⏳ Reading time:  9  minutes On October 12, a judge at the Edinburgh, Scotland court ordered the extradition back to France of French intellectual Vincent Reynouard, whose “crime” is to have published videos and written books that question certain aspects of the History of the Second World War.

A step has therefore been taken on the path to the criminalization of historical revisionism in the United Kingdom.

The judgment of Judge Christopher Dickson (against whom an appeal will be lodged) amounts to a scandalous attack on the freedom of research.

*** The judge (“Sheriff” in Scotland) Christopher Dickson, a white man with blue eyes, a former cop, then a lawyer, and since 2015 a  judge.

Is Dickson (bearing a classic Scottish name) a Freemason, a quarter-or a half-Jew?

Is he a leftist? Or a crypto-pedophile like so many upper-class Brits?

Or is he simply a careerist who wants to climb the professional ladder by pleasing Jewry in order to become a judge one of these happy days at the British Supreme Court? I do not know.

I would hope they keep this Star of David up long after the Hamas attack is forgotten so that every British libtard understands who really rules their country — and has done so since 1694, when the Bank of England was set up.

In any case, knowing Vincent Reynouard as a person and his videos, articles and books since 2005, this corrupt Dickson’s claim that his message is “grossly offensive” is extremely ridiculous.

There is no one in revisionism on National Socialism and the DGM (and I knew them all in the decade 1980-90 — Robert Faurisson, Thies Christophersen, Germar Rudolf, Mark Weber, Fritz Berg, Fred Leuchter, Ernst Zündel, Hans Schmidt, etc.) more graceful, kind and NON-“offensive” than Vincent Reynouard.

Having strong Christian reflexes, Vincent is more like a saint in his personality and all his words.

Margi and I (this photo was from 2007, when we met him), had the great pleasure of meeting VR in 2007 for three days in Brussels, the capital of Belgium. He offered us a room next door to his own large, yet very humble (actually ramshackle) apartment where he lived with his then wife (who left him later, tired of his persecutions and prosecutions) and with his numerous children, all of whom he adored, being an admirable father.

There is no one in the world more sympathetic, more “Christian” (patient, forgiving, prayerful, and without hatred), more kind, more giving of oneself than our Vincent Reynouard.

His jail, Saughton Prison, in Edinburgh, which he shares with rapists, murderers, drug traffickers and swindlers. 

The interior — this has been his world for a year now.

A hero, a saint, a gentleman, a noble man!

Having been for many years a fervent and practicing Catholic — of course he was a traditional Catholic with the Latin Mass and the total rejection of the Second Vatican Council, which was one big bootlicking of the Jews — he left the Catholic Church completely with great courage once he recognized the serious errors in its doctrines (which lend themselves to a disastrous and suicidal Judeophilia — all thanks to “Saint” Paul).

“The Profound Reasons for the Decline of Catholicism”

---

Case Summary

As our readers know, Vincent Reynouard had been incarcerated in Edinburgh for over eleven months, although there is no law against historical revisionism in the United Kingdom. On several occasions, he was dragged into court for discussions on his potential extradition, in a courtroom where assassins, terrorists and gangsters usually appear.

The repression of revisionism in the United Kingdom

Most European countries have laws that sentence intellectuals who question the existence of so-called “homicidal gas chambers” and other aspects of Holocaust history to prison. In some countries, such as France, it is also forbidden to investigate “Nazi crimes” unrelated to the Holocaust.

However, in the United Kingdom, Parliament has decided not to pass such laws.

Since then, Zionist pressure groups have used other means to criminalize historical revisionism (including the incitement to racial hatred provisions of the Public Order Act), as well as a section of the Communications Act which was originally written to deal with people who use telephones for the purposes of harassment and indecent assault).

Vincent’s arrest for a first warrant

In the present case, the French public prosecutor first obtained the arrest of Vincent, so that he could be extradited and serve the 12-month prison sentence to which he had been sentenced in 2015. This conviction had been pronounced under the “Gayssot law”, originally passed to criminalize the revisionist Robert Faurisson. Communist deputy Jean-Claude Gayssot and millionaire Laurent Fabius joined forces to pass a law that would make any questioning of the decisions of the Nuremberg trial illegal.

No other era in history is protected in this way by French law.

In 2015, Vincent was convicted for publishing two videos that questioned the so-called homicidal “gas chambers” of Auschwitz-Birkenau and described the “Holocaust” as a myth.

Vincent having spent more than nine months in Scottish jails awaiting his extradition, he has de facto served his sentence, as we explained last month. Therefore, the first arrest warrant was dropped.

Vincent’s extradition request for a second term

The judgment of October 12 therefore concerned a second arrest warrant, issued by the French public prosecutor’s office in December 2022 and validated in March 2023 by the very conciliatory British authorities (the National Crime Agency, to be exact). Here again, each of the offenses described in this warrant is punishable by a prison sentence of up to 12 months, and although in theory Vincent should be tried in France (and not serve a sentence already pronounced there), few observers are convinced that French justice will be truly just.

This second warrant concerned seven videos published on the Internet. Some of these videos called into question, once again, the feasibility and historical veracity of the so-called homicidal “gas chambers”. Others concern the alleged “massacre” of the French village of Oradour, on June 10, 1944. Vincent Reynouard has carried out an in-depth study of the drama of Oradour, and the new edition of  his book devoted to the question was recently published .

The judgment of October 12

In his judgment delivered on October 12, Judge Chris Dickson found that the potential offenses committed by Vincent in these videos would also constitute offenses in Scotland under the Communications Act, due to their “gross offensive” nature. In this sense, he accepted the prosecutor’s argument (see  Peter Rushton’s previous report from the September 21 hearing ). On the other hand, the judge sided with Vincent’s lawyer, Fred Mackintosh CR, rejecting the idea that these videos could constitute a “breach of the peace”, capable of “seriously disrupting the community” and “alarming ordinary people”.

Contradition and breach

Mr Justice Dickson’s ruling that Vincent’s videos are “grossly offensive” and therefore illegal in Scotland (which would constitute grounds for extradition) represents the most serious attack on freedom of research that a British court has never worn to date. This is a truly shameful judgment: it is a day of mourning in the legal history of the United Kingdom.

In paragraph 38 of his judgment,  Mr Justice Dickson acknowledged that “there is no offense of Holocaust denial in Scotland and that a ‘message or means of communication’ which constitutes Holocaust denial or which contains such a negation can only contravene section 127(1)(a) if it is grossly offensive [sic].”

In the following paragraph, very curiously, Judge Dickson seems to concede that he did not study the entire content of each video, which constitutes a flagrant dereliction of his duty. He does not claim to have expertise on the historical subjects concerned, nor indeed on historical method in general.

Yet Dickson J. considered himself competent to decide, apparently on the basis of reading certain excerpts from the transcripts rather than considering their full context, that the videos were “(i)beyond that which is tolerable in our society; and (ii) grossly offensive to any reasonable person in an open and just multiracial society.”

Compare the incomparable

The judge justified his decision (in part) by the fact that the videos were “derogatory towards Jews”, while recognizing that Vincent had at no time called for violence against Jews, much less their extermination.

In fact, Justice Dickson found that “all of the offenses set out in the extradition warrant” constituted serious offenses within the meaning of the Communications Act.

It is important to examine the precedents upon which the interpretation of this law is based. The classic precedent, known as the Collins affair, involves repeated telephone calls to the office of a Member of Parliament, during which Collins “ranted, screamed and talked about ‘wogs’, ‘Pakis’, ‘black bastards’ and ‘niggers’.

Comments that would justify extradition

It was on the basis of this Collins case that Judge Dickson assessed Vincent Reynouard’s videos, the content and style of which are diametrically opposed. Instead of vituperating in a vulgar and thoughtless manner, Vincent drew up calm and rational analyses. However, Judge Dickson found the following comments to be “grossly offensive” in the same way as Collins’ phone calls.

Video 1: Suggest that the Oradour deaths were the result of an explosion rather than a “massacre” by the SS.

• Video 1 (second offense): Explain in a reasoned manner why the so-called “homicidal gas chambers” of Auschwitz-Birkenau did not exist, and describe orthodox historical accounts on this subject as “the official thesis”.

• Video 2: argue that a particular room in an Auschwitz crematorium was not in fact a homicidal gas chamber, as it has been described by other historians; use of an on-screen symbol indicating “false”; summarizing part of his argument about the roof of this structure with the words “no holes, no Holocaust”.

• Video 3: analyze the Orthodox “Holocaust story” as being, in the terms of the mandate, “a belief made up of multiple lies, errors or half-truths that build on each other”; deny that the detainees were massacred and maintain that the deaths at the camp “attest in part to the deaths of hundreds of cripples who were unable to withstand transport”; calling the display of hair as “evidence of massacres” a “blatant deception”; assert that two buildings referred to by other historians as homicidal gas chambers were in fact intended for hygienic purposes; use the words “no holes, no Holocaust” again.

• Video 4: in response to a correspondent’s questions, assert that “there is a Jewish problem. A problem Hitler saw clearly”; assert that the Jews have exploited the flaws in society and that “it is true that the Jews are exploiting the situation to dominate us, even to enslave us”, but that “eliminating them [the Jews] would serve no purpose”.

• Video 5: stating that “revisionism exposes the big lie from which [Jews] profit”; maintain that the myth of the Holocaust “imposes a deadly anti-racism on white Europe” and that “it is for this reason that Hitler is the most slandered man”.

• Video 6: describing accounts of Nazi atrocities as “gross slander”; suggests that the Allied victors of World War II did not themselves believe accounts of homicidal German gas chambers.

• Video 7: Reaffirming that the Allied victors themselves knew that the accounts of mass homicidal gassing were lies spread as propaganda; suggests that the confession of Auschwitz-Birkenau commander Rudolf Höss, used at the Nuremberg trial, was forced on him; “in short, poor Rudolf Höss was treated in such a way that he said what the victors expected of him.”

I quoted at length these extracts from the judgment to show that they were similar to the  worst  words that the prosecutor could have cited about Vincent. Readers may find it hard to believe, but it was on the basis of these excerpts that Judge Dickson found that Vincent’s videos were “grossly offensive” communications just as reprehensible as the rants condemned in the Collins case (a case which constitutes the standard test for an offense under Section 127(1)(a) of the Communications Act). The judge therefore considers that Vincent’s reasoned historical arguments are comparable to those of a man phoning his MP and uttering insults about “wogs”, “Pakis”, “black bastards”. and ‘niggers’.

The judge goes beyond the law

In addition to this improbable judgment, Judge Dickson even went so far as to declare that “it would be in the public interest, given the nature of the remarks set out in the arrest warrant, to prosecute the accused [Vincent Reynouard ] for these comments.

Let’s focus for a moment on what the judge said. He acknowledges that Parliament chose not to provide the United Kingdom with a law even vaguely comparable to the French Gayssot law or the many other European laws criminalizing “Holocaust denial”; and yet he chose to broaden the scope of what constitutes “grossly offensive” remarks under the Communications Act, so that a serious historical debate (whether or not one agrees with the historical arguments advanced) may be considered “grossly offensive”.

Indeed, Mr Justice Dickson ruled that if Jews (or rather the majority faction among Jews) are offended by a historical or scientific argument, Scots law is obliged to treat the expression of that argument as grossly offensive and therefore justifying a prison sentence.

It is difficult to imagine a more scandalous abuse of judicial power, an abuse that touches on an academic subject well outside the jurisdiction of the judge concerned.

How Victor Cavendish-Bentinck would have been treated…

From the start of this case, the Edinburgh court recognized that it was not up to it to debate the reality of the “Holocaust”. Yet Mr Justice Dickson has just stated that it is for the court to impose a historical orthodoxy to which all Scottish citizens (and, by extension, all British citizens) must conform under penalty of imprisonment.

One wonders how Justice Dickson would treat (for example) the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee in London, Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, who in 1943 dismissed early holocaust accounts of mass gassings as propaganda. Cavendish-Bentinck then criticized Allied propagandists for “publicly giving credence to stories of atrocities for which we have no proof. I am certain that we are making a mistake by publicly giving credence to this story of gas chambers.”

https://en-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Victor_Cavendish-Bentinck,_9th_Duke_of_Portland?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=fr&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

***

Today’s case concerns a Frenchman, Vincent Reynouard. Yet its ramifications are terrifying for all Britons, indeed all Europeans, who value traditional norms of academic inquiry.

It is almost certain that Vincent Reynouard will appeal this judgment, and we will report on the development of the case soon. Vincent is on the front line of the fight to defend the values ​​of European civilization against the tyranny of a privileged lobby. Real Europeans hope he will win in the end.