12 septembre 2000

Diary of Anne Frank

Siegfried Verbeke

Judgment of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (27 April 2000) : the authenticity of the DIARY OF ANNE FRANK, as presented for publication by the girl’s father, may be queried, provided this is done with due respect.

In 1991, in a brochure analysing the said diary, SIEGFRIED VERBEKE had published in Dutch translation an expeert opinion written in 1978 by ROBERT FAURISSON.

After two organisations had lodged complaints, the Amsterdam Court found that the Diary was in fact genuine and that, consequently, the brochure should be banned.

S. Verbeke challenged this finding but the Amsterdam Court of Appeal has just upheld it, altough the reasons for so doing were altered. The Court now states that it is NOT within the competence of judges to offer an opinion on the authenticity of the Diary and that, in principle, S. Verbeke and R. Faurisson are acting within their rigths to query its authenticity. However, the two authors have done so in a manner offensive to the memory of the girl’s father and/or to those who cherish the memory of Anne Frank : furthermore, and more IMPORTANTLY, they have placed their critical analysis within the framework of an INADMISSIBLE challenge, namely, a REVISIONIST challenge of the holocaust.

This judgment, therefore, permits ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS a re-examina tion (previously forbidden in the Netherlands) of the authenticity of the Anne Frank Diary in the version produced after 1947 by the girl’s father, Otto Heinrich Frank.

S. Verbeke and R. Faurisson have therefore had judgment delivered against them because of the FORM taken by their critical analysis, and NOT (as requested and initially obtained by the plaintiffs) because of the CONTENT.

AMSTERDAM COURT OF JUSTICE DISMISSES CLAIMS OF ANNE FRANK FOUNDATIONS AGAINST FLEMISH-BELGIAN REVISIONIST

OTTO FRANK DID NOT PUBLISH ANNE’S AUTHENTIC DIARY

HALF OF HER AUTHENTIC DIARY DOESN’T EXIST ANYMORE

After Professor em. Robert FAURISSON had queried the authenticity of the ANNE FRANK DIARY in the book « Vérité Historique ou Vérité politique ? » (« Historical or political Truth ? »), published in 1980 by « La Vieille Taupe » in Paris, the Flemish-Belgian revisionist « Foundation for Free Historical Research » (« Vrij Historisch Onderzoek » - V.H.O.) published a translation.

After the death of Otto Frank in 1980, the manuscript came into the possession of « RIOD » in the Netherlands (« Rijks Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie » - « National Institute for War Documentation). In 1986 « RIOD » published « The Diaries of Anne Frank » (alternative title : the critical edition), in which an attempt was made to refute Robert Faurisson"s arguments.

In 1991 the Foundation for Free Historical Research published a second edition of Faurisson’s essay in which Siegfried VERBEKE commented on the RIOD conclusions. These comments, entitlled « Het Dagboek van Anne Frank : een kritische benadering » (« Anne Frank"s Diary : a critical approach ») were circulated in Dutch libraries and schools.

On 9 December 1998, seven years later, the Anne Frank Foundation in Amsterdam and The Anne Frank Foundation in Basel lodged complaint with the Amsterdam Court of Justice under two headings. The said foundations requested :

- That the Court should, in an affidavit, declare the Anne Frank Diary to be authentic (or to be almost certainly authentic), and the defendants (...) to be acting unlawfully by casting doubt on its authenticity in the (insufficiently substantiated) manner, demonstrated in their pamphlet. (...)

In this matter, the two Anne Frank Foundations relied entirely on the RIOD findings.

The judge in the first instance also relied on the said excellent work and found in both points in favour of the plaintiffs, passing sentence on 9.12.1998 on all the defendants, namely Siegfried VERBEKE, Robert FAURISSON and the FOUNDATION FOR FREE HISTORICAL RESEARCH, as requested by the plaintiffs.

Nota bene :

The writte defence provided by Siegfried VERBEKE was declared to be not valid because in Dutch law a suspect party may not act in his/her defence but has to employ a lawyer.

Siegfried VERBEKE appealed against this decision, pleading inter alia that, according to Art. 6.3 of the European Declaration of Human Rigths, any suspect party is entitled to act in his/her own defence without legal assistance. On the occasion of appeal his plea was incorporated into that of a lawyer and accepted as valid counsel.

The Belgian-Flemish revisionist was able to demonstrate from the text of the RIOD edition that more than half of the authentic diary of Anne Frank had been lost (or destroyed by Anne herself), and, consequently, that Otto Frank could NOT have published, or have been ABLE to publish an « authentic diary ». What he in fact had published was Anne Frank’s novel « Het Achterhuis » (« The Annexe »), which he (Otto) subtitled as « Notes of a Diary ».

The defendant requested the Court to reverse the first verdict.

On 27 april 2000 THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN FIRST INSTANCE WAS REVERSED, AND THE COURT OF HIGHER APPEAL REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE PLAINTIFFS THAT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DIARY SHOULD BE CONFIRMED IN AN AFFIDAVIT.

The grounds for reversal were as follows :

(SV comments : this argument does not go to the heart of the matter, indeed, SV agreed as much in his defence statement. Otto Frank may well have COPIED the loose sheets faithfully, but it was the novel « Het Achterhuis/The Annexe » that was contained in the loose sheets and NOT the authentic diary.)

(S.V. comments : 1 sub I till 14 : choice of words and quotes by both Faurisson and Verbeke)

(S.V. comments : it is NOT THE DENIAL of authenticity as such that is unlawful, but the WAY IN WHICH IT IS DENIED …)

(S.V. comments : I’m apparently not enough analphabetic to state that the plaintiffs DID REQUEST the Court to judge the CONTENT, and used the RIOD edition as a major argument.)

(S.V. makes the same comment as in the case of 6.24.)

The difference is this :

In other words : this may not be done within the framework of REVISIONISM and of QUERYING THE HOLOCAUST, and it may also not be done, using words and phrases like those passages which were quoted by the first judge under paragraph i.

Or to put it another way :

QUOD LICET JOVI, NON LICET BOVI !

What Juppiter may do, may not be done by the ox…

Jews may drag Irving’s name through the mire ; they may inundate the German nation with lies, together with all revisionists who plead for a serious study of history. But revisionists may NOT in turn refer to ongoing disputes or question persons (even dead ones) who have been raised to symbolic status (by whom ? one may well ask.)