Ursula Haverbeck Imprisoned Once Again

By Lom for Read-Right, based on contemporary reports

Ursula Haverbeck is to go to prison again. The Berlin district court has sentenced the 93-year-old to a year in prison. The judge claimed there was no alternative course.

For a moment, it looked as if the presiding judge’s words were having an effect.

Ursula Haverbeck’s cheeks were red, her eyes lowered, she seemed to be sinking further and further into her chair.

But impressions can deceive, especially when dealing with a lady of the stature of Ursula Haverbeck. She has consistently shown she will not be dissuaded from her mission. The 93-year-old bravely maintains her denial of the Holocaust with steely determination.

Faced by such a force of nature the state acted predictably and in the process exposed its moral bankruptcy. In a clear breach of the basic right to free speech (long since extinct in the Federal Republic) Haverbeck was given a year’s imprisonment for ‘hate speech’. As the lady had been largely reading directly from contemporary records it appears that within Germany hate-speech and speaking the truth are one and the same.

The state’s persecution of the 93-year-old Ursula Haverbeck was begun following a 2016 public lecture then a 2018 interview in which she stated that the Holocaust never occurred. Such claims are far from being limited to Ursula Haverbeck, and since no substantive evidence for the claimed destruction of 6 million Jews exists – no bones, no ash, nothing – and the existence of hard evidence concerning the global size of the Jewish population before and after the war, the questions will undoubtedly continue to surface.

The presiding judge responsible for sending the most famous pensioner in Europe to prison, Lisa Jani, proclaimed in her sentencing that she was acting in the name of the German people.

The 93-year-old had informed the court she had merely been asking questions and quoting from scientific sources. She had been studying the Holocaust for over 20 years and had read virtually everything there was on the subject.

She said a look at any pertinent chemistry book would be enough to confirm that Zyklon B (a popular delousing agent of the period) was not a suitable agent for mass murder. She referred to the claims that the Nazis committed mass murder as ‘just an assertion without proof,’ and that the German people had been lied to. She also made allusions to ‘lobby groups’ and ‘particular interests’ – which appeared to irritate the judge. A reference too close for comfort perhaps?

Judge Jani went on to show her true colours. Much like a Soviet era judge she turned on the 93-year-old and condemned her views as ‘intolerable’. She went on to underscore her illiberal credentials by calling Haverbeck’s studies ‘poison’ not ‘science’. In keeping with her dictatorial stance no evidence was presented to counter the primary sources used by Haverbeck. Getting into her stride Judge Jeni abandoned any pretence of a fair trial and launched into a tirade which could have been written by the notorious ADL.

‘You are not a Holocaust researcher, Ms. Haverbeck, you are simply a Holocaust denier,’ said Jeni, again without evidence, ‘You have strayed miles from historical truth.’

In an unintentionally comic exchange Judge Jeni said if Ursula Haverbeck were actually interested in answers to her ‘so-called questions,’ she could read well-founded treatises on German history. Of the two it was patently clear which of them would benefit from some real historic facts rather than the state propaganda being mouthed.

Jeni suggested Ursula Haverbeck could drive to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and contemplate the ‘mountains of shoes and hair’ of the murdered victims. Of course anybody who visits the site is informed that the clothing and shoes were removed during delousing – nobody has ever questioned this. They do not constitute proof of murder; it seems hard to believe but this basic legal point seems to have escaped the judge. Judge Jeni pressed on, Haverbeck could go to all the other places where Nazis tortured and killed people, again an empty gesture unless these claimed ‘tortures’ and ‘murders’ could be proven. They can’t of course.

And on it went. She could visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and read the list of murdered children. Is any of this worth commenting upon? Who says they were murdered? One asks again, where’s the proof? Hearsay is not proof – even in a legal system as corrupt as Germany’s

The journey from her home town of Vlotho in North Rhine-Westphalia to the court in Berlin had been an ordeal, causing Haverbeck to complain. However, she had ignored the judge’s suggestion that a medical certificate could have saved her from attending the hearing wishing instead to face her accusers.

Haverbeck’s bravery over a number of years has earned her the title of Grande Dame of the freedom movement. Her defence counsel, Wolfram Nahrath, who himself is well-known for fighting against the state’s repression of its citizens refers to her as a ‘humanist’.

In summing up Haverbeck said the German people must disconnect from the Holocaust so that they can free themselves from this poisonous millstone.

Judge Jeni went on to say that the state must protect itself from people like Ursula Haverbeck – in other words the state must protect itself from its own people. Unbelievably Judge Jeni claimed that German people live freely in a democracy – a freedom that sees 93-year-old ladies thrown into prison for failing to conform to the state’s diktat.

‘You, Mrs. Haverbeck, have broken our laws’ said Jeni without defining ‘our’.

The court even considered the hackneyed path followed by all repressive regimes of locking up dissenters in mental institutions. It speaks volumes concerning the depths of depravity the German state will plumb to silence its people.

Despite Haverbeck’s old age, the execution of the sentence could not be suspended because she showed no insight or remorse during the appeal hearing.

With its guilty verdict, the thinly disguised kangaroo court confirmed the previous convictions for sedition from 2017 and 2020. The defence had demanded acquittal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *