Arbeit macht frei: - Fredrick Töben

wished to say, he wished to put, and that they, in the result, were not put.
And I propose to contend to your Honour that when it comes to what I
would describe as sentencing Dr Toben, that your Honour should take
into account some of the things which are set out in the paragraphs that
are now objected to in a general way, and that your Honour should limit
the account you take of other matters.
The paragraphs that are referred to are relevant history in my contention.
The terms of the complaint, at 34, are in my submission, are relevant in
an ongoing way, and I propose to refer your Honour to a series of cases in
that respect, the most recent one of which is Crvekovic v La Trobe
University which was handed down on the 24 th
of this month. I …
HIS HONOUR: Well, just before you go there, I read the paragraphs
following paragraph 31, and the opening paragraphs of the second
affidavit as a history of the proceedings which was before the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in, commencing in 1996. At
the moment I cannot see the relevance of any conduct of the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission commencing in 1996 and
ending prior to the orders made by Branson J on 22 September 2002, in a
case in which I have to consider a penalty for a person who has committed
24 separate contempts of court since November 2007.
It seems to me the relevant history of the purpose of determining the
appropriate penalty is that which, apart from the persona history attaching
to Dr Toben, commences in November 2007. The matters which Dr
Toben has raised in these two affidavits, including the implication that he
was treated unfairly by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission indicate a misunderstanding on his part on the nature of the
proceedings before me. As I indicated to him at the directions hearing
before this trial commenced, this inquiry is not into Dr Toben’s beliefs. It
is not into whether the Holocaust occurred or not.
This inquiry is a simple one, which he doesn’t seem to be able to grasp.
The inquiry is into whether he has observed orders made by this court on
22 September 2002, and whether he has complied with an undertaking he
gave to this court on 27 November 2007. As to the matters antecedent to
that, they might be relevant in the most general sense, but they are not the
subject matter of this inquiry, and it seems to me to be somewhat unusual
that a man as well educated as Dr Toben is unable to focus on the inquiry.
And these affidavits seem to indicate yet again he doesn’t understand what
this inquiry, and in particular what today’s inquiry is about.
MR PERKINS: When your Honour comes to the exercise of a
sentencing discretion …
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MR PERKINS: … it’s plain that your Honour is sentencing, has the
discretion to sentence my client in relation to accounts of contempt which
57