Arbeit macht frei: - Fredrick Töben

wild guess. Even an ‘educated guess’ will be greeted with plenty of criticism
by colleagues.
21. Thus ‘good history’ is cautious. It states as historical fact only that for
which there is substantial evidence. Typically, colleagues – who are
competitors, actually – publish criticism of history books, pointing to
errors or to inferences that cannot be supported.
22. Moreover, as every political scientist knows, the rulers of a society
prefer that their version of history be the one learned by the people, so
that people will not gain power over them via, say, anger. Often a
government denies having done something that it shouldn’t have done.
For example, for many years South Australians were assured that no one
was harmed by the nuclear explosion conducted by the British at
Maralinga. Later it was admitted that that assurance was incorrect.
23. Both because new historical material is always turning up, and because
there are revisionists with an explicit mission to correct wrongly-told
history, it is important that the public know that there are standards by
which various histories can be judged.
To believe otherwise is disruptive of rationality in general. It would be a
throwback to the days of prejudice, and could be expected to impinge on
fairness.
Conclusion to Part One of This Amicus Brief: Relevance of the Toben
Case to the Standards of Science and Historiography
24. The public hears only bits and pieces of the Toben case. Australians
are likely to get the mistaken impression that Dr Toben is being punished
for something he said or wrote and that we all had better start biting our
tongue. Indeed Mr. Margo, the barrister for Mr. Jones, said at the May 28,
2009 hearing of the Toben case that he may bring charges of contempt
against an additional person, Peter Hartung, despite the fact that Peter
Hartung was never under any orders from the court.
25. The mainstream media in Australia is deliberately attempting to create
the impression that ‘denying’ the holocaust is a crime. The anchorwoman
of Channel 7 News, on May 13, 2009, opened the segment about the case
with the words ‘Adelaide’s notorious holocaust denier Fredrick Toben…’
in the way one might say ‘Infamous rapist So-and So’ or Notorious
embezzler So-and-So.’ The audience could hardly fail to form an
impression that a person who denies the holocaust could thereby become
‘notorious’ – something no one wants to be.
26. Similarly, a headline in the Adelaide Advertiser – and at
www.news.com.au – on May 13, 2009, said HOLOCAUST DENIER
FREDRICK TOBEN JAILED. Many people read only the headlines, and from
that headline they may unconsciously ‘learn’ that you can go to jail in
Australia if you deny the holocaust.
136