Enclosed below is the latest newsletter of the BUND GEGEN ANPASSUNG (Alliance against Con

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Enclosed below is the latest newsletter of the BUND GEGEN ANPASSUNG (Alliance against Conformism), an atheist group in Germany. If you thought that the German government has learned anything from previous decades, read this and think again: -----------------------------cut here------------------------------------- BUND GEGEN ANPASSUNG NEWSLETTER January, 1993 Dear Sir, dear Madam, dear friends, Many of you have been knowing us for years now - mostly by circular letters in which we asked you to protest against the increasing neglect of basic democratic rights in Germany. This correspondence in irregular intervals, always resulting from an emergency, which was of vital importance in any single case and still is- today again we have to ask you most urgently for your solidarity, see below - we would like to put on a regular basis. This informational bulletin shall not only inform you about current political proceedings periodically, but also give you an idea of our aims and contents and our various activities. The-priest-with-god-puppet-caricature - meanwhile a kind of trade mark of our organization - we have put into the head of these letters, as it has become a symbol for three things: firstly for a still central part of our enlightening work, because, as Marx said, the criticism of religion is the beginning of all criticism (which is not only true historically but also logically); secondly for the massive prosecution of atheists in the eighties on the basis of "blasphemy section" 166 of the Criminal Code and their determined resistance against it; and thirdly - and this we would like the addressees of these letters to always bear in mind - it has become a symbol for the success of international solidarity, which has forced the not quite so independent German judicial authorities and those giving them the orders during the recent years to more or less observe the laws, and without the backing of which we would not have succeeded, not with all determination, to put small and not so small spokes in the wheel of this state on its way to a state without the rule of law more and more resembling its predecessor. Our priest-with-god-puppet-caricature has been known worldwide for years. Shown on a pink poster announcing the first Anti-clerical Week in the FRG which we - at that time under our old name BUNTE LISTE - organized in 1984, it was used by the German judicial authorities to institute a series of "blasphemy proceedings" against us for three and a half years - under the protection of an almost total press ban. At that time, we for the first time turned to the international public on a large scale and drew the attention to these unlawful proceedings unworthy of a democracy. We were successful: In all West European countries, in India, the USA and the USSR the press reported, organizations and individuals, among them many prominent persons, protested against our prosecution at the courts in charge - by and by thousands of letters of protest accumulated in thc court files. Attorney Gottfried Niemietz was invited as our representative to the World Congress of Atheists in Vijayawada (India), which passed a resolution of protest to Federal President von Weizsacker. At the same time with the beginning of the hearing of the Freiburg poster trial protest demonstrations with banners saying "Don't copy Hitler'' took place at the German embassies in London and Los Angeles. A member of the European Parliament came to Freiburg as an observer of the trial. - In the light of this unexpected international attention the judicial authorities did not dare to convict us; eventually (after in spite of all their manoeuvres of delaying and diverting we had shown more staying power) we could enforce an acquittal. In 1986, we initiated together with the President of the international Russell Tribunal, Professor Valdimir Dedijer, an appeal for the abrogation of the medieval "blasphemy section" and for the dismissal of all proceedings instituted on its basis, which was signed by notables such as Noam Chomsky, Erich Fried, Hans Wollschlager, Bernt Engelmann, Ernst Mandel, Friedrich Karl Waechter and Karlheinz Deschner. (The German media ignored this appeal; the Suddeutsche Zeitung even refused to publish it as a paid for advertisement!) People abroad took more and more notice of the modern inquisition in the FRG. Attorney Gottfried Niemietz, Freiburg City Councellor of BUNTE LISTE for one legislative period and the most distinguished and successful defence attorney in "blasphemy proceedings", has been defence counsel, as reported by the magazine STERN in its article "The Advocate of the Heretics", of more than 40 victims of clerical persecution. Among them was the Gottingen atheist Birgit Rornermann, who had been accused for the first time for calling the Catholic Church "the biggest criminal organization in world history", and then a second time for her defence speech in court. Among them were also the students in Bochum and Aachen, who had done nothing else than reporting about the "Romermann case". In the Bochum proceedings, the well known church historian Karlheinz Deschner substantiated by a historical expertise the truth of the statement on the Church's criminal history which had once more been incriminated. At the climax of atheist prosecution in the FRG, the judicial authorities in 1988 opened heretics' proceedings at Wurzburg: On the occasion of his scientific lecture on the history of the persecution of church opponents it accused Attorney Niemietz himself, who, as a symbol figure of atheist resistance, had been a thorn in its flesh for long. This accusation for "blasphemy" was based on the false testimonies of two Christian denouncers sent by the archiepiscopal authorities (who among other things claimed that he had called priests "clerical pigs" - one of 17 proven perjuries!). For one and a half year the court simply refused to admit a video recording of the entire lecture as evidence, until thanks to the not fading international protest an acquittal could be enforced against this prearranged scheme. (Only upon massive public pressure preliminary proceedings were instituted against the two witnesses of the church who both had committed perjury with the laws compel to punish by a least one year of prison. Preliminary proceedings were however, dismissed again at once - because of "minor offence"!) Since 1985 we have sent numerous circular letters to organizations and individuals all over the world and informed them about the rapid destruction of basic rights in the FRG, about the "blasphemy proceedings" and other political proceedings all aiming at eradicating the last traces of an opposition with the assistance of the media brought into line. In many cases we ourselves were and are the victims of those proceedings, for our organization is the last uncompromising opposition in (meanwhile Great-West-) Germany and the crystal nucleus of resistance against this development. This is why we cannot expect our persecution to diminish. Quite to the contrary: As you can read in this letter in more detail, we currently have to defend ourselves in proceedings at Mainz, which most threateningly prove this. Only the close attention from abroad can prevent that we will be convicted under the breach of all principles of a state under the rule of law. Yet, the German Government might have understood since December 16 that it will have to take this attention from abroad into account more thoroughly than it perhaps did before. For, on this very day the European Court of Justice Human Rights- Strasbourg has decided in the case "Gottfried Niemietz versus Federal Republic of Germany": the FRG unanimously - was convicted because of violation of the Human Rights Conventiom. Our staying power and your solidarity have paid! The Mainz Proceedings THE MAINZ PROCEEDINGS "I know quite well that the Germans do not appreciate such comparisons but these proceedings call Mr. Freisler's 'Volksgerichtshof' to my mind again. The verdict has been passed in advance." Prof. Halevi Haramgaal, Jewish religious scholar, who emigrated to the USA The next dates of the hearing: 13/1/1993 18/1/1993 27/1/1993 Since October 28th, 1992 appeal proceedings are carried through before the High Criminal Court of the Landgericht Mainz against six of our members. In 1989, the BUND GEGEN ANPASSUNG carried issues in several university cities such as, for instance, Mainz. Already in the run-up of the lecture series, the Asta (General Student Committee) had in pamphlets and articles called for fighting us "by any means" which not only resulted in the destruction or tearing off of nearly all posters announcing the lectures (destructions that besides were not confined to Mainz but were soon continued in other towns such as Darmstadt), but escalated that far that a lecture in Mainz (Title: "The latest attacks against Charles Darwin") had to be cancelled because the safety of speaker and audience could no longer be guaranteed. Called together by the Asta and whipped up after the sale of mulled claret, a mob recruiting from the circles of the autonomous punk scene and the Asta, some of them masked and armed with paving stones, enforced the cancelling of the lecture by violence. The criminal proceedings that were subsequently instituted were squashed although the Public Prosecutor's Office had acknowledged that these actions constituted breach of the public peace. Moreover, in numerous other cases of charges of damage to property or bodily injury brought in against people who had torn off posters, the justification of the charge was confirmed but tne proceedings were dismissed, one after the other- mostly on grounds of "minor offence"! Also in the case dealt with in the present appeal proceedings, our members succeeded in catching two offenders recruiting from the above- described circles in the act of tearing off posters. In order to be at least able to bring in a charge of damage to property against them, both female offenders, Borst and LiB, were asked for their names and addresses. As they refused to give this information and wanted to escape, they were detained by our members until the police came, an act that is everybody's right according to section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case an offence has been committed. The two offenders now tried to escape by vehemently biting and kicking the persons holding them, a fact they admitted even in the presence of the police. They thereby severely injured our members, so that an additional charge of bodily injury was brought in against them. The proceedings instituted on these grounds were dismissed, like all others, because of "minor offence"! The offenders themselves thereupon brought in a charge of alleged bodily injury and intimidation against us. Although already the preliminary proceedings instituted by the Public Prosecutor's Office in the first instance were characterized by unparalleled arbitrariness and partiality (the offenders' accusations, were, for instance, presented as established facts to neutral witnesses - and the same attempts were made in the second instance, too), and although innumerable contradictions broke up the web of lies and intrigues of the two "principal witnesses" in the first instance already - the verdict of guilty was passed all the same. The accusation of bodily injury and intimidation by detention could no longer be maintained by the court after the hearing of evidence because of the substantial contradictions and false statements from the side of Borst and LiB - and so the court passed the sentence on grounds of joint intimidation by alleged photographing and imposed the above mentioned fine of DM 6.000,-. For, contrary to the truth, the two 'principal witnesses' had moreover asserted to have been photographed while they had been detained. What is to be thought of justice authorities that allow the offenders to get off scot-free and have them appear instead as 'principal witnesses' against the victims in marathon proceedings meanwhile dragged over 18 days of hearing - to sum up both instances? The Presiding Judge openly demonstrates his partiality and impedes the defence. Just a few of the many examples shall be given in the following; the list is by no means complete: - The start: One of the accused who had been held up for a short time by a traffic jam on the highway was 'quickly done with'. Instead of waiting for his arrival (even since the hearing could not begin since the defense counsel was late) in his case, proceedings were separated from those of the other accused, his appeal was dismissed and thus the verdict of guilty of the first instance became valid. Only upon the intervention of the defense counsel, he was granted restitutio in integrum and therefore, had the possibility of further taking part in the appeal proceedings. - The trial was carried through by the Criminal Court of the Landgericht Mainz, consisting of 3 judges and 2 lay assessors, i.e. a jury that usually only deals with crimes. Meanwhile, 11 (!) days of hearing have been fixed. - The judges refuse to give their names in spite of the defense counsel's repeated request. Just remember: inquisition, too, kept its representatives' identity secret by having them wear hoods. - Every single motion filed by the defense counsel to have the false statements put on record word-for-word (by which other means are false statements provable?) has been dismissed by the court. There is a tape recording of the hearing in the first instance which makes it possible to prove more than 20 false statements of the witnesses Borst and LiB - a fact which up to the present day, however, did not prompt the Public Prosecutor's Office in Mainz to institute preliminary proceedings against LiB and Borst according to its duty by law. In the course of the present proceedings, the judge breaks in any time Borst and LiB could be proven guilt of making false statements - After the principal witness Borst had got caught in numerous contradictions, the examination of her friend LiB with whom she shares a flat was out of hand deferred to the next day - with the result that the latter answered more then 70 (!) questions by a stereotype "I don't remember". When the counsel of the defense reminded her of her statement in the beginning, she could easily recall the events because she had read again her record from memory written 3 years ago three days before the hearing, and requested her to place this record at the court's disposal, she spontaneously agreed. At this very moment, the judge intervened, pointing out to her that she were not obliged to hand over the record. Cautioned this way, she immediately withdrew her approval. - When LiB was asked whether she had observed her friend being photographed, the judge answered in her place: "But she definitely was not able to see it." - Just to make sure that the principal witness will not make any "mistake". - When a witness, who had been unduly influenced against the accused by friends of Borst and LiB during a conversation in the corridor, more and more entangled himself in contradictions, and his credibility obviously was rapidly declining, the judge bluntly interrupted the defense counsel's examination giving as a reason that he had "the obligation of caring" for the lay assessors, they had to have lunch now. When Attorney Gottfried Niemietz claimed to have this repeated impediment of the defense put in the record and to have a court decision passed, the judge brusquely snapped at him he should not dare to interrupt him. He abruptly closed the hearing. - The defence counsel thereupon filed a motion that the judge be challenged for bias. In order to write down the motion comprising 9 pages, he requested a break of at least 60 minutes - an adequate amount of time which the court is obliged to grant. He was, however, interrupted after only 20 minutes - with reference to the precedent lunch break which had to be used for working, too, after all. So one of the judges repeatedly looked into the room - "Well, how much longer will you take?" - after the Clerk of the Court had repeatedly asked this question by order of the court. Finally the three judges and the two lay assessors just came back again to the court room although the defence counsel was still busy writing his text, sat down ("The hearing is not yet to be continued, we have just come back to be present already, as we want to save time, don't we") and kept disturbing the defense counsel by questions ("You had your lunch break, too, didn't you?", "What about your secretary?"). The claim for challenge for bias was dismissed on the spot. It is of some interest that the Presiding Judge, who had been in such a hurry before, took more than an hour's time to formulate his official declaration of less than one page. - Depending on whether the "trial" takes the desired course, witnesses are either summoned or their summons are cancelled. - So by the examination of a police officer it had been clearly proven that Borst and LiB had given false testimony in the appeal hearing as well. They had asserted to have called on this very police officer immediately the next day in order to report the events in question to the police. The latter, however, had not taken this down as he did not know who might be held responsible, and had recommended to go to the lecture of the BUND GEGEN ANPASSUNG taking place that day, in order to identify persons. The police officer made an exactly contrary statement under oath: He had taken down the personal data of the accused in the evening already, this was the reason why he could not have given the witnesses the advice to go to the lecture in order to identify any persons. Moreover, he could not have refused to take down the report: He had been off duty the next two days!. Neither the Court nor the Public Prosecutor, both of them having witnessed the false testimonies of the 'principal witnesses', up to now did not take any measures concerning the false statements. (In any "ordinary" criminal procedure, witnesses like Borst and LiB would have been arrested right in the court room.) - The physician on duty at the university hospital on the evening of the occurrence confirmed his statement from the first instance: He had examined Borst and LiB thoroughly and X-rayed them, and carefully taken the result to the records - no findings, i.e. not a single sign of injury could be diagnosed. When in spite of all attempts of intimidation he kept to his statement, the judge changed his tactics: he tried to incite the physician in the middle of his examination by Attomey Niemietz against the latter by telling him that the defense lawyer had tape recorded his statement in the first instance. By the manner this information was delivered the impression was evoked that this recording had been taken secretly and unlawfully. The physician's distrust thus aroused, which actually didn't make his examination any easier, only disappeared when he learned from the defense counsel what the judge knew very well: that the court in the first instance had decided on the recording of the hearing by tape. - During the examination of the family doctor of LiB and Borst another unsworn false testimony of the two offenders came to the open indicentally: they had not, as claimed until then, visited the doctor on the same day, but Borst had done this not before four days later! The family doctor, though reluctantly, had to confirm the result of his colleague: "no exterior signs of injury." The dubious rubefaction, which in his certificate so belatedly and at the wrong arm (statement Borst: at the left one! - certificate: the right one!) he claims to have diagnosed remains a mystery. The two other stated symptoms turned out to be coarse fakes: while all muscles which would have shown tenseness if really, as claimed, her arm had been twisted on the back, were completely alright, solely in the trapezius a tenseness had been diagnosed - a typical complaint of desk workers, because of which she furthermore had been in treatment for years! The "vague pain" at the jaw did not match at all, as confirmed by the official medicolegal expert consulted - on request of the defence, and against the resistance of the court, under oath - the acts of violence claimed to have taken place. It could not have been proven more clearly that the allegedly suffered injuries of Borst and LiB were entirely fabricated. The court, however, ignored this fact and went on with the hearing, yet suddenly with increased speed: The Presiding Judge rejected one motion to take evidence of the defense lawyer after the other and didn't even take the time to read the reasons in a manner which would have allowed to follow them even acoustically. After the proceedings had been protracted for so long, now once at a sudden the accused should be given short shrift. Since this day of hearing at the latest, there could be no doubt that the court - truth or no truth, who cares - is determined to convict us. The openness by which here the rule of paltiality and arbitrariness are demonstrated, is a new quality in the depravity of the judiciary, which doesn't even think it necessary to keep up the appearance of a hearing based on legal principles. Yet, only as long as they do not have to fear the public. "It is a fact that already before the beginning of the hearing the BUND had put pressure on the court by protest letters from all over the world," a local radio station said. This "pressure" - if once chooses to apply this term to the worries about German democracy awakened by these proceedings, and the reprimands to observe the laws - eventually increased. Again we mailed information about the proceedings abroad, and also distributed a leaflet to all homes at Mainz, in which we reported about the course of the proceedings and several perversions of the law. The next day the auditorium was overcrowded. Also a locally high-ranking Christian-Social politician was present, which made the judge feel obliged to display a minimal correctness entirely uncommon until then. The President of the court, obviously alarmed, and the press spokesman attended the hearing on this day. Reluctantly the court had to listen to the motions to take evidence by the defense lawyer. Attorney Niemietz motioned a demand for prosecution of Borst and LiB because of their several false testimonies and, still in the court room, handed the information to the Public Prosecutor. (Yet even upon that no preliminary proceedings have been instituted until today.) After a lunch break of three hours ordered by the court - because of a previous arrangement the politician was no longer present - the public prosecutor commented on the motions to take evidence, or rather: he was expected to do so. Instead, he read a propaganda speech full of slanderous attacks and undisguised threats against the defence lawyer, whom he reproached for abuse of authority and the protraction of the proceedings, against the accused and our organization, which he threatened with criminal prosecution because of the leaflet. During another interruption for two and a half hours the court ordered the clearance of the auditorium (obviously a harassment of the audience, which had to spend this time in a cold hallway). The police, being massively present this day, anyway, felt so encouraged by the hate tune of the Public Prosecutor, that they were ready to clear the auditorium without hesitation, and didn't even shrink from threatening the defense lawyer with violence. ("If you don't go voluntarily, we will carry you out!") During the next days we distributed a second leaflet to all homes of Mainz, in which we also mentioned our documentation "The Mainz Proceedings". Meanwhile further letters of protest had reached the judicial authorities, some of them by large organizations and well-known personalities as the Swiss historian Prof. Walther Hofer, the Austrian writer Elfriede Jelinek and the famous caricaturist F.K. Waechter (who was personally present the next day of hearing). For this day the court, which couldn't go on as before, had prepared a new move. The Public Prosecutor presented our documentation, which apparently he had bought as one of the first, and announced that it constituted the offense of insult of the court. This was the beginning of a ghostly scene began. It seemed that suddenly a quite different hearing had started, with our documentation as the corpus delicti and Attorney Niemietz not as the defense lawyer but as an accused: In an inquisitorial voice the judge asked him: "Do you know this documentation? How well do you know this documentation?" Silence in the court room. Anyone knew what that was supposed to mean. If the court had banked on intimidating or provoking Attorney Niemietz by this in the least, it found itself wrong. Quietly and determinedly he insisted in the observation of the code of criminal procedure, and pointed out his motions to take evidence regarding the false testimonies of the two "principal witnesses" - and judge and Public Prosecutor visibly lost their composure. In the following, their most important aim was: protracting the proceedings. On this very day, three additional dates were fixed for January. The remaining dates in December were only misused to harass the defense lawyer and the accused by having them travel some hundred kilometers, just in order to tell them that a witness should have been summoned (to give the reason for that summons the court obstinately refused) respectively the next time as she could not yet have been contacted. The decision about the motions to take evidence was again and again postponed, and finally almost all of them were declined. The motion to admit the tape recording of the first instance as evidence for the contradictions in the statements of Borst and LiB, was refused giving the reason that this "violated the right of privacy" of the two witnesses, which in the court's eyes apparently consists in the right to tell lies free from punishment and to knowingly cause a conviction of their innocent victims by a series of false testimonies (the partial judge knew how to spare them from committing perjury). This would have been much more difficult, of course, with the admission of the tape recordings - just remember the Wurzburg proceedings against Gottfried Niemietz. In these proceedings an acquittal could be achieved by forcing the court after one and a half years to admit the videotape, which had been suppressed as evidence. In foreign legal circles as well, the Mainz proceedings have caused alarm, one fears that in regard of the meanwhile quite common violation of the code of criminal procedure too, Model Germany could gain ground in a United Europe. Professors and students of the University of Brussels are presently preparing a panel discussion about the Mainz proceedings, to which except for Attorney Niemietz they have also invited the Presiding Judge and the Public Prosecutor. One may be curious whether they will have the courage to face the discussion with their foreign colleagues. The next dates of the hearing: 13/l/1993 (9.30 am), 18/1/1993, 27/1/1993 (Court Room 201, Landgericht, Justizgebaude A, Diether-von-Isenburg-StraBe, Mainz) Addresses for protest letters: - Landgericht Mainz Diether-von-lsenburg-StraBe D-6500 Mainz Telefax: D-6131-141947 - Justizministerium Rheinland-Pfalz Postfach D-6500 Mainz Telefax: D-6131-164887 reference number: 302 Js 15664/89-2Ns- Please, send us a copy (Telefax D-761-502247). The European Court of Justice decided: The Federal Republic of Germany is found guilty of violating human rights Gottfried Niemietz wins the case in Strasbourg By the judgment of December 16th, 1992 the European Court in Strasbourg confirmed the unanimous result of the European Commission of Human Rights and found the Federal Republic of Germany guilty of (security of the inviolability of domicile and correspondence) and thus having infringed their commitments according to the Convention. On November 13th, 1986 the office of the lawyer Gottfried Niemietz in Freiburg was searched by the Department of Public Prosecution and the Police in order to identify the author of the protest letter of the Anti-clerical Working Group of the Freiburg BUNTE LISTE which we are printing in the following(1): "On 10.12.1985 the trial against Dr Joseph will take place before you We, the Anti-clerical Working Group of the Freiburg Bunte Liste, protest most strongly against these proceedings. In the FRG, the church, on the basis of the Hitler concordat and in violation of the State s duty to maintain neutrality, enjoys most extensive privileges. As a result, every non-Christian citizen of this State has to suffer disadvantages and daily annoyance. Among other things, the FRG is the only State which acts as church-tax collector. It requires employers, whether they be Christians or not, to pay over church tax for their Christian employees and thus relieve the church of financial administrative work. Dr Joseph has, for years, courageously and consistently refused to support the financing of the church in this way and has made an appropriate arrangement whereby the church tax of his Christian employees is paid without his own involvement. This attempt - in a State which counts the separation of State and church arnong its basic principles - to insist upon just such a separation has not only exposed Dr Joseph to persistent vexation and interferences on the part of State authorities, culminating in the tax office employing coercive measures, such as attachment, to collect from him church tax which his employees had already paid a long time previously. It has in addition involved him - when he called these underhand methods by their name - in the present proceedings for alleged insulting behaviour. Were it your task as the competent judge to conduct an unbiased examination of this 'case of insulting behaviour', then it must be said that you have not only failed to carry out this task, but also abused your office in order to try - by means which give a warning and a reminder of the darkest chapters of German legal history - to break the backbone of an unloved opponent of the church. It was with extreme indignation that we learned of the compulsory psychiatric examination which was conducted on your instructions, and to which Dr Joseph has had to submit in the meantime. We shall use every avenue open to us, in particular our international contacts, to bring to public notice this action of yours, which is incompatible with the principles of a democratic State subscribing to the rule of law. We shall follow the further course of the proceedings against Dr Joseph and expect you to abandon the path of terrorisation which you have embarked upon, and to reach the only decision appropriate in this case - an acquittal." (1) At time same time a searching of the flat of the archivist of the BUNTE LISTE had been carried through, which was even followed by three further searchings. Private documents, among them even her last will, and a typewriter, were confiscated. While searching the office the "investigating" officers for example examined files of clients and inspected all index cards of the clients of the office. This scandalizing infringment of the confidence of the relationship between a lawyer and his clients guaranteed by the Constitution had been unparalleled up to this date. In spite of all that and in spite of numerous protests against the proceeding of the public authorities (e.g. officially by the president of the Bar council of Freiburg) all appeals made by lawyer Gottfried Niemietz against this proceeding scorning a constitutional State had been dismissed by all national courts including the German Federal Constitutional Court which had not even taken up the complaint of unconstitutionality in order to decide about it for lack of having a chance of success! After a large-scale and wearing down lawsuit lasting for years lawyer Gottfried Niemietz now won a victory before the highest European Court against the Federal Republic of Germany the courts of which had denied him any legal protection against the obvious violation of basic and human rights. This legal succcss can hardly be rated highly enough: The extren1ely low number of successful appeals before the European Commission of Human Rights is surely not ranging higher than one per thousand . * * * * * COUNCIL * * CONSEIL OF EUROPE * * * DE L'EUROPE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS Case of Niemietz v. Germany (72/1991/324/396) Judgment Strasbourg. 16 December 1992 By allowing the appeal of lawyer Gottfried Niemietz the European Court of Human Rights gave the German State an extremely unpleasant lesson and proved that in European foreign countries actually the remains of a civil and democratic consciousness still exist and that the export hit "Modell Deutschland" has not been completely embodied throughout all Europe. Wherever members and supporters of the BUND GEGEN ANPASSUNG are victims of political trials the judgment of the European Court will prove to be a mine on the way to a State of injustice which shows more and more common traits with its precursor. - AHRIMAN Leaflet Nx 1: The Long History of a Cartoon and of the Anticlerical Weeks in the FRG (in English) - AHRIMAN Leaflet Nx 2: The Wurzburg Trial by Inquisition - The History of a Modern Persecution of a Heretic (in English) - KETZERBRIEFE - ProzeBinformationen uber die laufende Verfolgung von Atheisten in der BRD (ab Nr. 15: Flaschenpost fur unangepaBte Gedanken, ISSN 0930-0503, Einzelheft DM 6,-, im Abonnement 4 Hefte DM 20,- - Karlheinz Deschner, Die beleidigte Kirche oder: Wer stort den offentlichen Frieden. ProzeBgutachten im Bochumer 166 ProzeB, mit einem Vorwort des verteidigenden Rechtsanwaltes Gottfried Niemietz, ISBN 3-922774-05-8, DM 8,50 - Der Mainzer ProzeB. Eine Dokumentation, DM 6,- - Gottfried Niemietz: Das Mittelalter lebt - Moderne Inquisition in der BRD, Videomitschnitt des Wurzburger Vortrages, AHRIMAN- Vortragskassetten Nr.1, 15BN 3-922774-27-X, DM 40,- - New Edition in English Vladimir Dedijer: The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican, edited and with a foreword by Gottfried Niemietz, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York and Ahriman-Verlag, ISBN 0-87975-752-3, $27,95 / DM 44,- Orders can be directed to: AHRIMAN-Verlag D-7800 Freiburg, Postfach 6569, Telefax: D-0761-502247 Bund gegen Anpassung D-7800 Freiburg, Postfach 254

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank