Last week I testified, for the third time in a decade, before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. I appeared as a defense witness in the trial of Radovan Karadzic. Just like on the occasion of my previous testimony, the prosecutor paid scant attention to the substance of my statements. He focused instead on trying to undermine my credibility with a host of quotes—taken out of context—from my writings, public speeches and interviews spanning some 17 years. The novelty this time was the prosecutor’s attempt to make me appear additionally “extreme” by establishing my guilt by association with The Rockford Institute and its President.
The essence of my testimony was that Dr. Karadzic and the Bosnian Serb political leadership did not have any clear idea of the events in Srebrenica in the second week of July 1995. Being on the spot at Pale, I saw with my own eyes that they were unable to establish radio or telephone connection with General Mladic and other key military commanders in the field—let alone to exercise any meaningful authority over them:
Dr. Trifkovic met with Dr. Karadzic on 13th of July, 1995 [from 5 until 6:40 pm]. While in his office, Dr. Karadzic was trying to make a telephone connection with the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army] headquarters in Han Pijesak but was told the line was down. Dr. Trifkovic is sure that Dr. Karadzic did not speak to General Mladic during this meeting but with someone from the VRS command. When Dr. Karadzic picked up the phone, Dr. Trifkovic picked up the receiver that was connected to the same line in order to ask General Mladic for a statement that he could quote in his media appearances, but on the other side of the line was not General Mladic but an officer from the VRS headquarters who informed Karadzic about situation in Srebrenica. Dr. Karadzic then turned on the speakerphone so that other guests could hear what was discussed. During this conversation, Dr. Karadzic was insistent that civilians not be mistreated and the conduct of the Serbs in Srebrenica be above reproach so that this could not be used against the Serbs in media.
That much was stated under oath, and it is true. Unable to dispute, disprove, or contradict my testimony in any meaningful manner, Mr. Vanderpuye—for the Prosecution—went ad hominem:
Q. You indicated that you worked for “Chronicles” magazine. Yes?
Q. And you worked there for about 14 years?
A. Yes. [ … ]
Q. And the “Chronicles” magazine is a publication that’s put out by the Rockford Institute?
Q. You’re aware that the Rockford Institute is a paleoconservative organisation that’s been criticised by many people, including its former New York branch director, John Neuhaus?
Q. And he’s referred to that movement, paleoconservative movement, as xenophobic, racist, and nativist?
A. It’s up to Mr. Neuhaus to have his opinions. The fact that people say something about someone doesn’t make it so.
Q. But he said it; right?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. Thomas Fleming is the current president and editor of “Chronicles” magazine; right?
Q. And he has been publicly denounced as an anti-Semite and Holocaust revisionist. Yes?
A. Such attacks I’m not specifically familiar with. Holocaust revisionist, no. I’ve heard of him being attacked for anti-Semitism but not for Holocaust revisionism, no.
Q. Okay. Let me ask if you’re familiar with this, then. A document or an article that he wrote dated 3rd August 2006, he stated: “Theories of history are matters of fact and reason. The fact that so many troublemakers of the past 150 years have been of Jewish extraction—Marx, Freud, the Neoconservatives—is certainly no argument in their favour. Jewish ‘intellectuals’ continue to be in the forefront of the movements that aim to destroy our religion and culture.” It’s a document or an article entitled “Mel, poor Mel,” referring to Mel Gibson, I’m sure, dated 3rd August 2006. Are you familiar with that language?
A. No. I haven’t read that article.
Q. Okay. Thank you. We’ll move on. You continue to work with Mr. Fleming; is that right?
AT THIS POINT Mr. Vanderpuye made a pained grimace and a dramatic pause, before proceeding to question me on my writings on Islam.
Q. And your views are widely considered extreme? Yes?
Q. Okay. Hateful?
Q. Okay. And they’re considered bigoted?
Q. You can answer yes or no?
A. No—well, absolutely not.
Q. I’d like to show you a video—and it’s very short… of a talk that you gave to a group called Youth for Western Civilisation, from 21 October 2010 [Video-clip played]
TRIFKOVIC: “Those among us who put their families and their neighbourhoods and their lands before all others are normal people. Those who tell them that their attachments should be global and their lands and neighbourhoods belong to the whole world are sick and evil. They are the enemy and Jihad’s objective allies, and it is up to the millions of normal people to stop the madness. The traitor class wants them to share its death-wish, to self-annihilate its people with a historical memory of a cultural identity and to make room for the post-human, monistic utopia spearheaded by the Jihadist fifth column. This crime, epitomised by Ground Zero mosque, can and must be stopped. The founders of the United States overthrew the colonial government for offences that were far lighter than those of which the traitor class is guilty. The alternative is decline, collapse and death, moral and spiritual first. You’ll know if the Ground Zero mosque is built that we are obviously dead.”
Q. Do you recall that talk, Dr. Trifkovic?
Q. Mr. Trifkovic, you refer to a traitor class, traitor class. In the context of your talk, I understand that to be people who generally are willing to extend respect and consideration to people of the Islamic—
A. No, quite the contrary. I said specifically people who deny the validity and legitimacy of traditional forms of loyalty based upon the family, the community, and the nation. I referred to the traitor class specifically in reference to certain upholders of cultural ideological traits commonly known under the label of “multiculturalism” which sometimes goes to the extreme of denying the validity and legitimacy of traditional bonds of culture, language, identity, and the insistence that those loyalties need to become global and universal.
Q. The multiculturalists.
A. There are various levels of multiculturalism, but certainly I was referring to the form that specifically seeks or upholds the belief in a form of transnational global identity as the preferred final model.
INEVITABLY, MY CANADIAN ORDEAL ALSO came up—but the dialogue did not go the way the Prosecution expected.
Q. You wrote an article called “Banned from Canadistan” on 24 February 2011?
Q. And just so the record is clear, you’re referring to having been denied entry into the country of Canada?
Q. In that article you wrote that: “It appears that my contacts with the Bosnian Serb leaders in the early ’90s makes me ‘inadmissible’ today. As it happens, I was never one of their officials, senior or otherwise.” All right?
Q. And that’s what you assert here today; correct?
A. By the way, that is what the board of immigration reviews agreed with, because on 18th of September, 2012, they adjudicated the case in my favour. And if you wish, I have the PDF of that decision on my laptop in the waiting-room.
Q. My question is: That’s what you assert here today, Dr. Trifkovic; is that right?
A. Excuse me? [ … ]
Q. By the way, do you walk around with that PDF with you at all times?
A. No, I walk around with my laptop a lot, and it just happens to be on it.
A. Had I intended to produce it, I would have said up-front. But since you raised the issue, I just mentioned it in passing and as an act of courtesy.
Q. You said that the reasons why you were denied basically boiled down to some spurious reasons.
A: Absolutely, that’s what I said.
Q. Okay. And you say in the article: “Why should the Canadian authorities suddenly decide to keep me out of the country now and for transparently spurious reasons,” and you answer your own question, saying, “because the Muslims told them so.” Your words?
Q. On that’s the reason for the title “Canadistan”; right?
Q. You mention that the immigration board adjudicated your case recently, yes?
A. There were three hearings on April 2nd and 3rd —
Q. I don’t need the dates.
A. Okay. Yes, on September 18th, the case was decided in my favour.
UNDETERRED, Mr. Vanderpuye went on and on, relentlessly…
Q. In 2008 you wrote an article, this one was called “Can the West Be Saved?” 10 May 2008. You said in that article: “Today’s Europe does not create social and civilisational commonalities except on the basis of wholesale denial of old mores, disdain for inherited values, and rejection of traditional culture. It creates the dreary sameness of antidiscrimination and tolerance.” Your words?
A. Except that Europe should be in either italics or quotes because it refers to the European Union.
Q. Your words?
Q. You believe that?
A. Of course, taken out of context, this does not convey the fullness of what I was talking about, and frankly, I see no relevance to my sworn testimony. I could also believe that Elvis is well and runs a pizza joint in Oahu, or that Neil Armstrong’s landing on Moon was faked. I don’t see how my beliefs, however eccentric from your point of view they may seem, are relevant to my sworn testimony here today.
Q. I’ll let the Chamber worry about that.
A. Well, we’ve been going on this way for a fairly long time.
Q. Let me ask you this. In that same article you say, and this is talking about respect for the Islamic faith or people of that persuasion: “If such respect continues to be extended by the elite class, by the end of the century there will be no ‘Europeans’ as members of ethnic groups that share the same language, culture, history, and ancestors, and inhabit lands associated with their names.” You go on to say: “The shrinking native populations will be indoctrinated into believing or else simply forced into accepting of the democratic shift in favour of unassimilable and hostile aliens is actually a blessing that enriches their culturally deprived and morally unsustainable societies.” Your words, sir?
A. My words, indeed, and not at all remarkable in the context of recent writings on the subject…
AND SO it went on and on, drearily, for over an hour…
Q. Sir, you wrote an article in January 2007. It’s called “Dinesh the Dhimmi.”
Q. Do you remember that one?
Q. And in that article you quoted someone by the name of Bat Ye’or; right?
Q. You said that: “Only Islam has the ability to evoke this eagerly cringing attitude. Only Islam has this facility of inducing people to surrender psychologically to it even before it has any actual power over them.” Do you remember that?
A. Before we proceed, what you quoted in the previous article was a quote and not my own language, but I obviously used it approvingly.
Q. You subscribe to it. You believe it?
A. Broadly, yes. [ … ]
AND THEN CAME THE WOULD-BE CLINCHER…
Q. Mr. Trifkovic, you referred to this Tribunal in a number of articles as doing the bidding as a political tool for its political bosses and paymasters as a pseudo-legal imposter, as a fraud, as an Orwellian institution whose unanimous decisions are as drearily predictable as those in Moscow in 1936, as an institution that exists solely to proclaim the Serbs collectively as the guilty party for everything that has happened in the Balkans to retroactively justify Western policy. You’ve said that the Prosecutors at The Hague will try to pit Karadzic against Mladic, and you have said of both Karadzic and Mladic that they will be duly convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity, that they will not come out of gaol alive and the verdict is already written. Is it your expectation here today that knowing all of that and your background and views about Islam and Muslims, is it your expectation that the Chamber should rely on your evidence as credible and reliable in respect of the incidents—or in respect of what you’ve stated in your statement concerning the events—
A. Yes, absolutely.
Q. —of 13 July?
Q. No qualms about it?
So there. No comment needed. An incredibly long transcript is available to the curious…