To silence anti-Nazi journalist:
Austrian judiciary uses laws prohibiting
Nazi activitiesKarl Pfeifer,
Searchlight London
[German - Gegen einen kritischen "jüdischen Journalisten":
Österreich
setzt das NS-Verbotsgesetz ein]
The verdict in the libel case against Mölzer is a graphic example of how
Austrian justice has followed closely in the footsteps of the right-wing
Austrian coalition government which, since being installed at the beginning of
2000 has been telling the world that Austria has very strict laws prohibiting
Nazi activities but whose judiciary then uses precisely these laws to silence
anti-Nazi journalists and smother any attempt to shed light on conditions in the
country.
In a shameful expression of what passes for "justice" in Austria nowadays,
internationally respected journalist and author Karl Pfeifer has lost a libel
action that he brought against prominent right-winger Andreas Mölzer. Mölzer,
editor of the far-right weekly rag Zur Zeit (ZZ), is also chief ideologist and
cheerleader for Austria¹s leading right-wing extremist and former Freedom Party
boss, Jörg Haider.
The case against Mölzer concerned a begging letter sent to ZZ's subscribers last
year which recycled the lie that Pfeifer had caused the death of right-wing
academic Werner Pfeifenberger who had sued him for libel, lost and then
committed suicide two years ago.
The contested passage from Mölzer's long-winded fundraising letter read: "Then
there is the case of Karl Pfeifer vs Zur Zeit. The long-time editor of the
Jewish community¹s newspaper was pinpointed on the occasion of Professor
Pfeifenberger's death as a member of the shooting party that drove the
conservative political scientist to his death. As everybody knows, an
investigation was opened against Pfeifenberger under Austria's anti-Nazi laws
because of his statements in the Freedom Party's 1995 Yearbook. The Jewish
journalist, Karl Pfeifer, denounced these statements for their "Nazi tone" and,
as a result, unleashed the legal avalanche against Pfeifenberger. When Zur Zeit
ventured to show that this was the cause of [Pfeifenberger's] suicide, Pfeifer
sued."
The verdict in the case against ZZ, signed by Vienna judge Dr.
Röggla, astonishingly accepts and repeats Mölzer¹s argument with the declaration
that "In this case, the plaintiff charged Prof. Pfeifenberger, that his article
in the Freedom Party¹s Yearbook contains "Nazi tones" and that he advocates "the
glorification of the Volksgemeinschaft" [the ethnic German community from which
Jews were excluded GA] which is a reproach concerning Paragraph 3 of the law
forbidding Nazi activities. Criticism of this reproach and its consequences can
be equally harsh."
What Röggla's verdict means is quite simple: the high court in
Vienna is using laws forbidding Nazi activities to gag a critical Jewish
journalist. Incredibly, this very same Röggla, in another verdict, delivered in
the Vienna criminal court in a case brought by Pfeifenberger against Karl
Pfeifer in 1997, made no mention of any laws forbidding Nazi activities but,
instead, stated explicitly that "the conclusions drawn by the accused [Karl
Pfeifer] from Dr. Werner Pfeifenberger's article are true". The verdict then
went on to affirm that "Karl Pfeifer has made criticisms based on facts, which
is permissible."
Pfeifenberger also sued Karl Pfeifer for damages but that case
was also thrown out by the Vienna commercial court in 1997 by judge Dr.
Friedrich Heigl who rejected his demands. The high court in Vienna then
confirmed both the above mentioned judgements against Pfeifenberger in 1998.
Again, in neither the original verdicts in favour of Karl Pfeifer nor in their
confirmation were the laws forbidding Nazi activities mentioned. Nor did Karl
Pfeifer mention it in his review of Pfeifenberger¹s article in the Freedom
Party¹s 1995 Yearbook which was published in the official monthly of the Vienna
Jewish Community on 3 February 1995.
The verdict in the libel case against Mölzer is thus a graphic
example of how Austrian justice has followed closely in the footsteps of the
right-wing Austrian coalition government which, since being installed at the
beginning of 2000 has been telling the world that Austria has very strict laws
prohibiting Nazi activities but whose judiciary then uses precisely these laws
to silence anti-Nazi journalists and smother any attempt to shed light on
conditions in the country.
The latest Reporters sans Frontières Report correctly refers
to "antisemitic insinuations against Pfeifer". No doubt Herr Mölzer would also
take issue with that. All very strange considering that the German nazi
"Deutsche Stimme", in its October edition, featured Mölzer in a report
reproduced on the website of the anti-fascist Documentation Centre of the
Austrian Resistance.
The Deutsche Stimme article described how a paper penned by
Mölzer on European politics was presented at a gathering of the nazi
Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD) and then signed by NPD boss Udo
Voigt, the nazi British National Party führer Nick Griffin and former German
terrorist and nazi lawyer Horst Mahler. Mölzer should be known by his friends
and supporters and the interests of Austrian justice would definitely have been
better served if the disgraceful verdict against Karl Pfeifer had taken that
into account.
hagalil.com
12-11-02 |