>Now asking questions about the holocaust will be characterized as a sly form of denial\u201d. <\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Ian V. McDonald (former diplomat): \u201cGuest Editor Shimon Koffler Fogel, who makes a career of fruitlessly cherry-picking:\u00a0 His article is riddled with convoluted sophistry suggesting that any remark that casts suspicion on Jewish righteousness is inherently criminal in nature.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Thoughts and hatred are not to be deemed criminal in our Hellenic skeptical tradition.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In Switzerland (a non-E.U. country), a popular anti-censorship organization – AZK (Anti-Censorship-Coalition) – attracts thousands of ordinary people who attend with their children (I have attended on one occasion and know this firsthand).\u00a0 At its 2012 Conference, the German former attorney Sylvia Stolz gave a talk (having spent three and a half years behind bars for the ludicrous charge of \u201cdefending her Revisionist clients too well\u201d).\u00a0\u00a0 In consequence, the German government is currently in the process of endeavouring to put her back behind bars for her presentation on free speech in Switzerland!\u00a0 This opinion tyranny has to be seen to be believed, it is so incredible.\u00a0 As noted by Alfred, Sylvia\u2019s eloquent presentation on free speech has garnered vast internet audiences and is still available on Youtube in several languages. In an interview, Alfred explains that: \u201c<\/em>Sylvia Stolz was put in prison for three and a half years for defending the late Ernst Z\u00fcndel at an inquisition in Mannheim Germany in 2005 \u2013 2006. \u00a0She was arrested after the inquisitor had demanded that she stop presenting further evidence during the trial. She was told that any evidence that contradicts the Holocaust narrative is illegal. That did not stop her and she continued presenting evidence until they dragged her into the dungeon. This is not a horror movie, this is the reality of our world today, and it will continue to get worse until we stop it\u201d.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n