Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts


Go Back   Vanguard News Network Forum > News & Discussion > General Discussion > Speech Martyrs
Donate Register Multimedia Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Login

 
Thread Display Modes Share
Old July 12th, 2012 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,350
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default The Global, Coordinated Jewish Assault on Free Speech in Relation to the Jewish Big Lie Known as 'The' 'Holocaust'

[This information is from Wikipedia, which is mainstream utility edited so that its entries are completely in line with global jewry and its anti-White agenda, which certainly includes propping up the Big Lie known as 'the' 'Holocaust.' Wikipedia, which affects to be a neutral utility, uses a term with no ascertainable meaning -- 'the' 'Holocaust' -- then combines it with 'denial,' in exactly the way the jews who invented the myth in WWII and perpetrate it today demand that everyone do, lest they be called haters, extremists, racists, and on and on. Unchallengeable myths written into law is precisely the reason we have free speech in the first place - to prevent that from happening.]




Laws against Holocaust denial

Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of European countries.[1] Many countries also have broader laws that criminalize genocide denial. Also, the Council of Europe's 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cyber Crime, concerning the prosecution of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems includes an article entitled Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity, although this does not have the status of law. Of the countries that ban Holocaust denial, a number (Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Romania) were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and many of these also ban other elements associated with Nazism, such as Nazi symbols.




Contents

1 Overview and commentary
2 By country
2.1 Austria
2.2 Belgium
2.3 Bosnia and Herzegovina
2.4 Czech Republic
2.5 France
2.6 Germany
2.6.1 § 130 Public incitement
2.6.2 Other sections
2.7 Hungary
2.8 Israel
2.9 Liechtenstein
2.10 Lithuania
2.11 Luxembourg
2.12 The Netherlands
2.13 Poland
2.14 Portugal
2.15 Romania
2.16 Spain
2.17 Switzerland
3 European Union
4 Prosecutions and convictions
5 See also
6 References
7 External links




Overview and commentary

Scholars have pointed out that countries that specifically ban Holocaust denial generally have legal systems that limit speech in other ways, such as banning hate speech. According to D. Guttenplan, this is a split between the "common law countries of the United States, Ireland and many British Commonwealth countries from the civil law countries of continental Europe and Scotland. In civil law countries the law is generally more proscriptive. Also, under the civil law regime, the judge acts more as an inquisitor, gathering and presenting evidence as well as interpreting it".[2] Michael Whine argues that Holocaust denial can inspire violence against Jews; he states, "Jews' experience in the post-World War II era suggests that their rights are best protected in open and tolerant democracies that actively prosecute all forms of racial and religious hatred."[3]

János Kis[4] and TASZ,[5] in particular András Schiffer[6] feel the work of Holocaust deniers should be protected by a universal right to free speech. An identical argument was used[7] by the Hungarian Constitutional Court (Alkotmánybíróság) led by László Sólyom when it struck down a law against Holocaust denial in 1992. The argument that laws punishing Holocaust denial are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been rejected by institutions of the Council of Europe (the European Commission of Human Rights,[8] the European Court of Human Rights[9]) and also by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.[10]

Historians who oppose such laws include Raul Hilberg, Richard J. Evans, and Pierre Vidal-Naquet. Other prominent opponents of the laws are Timothy Garton Ash,[11] Christopher Hitchens, Peter Singer,[12] and Noam Chomsky. An uproar resulted when Serge Thion used one of Chomsky's essays without explicit permission as a foreword to a book of Holocaust denial essays (see Faurisson affair). These laws have also been criticized on the grounds that education is more effective than legislation at combating Holocaust denial and that the laws will make martyrs out of those imprisoned for their violation.[13]




By country


Austria

In Austria, the Verbotsgesetz 1947 provided the legal framework for the process of denazification in Austria and suppression of any potential revival of Nazism. In 1992, it was amended to prohibit the denial or gross minimisation of the Holocaust.
National Socialism Prohibition Law (1947, amendments of 1992)

§ 3g. He who operates in a manner characterized other than that in § § 3a – 3f will be punished (revitalising of the NSDAP or identification with), with imprisonment from one to up to ten years, and in cases of particularly dangerous suspects or activity, be punished with up to twenty years imprisonment.[14]

§ 3h. As an amendment to § 3 g., whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media.[15]




Belgium

Holocaust denial was made illegal in Belgium in 1995.
Negationism Law (1995, amendments of 1999)

Article 1 Whoever, in the circumstances given in article 444 of the Penal Code denies, grossly minimises, attempts to justify, or approves the genocide committed by the German National Socialist Regime during the Second World War shall be punished by a prison sentence of eight days to one year, and by a fine of twenty six francs to five thousand francs. For the application of the previous paragraph, the term genocide is meant in the sense of article 2 of the International Treaty of 9 December 1948 on preventing and combating genocide. In the event of repetitions, the guilty party may in addition have his civic rights suspended in accordance with article 33 of the Penal Code.

Art.2 In the event of a conviction on account of a violation under this Act, it may be ordered that the judgement, in its entity or an excerpt of it, is published in one of more newspapers, and is displayed, to the charge of the guilty party.

Art.3. Chapter VII of the First Book of the Penal Code and Article 85 of the same Code are also applicable to this Act.

Art. 4. The Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism, as well as any association that at the time of the facts had a legal personality for at least five years, and which, on the grounds of its statutes, has the objective of defending moral interests and the honour of the resistance or the deported, may act in law in all legal disputes arising from the application of this Act.[16]



Bosnia and Herzegovina

In May 2007 Ekrem Ajanovic, a Bosniak MP in the Bosnian Parliament proposed a legislation on criminalizing the denial of Holocaust, genocide and crimes against humanity. This was the first time that somebody in Bosnia and Herzegovina's Parliament proposed such a legislation. Bosnian Serb MP's voted against this legislation and proposed that such an issue should be resolved within the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina.[17] Following this, on 6 May 2009 Bosniak MP's Adem Huskic, Ekrem Ajanovic and Remzija Kadric proposed to the BH parliament a change to the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina where Holocaust, genocide and crimes against humanity denial would be criminalized.[18] Bosnian Serb MP's have repeatedly been against such a legislation claiming that the law "would cause disagreement and even animosity" according to SNSD member Lazar Prodanovic.[19]



Czech Republic

In addition to Holocaust denial, denial of communist perpetrated atrocities is illegal in the Czech Republic.
Law Against Support and Dissemination of Movements Oppressing Human Rights and Freedoms (2001)

§ 260 (1) The person who supports or spreads movements oppressing human rights and freedoms or declares national, race, religious or class hatred or hatred against other group of persons will be punished by prison from 1 to 5 years. (2) The person will be imprisoned from 3 to 8 years if: a) he/she commits the crime mentioned in paragraph (1) in print, film, radio, television or other similarly effective manner, b) he/she commits the crime as a member of an organized group c) he/she commits the crime in a state of national emergency or state of war

§ 261 The person who publicly declares sympathies with such a movement mentioned in § 260, will be punished by prison from 6 months to 3 years.

§ 261a The person who publicly denies, puts in doubt, approves or tries to justify nazi or communist genocide or other crimes of nazis or communists will be punished by prison of 6 months to 3 years.[20]



France

In France, the Gayssot Act, voted for on July 13, 1990, makes it illegal to question the existence of crimes that fall in the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-46. When the act was challenged by Robert Faurisson, the Human Rights Committee upheld it as a necessary means to counter possible antisemitism.[21]
LAW No 90-615 to repress acts of racism, anti-semitism and xenophobia (1990)

MODIFICATIONS OF THE LAW OF JULY 29, 1881 ON THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS Art 8. - Article 24 of the Law on the Freedom of the Press of 29 July 1881 is supplemented by the following provisions: In the event of judgment for one of the facts envisaged by the preceding subparagraph, the court will be able moreover to order: Except when the responsibility for the author of the infringement is retained on the base for article 42 and the first subparagraph for article 43 for this law or the first three subparagraphs for article 93-3 for the law No 82-652 for July 29, 1982 on the audio-visual communication, the deprivation of the rights enumerated to the 2o and 3o of article 42 of the penal code for imprisonment of five years maximum;

Art 9. – As an amendment to Article 24 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 24 (a) is as follows written: <<Art. 24 (a). - those who have disputed the existence of one or more crimes against humanity such as they are defined by Article 6 of the statute of the international tribunal military annexed in the agreement of London of August 8, 1945 and which were a carried out either by the members of an organization declared criminal pursuant to Article 9 of the aforementioned statute, or by a person found guilty such crimes by a French or international jurisdiction shall be punished by one month to one years imprisonment or a fine.

Art 13. - It is inserted, after article 48-1 of the law of July 29, 1881 on the freedom of the press, article 48-2 thus written: <<Art. 48-2. - publication or publicly expressed opinion encouraging those to whom it is addressed to pass a favourable moral judgment on one or more crimes against humanity and tending to justify these crimes (including collaboration) or vindicate their perpetrators shall be punished by one to five years imprisonment or a fine.[22]




Germany

§ 130 Public incitement

In Germany, Volksverhetzung ("incitement of the people") is a concept in German criminal law that bans the incitement of hatred against a segment of the population. It often applies in (although is not limited to) trials relating to Holocaust denial in Germany. In addition, Strafgesetzbuch § 86a outlaws various symbols of "unconstitutional organisations", such as the Swastika and the SS runes.

§ 130 Public Incitement (1985, Revised 1992, 2002, 2005)

(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:
incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population,
shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

(...)

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or belittles an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 6 subsection (1) of the Code of Crimes against International Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine.

(4) Whoever publicly or in a meeting disturbs the public peace in a manner that assaults the human dignity of the victims by approving of, denying or rendering harmless the violent and arbitrary National Socialist rule shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. (...)[23]


The definition of section 6 of the Code of Crimes against International Law referenced in the above § 130 is as follows:
§ 6 Genocide

(1) Whoever with the intent of destroying as such, in whole or in part, a national, racial, religious or ethnic group:
kills a member of the group,
causes serious bodily or mental harm to a member of the group, especially of the kind referred to in section 226 of the Criminal Code,
inflicts on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part,
imposes measures intended to prevent births within the group,
forcibly transfers a child of the group to another group, shall be punished with imprisonment for life. (...)[24]

Other sections

The following sections of the German criminal code are also relevant:
§ 189 Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons (1985, amendments of 1992)

Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.[25]

§ 194 Application for Criminal Prosecution

(1) An insult shall be prosecuted only upon complaint. If the act was committed through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) or making them publicly accessible in a meeting or through a presentation by radio, then a complaint is not required if the aggrieved party was persecuted as a member of a group under the National Socialist or another rule by force and decree, this group is a part of the population and the insult is connected with this persecution. The act may not, however, be prosecuted ex officio if the aggrieved party objects. When the aggrieved party deceases, the rights of complaint and of objection devolve on the relatives indicated in Section 77 subsection (2). The objection may not be withdrawn.

(2) If the memory of a deceased person has been disparaged, then the relatives indicated in Section 77 subsection (2), are entitled to file a complaint. If the act was committed through dissemination of writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) or making them publicly accessible in a meeting or through a presentation by radio, then a complaint is not required if the deceased person lost his life as a victim of the National Socialist or another rule by force and decree and the disparagement is connected therewith. The act may not, however, be prosecuted ex officio if a person entitled to file a complaint objects. The objection may not be withdrawn. (...)[26]





Hungary

The Parliament of Hungary declared the denial or trivialization of the Holocaust a crime punishable by up to three years imprisonment on February 23, 2010.[27] The law was signed by the President of the Republic in March 2010.[28] On June 8, 2010, the newly elected Fidesz-dominated parliament changed the formulation of the law to "punish those, who deny the genocides committed by national socialist or communist systems, or deny other facts of deeds against humanity".[29] The word "Holocaust" is no longer in the law.





Israel

In Israel, a law to criminalize Holocaust denial was passed by the Knesset on July 8, 1986.
Denial of Holocaust (Prohibition) Law, 5746-1986

Definitions 1. In this Law, "crime against the Jewish people" and "crime against humanity" have the same respective meanings as in the "Nazis and Nazi Collaborators Law, 5710-1950.

Prohibition of Denial of Holocaust 2. A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement denying or diminishing the proportions of acts committed in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, with intent to defend the perpetrators of those acts or to express sympathy or identification with them, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.

Prohibition of publication of expression for sympathy for Nazi crimes 3. A person who, in writing or by word of mouth, publishes any statement expressing praise or sympathy for or identification with acts done in the period of the Nazi regime, which are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, shall be liable to imprisonment for a term of five years.

Permitted publication 4. The publication of a correct and fair report of a publication prohibited by this Law shall not be regarded as an offence thereunder so long as it is not made with intent to express sympathy or identification with the perpetrators of crimes against the Jewish people or against humanity.

Filing of charge 5. An indictment for offences under this Law shall only be filed by or with the consent of the Attorney-General.[30]





Liechtenstein

Although not specifically outlining national socialist crimes, item five of section 283 of Liechtenstein's criminal code prohibits the denial of genocide.
§ 283 Race discrimination

Whoever publicly denies, coarsely trivialises, or tries to justify genocide or other crimes against humanity via word, writing, pictures, electronically transmitted signs, gestures, violent acts or by other means shall be punished with imprisonment for up to two years.[31]




Lithuania

Lithuania prohibits approval and denial of Nazi or Soviet crimes.
170(2) Publicly condoning international crimes, crimes of the USSR or Nazi Germany against the Republic of Lithuania and her inhabitants, denial or belittling of such crimes.[32]





Luxembourg

In Luxembourg, Article 457-3 of the Criminal Code, Act of 19 July 1997 outlaws Holocaust denial and denial of other genocides.[33] The punishment is imprisonment for between 8 days and 6 months and/or a fine.[33] The offence of "negationism and revisionism" applies to:
...anyone who has contested, minimised, justified or denied the existence of war crimes or crimes against humanity as defined in the statutes of the International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945 or the existence of a genocide as defined by the Act of 8 August 1985. A complaint must be lodged by the person against whom the offence was committed (victim or association) in order for proceedings to be brought, Article 450 of the Criminal Code, Act of 19 July 1997.[33]




The Netherlands

While Holocaust denial is not explicitly illegal in The Netherlands, the courts consider it a form of spreading hatred and therefore an offence.[34] According to the Dutch public prosecution office, offensive remarks are only punishable by Dutch law if they equate to discrimination against a particular group.[35] The relevant laws of the Dutch penal code are as follows:
Article 137c
He who in public, either verbally or in writing or image, deliberately offends a group of people because of their race, their religion or beliefs, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine of the third category. [...][36]

Article 137d
He who in public, either verbally or in writing or image, incites hatred or discrimination against people or incites acts of violence towards people or property of people because of their race, their religion or beliefs, their gender, their hetero- or homosexual orientation or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine of the third category. [...][37]





Poland

In addition to Holocaust denial, the denial of communist crimes is punishable by law in Poland.
Act of 18 December 1998 on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation (Dz.U. 1998 nr 155 poz. 1016)

Article 55

He who publicly and contrary to facts contradicts the crimes mentioned in Article 1, clause 1 shall be subject to a fine or a penalty of deprivation of liberty of up to three years. The judgment shall be made publicly known.

Article 1

This Act shall govern:
1. the registration, collection, access, management and use of the documents of the organs of state security created and collected between 22 July 1944 and 31 December 1989, and the documents of the organs of security of the Third Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning:
a) crimes perpetrated against persons of Polish nationality and Polish citizens of other ethnicity, nationalities in the period between 1 September 1939 and 31 December 1989:
- Nazi crimes,
- communist crimes,
- other crimes constituting crimes against peace, crimes against humanity or war crimes
b) other politically motivated repressive measures committed by functionaries of Polish prosecution bodies or the judiciary or persons acting upon their orders, and disclosed in the content of the rulings given pursuant to the Act of 23 February 1991 on the Acknowledgement as Null and Void Decisions Delivered on Persons Repressed for Activities for the Benefit of the Independent Polish State (Journal of Laws of 1993 No. 34, item 149, of 1995 No. 36, item 159, No. 28, item 143, and of 1998 No. 97, item 604),
2. the rules of procedure as regards the prosecution of crimes specified in point 1 letter a),
3. the protection of the personal data of grieved parties, and
4. the conduct of activities as regards public education.[38]






Portugal

Although denial of the Holocaust is not expressly illegal in Portugal, Portuguese law prohibits genocide denial.
Article 240: Religious, racial, or sexual discrimination

[...]

2 - Whoever in a public meeting, in writing intended for dissemination, or by any means of media:
a) incites violence against an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, ethnic or national origin or religion, or
b) defames or slanders an individual or group of individuals because of race, color, ethnic or national origin or religion, particularly through the denial of war crimes or against peace and humanity;

with intent to incite to racial or religious discrimination or to encourage, shall be punished with imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years.[39]






Romania

In Romania, Emergency Ordinance No. 31 of March 13, 2002 prohibits Holocaust denial. It was ratified on May 6, 2006. The law also prohibits racist, fascist, xenophobic symbols, uniforms and gestures: proliferation of which is punishable with imprisonment from between six months to five years.
Emergency Ordinance No. 31 of March 13, 2002

[...]

Article 3. – (1) Establishing a fascist, racist or xenophobic organisation is punishable by imprisonment from 5 to 15 years and the loss of certain rights.

[...]

Article 4. – (1) The dissemination, sale or manufacture of symbols either fascist, racist or xenophobic, and possession of such symbols is punished with imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years and the loss of certain rights.

[...]

Article 5. – Promoting the culture of persons guilty of committing a crime against peace and humanity or promoting fascist, racist or xenophobic ideology, through propaganda, committed by any means, in public, is punishable by imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years and the loss of certain rights.

Article 6. – Denial of the Holocaust in public, or to the effects thereof is punishable by imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years and the loss of certain rights.[40]






Spain

Genocide denial was illegal in Spain until the Constitutional Court of Spain ruled that the words "deny or" were unconstitutional in its judgement of November 7, 2007.[41] As a result, Holocaust denial is legal in Spain, although justifying the Holocaust or any other genocide is an offence punishable by imprisonment in accordance with the constitution.[42]
PENAL CODE- BOOK II, TITLE XXIV Crimes against the International Community

Chapter II: Crimes of genocide - Article 6071.

1. Those who, with the intention to total or partially destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, perpetrate the following acts, will be punished:
1) With the prison sentence of fifteen to twenty years, if they killed to some of its members.
If the fact two or more aggravating circumstances concurred in, the greater punishment in degree will prevail.
2) With the prison of fifteen to twenty years, if they sexually attacked to some of members [of the group] or produced some of the injuries anticipated in article 149.
3) With prison sentence of eight to fifteen years, if they subjected the group or anyone of its individuals to conditions of existence that put their lives in danger or seriously disturbed their health, or when they produced some to them of the injuries anticipated in article 150.
4) With the same punishment, if they carried out [unavoidable] displacements of the group or their members, they adopted any measurement that tend to prevent their sort of life or reproduction, or transferred by force individuals from a group to another one.
5) With imprisonment of four to eight years, if they produced any other injury different from the ones indicated in numbers 2) and 3) of this section.

2. The diffusion by any means of ideas or doctrines that deny or justify the crimes in the previous section of this article, or tries the rehabilitation of regimes or institutions which they protect generating practices of such, will be punished with a prison sentence of one to two years.[43]





Switzerland

Holocaust denial is not expressly illegal in Switzerland, but the denial of genocide and other crimes against humanity is an imprisonable offence.
Art. 261bis 1

Racial discrimination

Whoever publicly, by word, writing, image, gesture, acts of violence or any other manner, demeans or discriminates against an individual or a group of individuals because of their race, their ethnicity or their religion in a way which undermines human dignity, or on those bases, denies, coarsely minimizes or seeks to justify a genocide or other crimes against humanity [...] shall be punished with up to three years imprisonment or a fine.[44]





European Union

The European Union's executive Commission proposed a European Union-wide anti-racism xenophobia law in 2001, which included the criminalization of Holocaust denial. On July 15, 1996, the Council of the European Union adopted the Joint action/96/443/JHA concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia.[45][46] During the German presidency there was an attempt to extend this ban.[47] Full implementation was blocked by the United Kingdom and the Nordic countries because of the need to balance the restrictions on voicing racist opinions against the freedom of expression.[48] As a result a compromise has been reached within the EU and while the EU has not prohibited Holocaust denial outright, a maximum term of three years in jail is optionally available to all member nations for "denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."[49][50]

The EU extradition policy regarding Holocaust denial was tested in the UK during the 2008 failed extradition case brought against the suspected Holocaust denier Frederick Toben[51] by the German government. As there is no specific crime of Holocaust denial in the UK, the German government had applied for Toben's extradition for racial and xenophobic crimes. Toben's extradition was refused by the Westminster Magistrates' Court, and the German government withdrew its appeal to the High Court.
European Union Framework Decision for Combating Racism and Xenophobia (2007)

The text establishes that the following intentional conduct will be punishable in all EU Member States:
- Publicly inciting to violence or hatred , even by dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material, directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.
- Publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising
- crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin, and
- crimes defined by the Tribunal of Nuremberg (Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, London Agreement of 1945) directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin.
Member States may choose to punish only conduct which is either carried out in a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting.

The reference to religion is intended to cover, at least, conduct which is a pretext for directing acts against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined by reference to race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin.

Member States will ensure that these conducts are punishable by criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between 1 and 3 years of imprisonment.[52]


Prosecutions and convictions

Laws against Holocaust denial have been enforced in most jurisdictions that have them. Notable convictions and sentencings to November 2009 includeate Name Country Sentence
(various) Jean-Marie Le Pen France, Germany fines[53]
Feb. 27, 1998 Roger Garaudy France imprisonment (suspended), ₣240,000 fine[54]
Jul. 21, 1998 Jürgen Graf Switzerland 15 months imprisonment (fled Switzerland to avoid sentence)[55]
Jul. 21, 1998 Gerhard Förster Switzerland 12 months imprisonment, disgorgement[56]
May 27, 1999 Jean Plantin France 6 months imprisonment (suspended), fine, damages[57]
Apr. 11, 2000 Gaston-Armand Amaudruz Switzerland 1 year imprisonment, damages[58]
Feb. 20, 2006 David Irving Austria 1 year imprisonment[59]
Mar. 15, 2006 Germar Rudolf Germany 2˝ years imprisonment[60]
Oct. 3, 2006 Robert Faurisson France €7,500 fine, 3 months probation[61]
Feb. 15, 2007 Ernst Zündel Germany 5 years imprisonment[62]
Jan. 14, 2008 Wolfgang Fröhlich Austria 6 years imprisonment (third offence)[63]
Jan. 15, 2008 Sylvia Stolz Germany 3˝ years imprisonment[64]
Mar. 11, 2009 Horst Mahler Germany 5 years imprisonment[65]
Oct. 23, 2009 Dirk Zimmerman Germany 9 months imprisonment[66]
Oct. 27, 2009 Richard Williamson Germany €12,000 fine[67]





References
^ Bazyler, Michael J. (December 25, 2006). "Holocaust Denial Laws and Other Legislation Criminalizing Promotion of Nazism". Yad Vashem. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
^ D D Guttenplan, Should Freedom of Speech Stop at Holocaust Denial?, Index of Free Expression, 2005.
^ Whine, Michael (Spring 2008), Expanding Holocaust Denial and Legislation Against It, Jewish Political Studies Review
^ János Kis: Szólássabadság és náci beszéd, Népszabadság, March 30, 1996.
^ Human rights group urges wide social cooperation against Nazi sentiment, The Budapest Times, Also: A szólás- és gyülekezési szabadság korlátozása nagyobb veszélyt jelent a demokráciára, mint a náci beszéd büntetőjogi következmények nélkül hagyása.(Restriction of freedom of speech and assembly is more dangerous to democracy than leaving nazi speech without legal consequences. ) see Declaration by TASZ on the right to free speech and assembly, also signed by Janos Kis and Gábor Fodor
^ Fogadatlan prókátorok - A gárdaítélet félreértelmezéseiről, Magyar Narancs, July 23, 2009
^ decision 30/1992 (V. 26)
^ X. v. Federal Republic of Germany (European Commission of Human Rights 16 July 1982).
^ Lehideux and Isorni v. France, 1998-VII, no. 92; application number 24662/94, case number 55/1997/839/1045 (European Court of Human Rights 23 September 1998).
^ Faurisson v France, 2 BHRC UN Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993, 1 (United Nations Human Rights Committee 1996).
^ "This is the moment for Europe to dismantle taboos, not erect them", The Guardian, October 19, 2006. Retrieved January 2007.
^ "David Irving has a right to free speech, too", Jerusalem Post, March 2, 2006. Retrieved January 2007.
^ Adam Lebor (March 25, 2010), A bad law against Holocaust denial, Jewish Chronicle
^ "Verbotsgesetz 1945 in der Fassung des NSG 1947" (in German). Austrian Research Centre for Post-War Trials. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "Verfassungsgesetz vom 8. Mai 1945 über das Verbot der NSDAP (Verbotsgesetz 1947) in der Fassung der Verbotsgesetznovelle 1992" (in German). Austrian Research Centre for Post-War Trials. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "23 MARS 1995. - Loi tendant ŕ réprimer la négation, la minimisation, la justification ou l'approbation du génocide commis par le régime national-socialiste allemand pendant la seconde guerre mondiale." (in French). Juridat.be. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ PORICANJE GENOCIDA PROGLASITI KRIVIČNIM DJELOM, Prof. dr. Fikret Karcic,Preporod, 5.7.2007
^ Stranka za BiH: Krivičnim zakonom BiH obuhvatiti genocid i holokaust,S.B., 06. 05. 2009 [1]
^ Bosnia’s Etnic Tensions Delay Holocaust Denial Law,Denis Dzidic,Balkan Investigative Reporting Network 27.1.2009 [2]
^ "Punishment for Holocaust Denial Incorporated in Czech Law". Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic to the European Union. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "Communication No 550/1993 : France. 16/12/96. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993. (Jurisprudence)". United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "Loi n°90-615 du 13 juillet 1990 tendant ŕ réprimer tout acte raciste, antisémite ou xénophobe" (in French). Légifrance. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "§ 130 Volksverhetzung" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "§ 6 Völkermord" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "§ 189 Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Retrieved 2009-05-29.[dead link]
^ "§ 194 Strafantrag" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ Hungarian lawmakers make Holocaust denial illegal, jta.org
^ President Sólyom signs Holocaust denial bill, politics.hu
^ Hungary equates Communism to Nazism, rt.com
^ "Denial of Holocaust -Prohibition- Law- 5746-1986-". Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2009-05-30.
^ "Liechtensteinisches Landesgesetzblatt" (in German). LLV Government Portal. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ "LIETUVOS RESPUBLIKOS BAUDŽIAMASIS KODEKSAS" (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 2012-01-22.
^ a b c "LUXEMBOURG - National Legal Measures". Council of Europe. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ "Denying holocaust 'not a crime': VVD". DutchNews.nl. May 27, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ D D Guttenplan, Should Freedom of Speech Stop at Holocaust Denial?, Index of Free Expression, 2005.
^ Whine, Michael (Spring 2008), Expanding Holocaust Denial and Legislation Against It, Jewish Political Studies Review
^ János Kis: Szólássabadság és náci beszéd, Népszabadság, March 30, 1996.
^ Human rights group urges wide social cooperation against Nazi sentiment, The Budapest Times, Also: A szólás- és gyülekezési szabadság korlátozása nagyobb veszélyt jelent a demokráciára, mint a náci beszéd büntetőjogi következmények nélkül hagyása.(Restriction of freedom of speech and assembly is more dangerous to democracy than leaving nazi speech without legal consequences. ) see Declaration by TASZ on the right to free speech and assembly, also signed by Janos Kis and Gábor Fodor
^ Fogadatlan prókátorok - A gárdaítélet félreértelmezéseiről, Magyar Narancs, July 23, 2009
^ decision 30/1992 (V. 26)
^ X. v. Federal Republic of Germany (European Commission of Human Rights 16 July 1982).
^ Lehideux and Isorni v. France, 1998-VII, no. 92; application number 24662/94, case number 55/1997/839/1045 (European Court of Human Rights 23 September 1998).
^ Faurisson v France, 2 BHRC UN Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993, 1 (United Nations Human Rights Committee 1996).
^ "This is the moment for Europe to dismantle taboos, not erect them", The Guardian, October 19, 2006. Retrieved January 2007.
^ "David Irving has a right to free speech, too", Jerusalem Post, March 2, 2006. Retrieved January 2007.
^ Adam Lebor (March 25, 2010), A bad law against Holocaust denial, Jewish Chronicle
^ "Verbotsgesetz 1945 in der Fassung des NSG 1947" (in German). Austrian Research Centre for Post-War Trials. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "Verfassungsgesetz vom 8. Mai 1945 über das Verbot der NSDAP (Verbotsgesetz 1947) in der Fassung der Verbotsgesetznovelle 1992" (in German). Austrian Research Centre for Post-War Trials. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "23 MARS 1995. - Loi tendant ŕ réprimer la négation, la minimisation, la justification ou l'approbation du génocide commis par le régime national-socialiste allemand pendant la seconde guerre mondiale." (in French). Juridat.be. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ PORICANJE GENOCIDA PROGLASITI KRIVIČNIM DJELOM, Prof. dr. Fikret Karcic,Preporod, 5.7.2007
^ Stranka za BiH: Krivičnim zakonom BiH obuhvatiti genocid i holokaust,S.B., 06. 05. 2009 [1]
^ Bosnia’s Etnic Tensions Delay Holocaust Denial Law,Denis Dzidic,Balkan Investigative Reporting Network 27.1.2009 [2]
^ "Punishment for Holocaust Denial Incorporated in Czech Law". Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic to the European Union. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "Communication No 550/1993 : France. 16/12/96. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993. (Jurisprudence)". United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "Loi n°90-615 du 13 juillet 1990 tendant ŕ réprimer tout acte raciste, antisémite ou xénophobe" (in French). Légifrance. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "§ 130 Volksverhetzung" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "§ 6 Völkermord" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ "§ 189 Verunglimpfung des Andenkens Verstorbener" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Retrieved 2009-05-29.[dead link]
^ "§ 194 Strafantrag" (in German). Bundesministerium der Justiz. Retrieved 2009-05-29.
^ Hungarian lawmakers make Holocaust denial illegal, jta.org
^ President Sólyom signs Holocaust denial bill, politics.hu
^ Hungary equates Communism to Nazism, rt.com
^ "Denial of Holocaust -Prohibition- Law- 5746-1986-". Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved 2009-05-30.
^ "Liechtensteinisches Landesgesetzblatt" (in German). LLV Government Portal. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ "LIETUVOS RESPUBLIKOS BAUDŽIAMASIS KODEKSAS" (in Lithuanian). Retrieved 2012-01-22.
^ a b c "LUXEMBOURG - National Legal Measures". Council of Europe. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ "Denying holocaust 'not a crime': VVD". DutchNews.nl. May 27, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ "Dutch Liberal leader: Holocaust Denial should Not be Crime". tripolipost.com. May 29, 2009. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ "Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr), Artikel 137c" (in Dutch). www.wetboek-online.nl. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ "Wetboek van Strafrecht (Sr), Artikel 137d" (in Dutch). www.wetboek-online.nl. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ * (English) old Act of 18 December 1998 on the Institute of National Remembrance - Commission for Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation. Institute of National Remembrance. Retrieved May 31, 2009.
(Polish) Ustawa z dnia 18 grudnia 1998 r. o Instytucie Pamięci Narodowej - Komisji Ścigania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu. Sejm of the Republic of Poland, click tekst ujednolicony to see act. Retrieved May 31, 2009.
^ "Código Penal portuguęs (texto oficial)" (in Portuguese). Diário da República. September 4, 2007. pp. 57–58. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ "ORDONANTA DE URGENTA nr. 31 din 13 martie 2002" (in Romanian). Romanian Government Department for Interethnic Relations. Retrieved 2009-05-31.
^ "Tribunal Constitucional" (in English). Constitutional Court of Spain. November 7, 2007. Retrieved 2012-02-19.
^ Uni, Assaf (November 10, 2007). "Spanish court rules out jail sentences for Holocaust denial". Haaretz. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Código Penal" (in Spanish). RedIRIS.com. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "SR 311.0 Art. 261bis Rassendiskriminierung (Schweizerisches Strafgesetzbuch)" (in German). Swiss Confederation. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ Joint action to combat racism and xenophobia. Europa.eu. July 27, 2005. Retrieved June 2007.
^ 31996F0443. Eur-lex.Europa.eu. July 24, 1996. Retrieved June 2007.
^ "Push for EU Holocaust denial ban", BBC News, January 15, 2007. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
^ "EU diplomats: Ban on Holocaust denial won't curb civil liberties", Haaretz, April 17, 2004. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
^ "EU agrees new racial hatred law", BBC News, April 19, 2007. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
^ Bilefsky, Dan. "EU adopts measure outlawing Holocaust denial", The New York Times, April 19, 2007. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
^ "Suspected-Holocaust-denier-Dr-Gerald-Toben-wins-extradition-fight". The Daily Telegraph (London: telegraph.co.uk). October 29, 2008. Retrieved 2008:14:04.
^ "EU Justice Ministers agree on racism and xenophobia proposal". European Union @ United Nations. April 19, 2007. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
^ "Le Pen Convicted for Racial Hatred", Associated Press, June 2, 1999. Retrieved 2009-11-14.
^ "Writer fined for Holocaust writings", BBC News, February 27, 1998. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
^ Black, Edwin. "Denial of Holocaust nothing new in Iran / Ties to Hitler led to plots against British and Jews", San Francisco Chronicle, January 8, 2006.
^ "Holocaust Revisionists Will Serve Time", The Spokesman-Review (Associated Press), July 21, 1998. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
^ Francillon, Claude. "A Lyon, l'éditeur chômeur Jean Plantin jugé pour contestation de crimes contre l'humanité", Le Monde, September 9, 1999. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
^ "Holocaust revisionist sentenced", BBC News, April 11, 2000. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
^ Traynor, Ian. "Irving jailed for denying Holocaust", The Guardian, February 21, 2006. Retrieved 2009-11-13.
^ "German Holocaust Denier Imprisoned for Inciting Racial Hatred", Deutsche Welle, March 16, 2007. Retrieved 2009-11-14.
^ Stalinsky, Steven. "The Influence of a Man Who Denies the Holocaust" New York Sun, October 12, 2006. Retrieved 2009-11-14.
^ "Holocaust denier in Germany sentenced to five years in prison - Europe - International Herald Tribune", The New York Times, February 15, 2007. Retrieved 2009-11-14
^ "Austrian Holocaust denier gets six-and-a-half years in prison" European Jewish Press, January 14, 2008. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
^ "German Neo-Nazi Lawyer Sentenced for Denying Holocaust" Deutsche Welle, January 14, 2008. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
^ "Horst Mahler zu hoher Haftstrafe verurteilt", Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 11, 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-14.
^ "Report on the Trial of Dirk Zimmerman (Germany)", Occidental Quarterly, October 25, 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-15.
^ "German court tells holocaust denier he must face trial", Deutsche Welle, November 10, 2009. Retrieved 2009-11-14.[hide]
v · t · e




External links

Jonathan Josephs, Holocaust Denial Legislation - A justifiable infringement of freedom of speech? (Université Libre de Bruxelles; Working Papers du Centre Perelman de philosophie du droit, n° 2008/3):

http://www.philodroit.be/IMG/pdf/WP-...-3-Josephs.pdf



Laws_against_Holocaust_denial Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 12th, 2012 at 08:00 PM.
 
Old July 20th, 2012 #2
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,350
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[you can see the speeches through this link.]

http://www.intjewishlawyers.org/main...=101&Itemid=79

[following is commentary on the report from Jeff Rucker in the Smith Report, which is put out by CODOH]

Berlin Diary: A Global Lawfare Conspiracy
By Jett Rucker
Published:
2012-07-13

If you took interest in last November’s Smith’s Report discussion of the impending Berlin conference of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ) headlined “Holocaust Denial and Free Speech in the Internet Era,” you will be pleased to learn that you can now “attend” the conference. Videos of the full fourteen sessions of the conference have been helpfully uploaded by the IAJLJ not only to their own Web site, but to YouTube as well. Most of the speakers are lawyers, and even those who are not often digress, if only in deference to their presumed audience, into long perorations on technicalities of law and jurisprudence.

I have viewed all fourteen videos in their full length, and here will undertake to guide the curious to which presentations are most interesting and which ones are not worth watching, most of the latter on account of technical glitches which have rendered the soundtrack either difficult to understand or, in some cases, absent altogether. Included with the following recommendations will be, even, tips as to the speakers’ accents in English (not the native language of most of them), and further tips to help Anglophones decipher individual peculiarities of pronunciation of certain key, repeated words in the recordings.

A theme to be noted in the urgent and plaintive laments of the lobby in question of how the Internet affords a voice to those who have not received any imprimatur from any sort of mediating or legitimizing body is that America’s First Amendment to the Constitution seems to afford all manner of scalawags the means of exposing their twisted views to the whole world, for goodness’ sake!

Overall, the proceedings are fascinating not only as to how those who seek to suppress inquiry into Holocaust history plot to do so among themselves, but further how these efforts proceed among the numerous jurisdictions (countries) in which they pursue their agenda. Included among these are Germany, Argentina, Canada, France, and, almost as an afterthought, the United States.

The comparison affords me an opportunity that I, as an American, find quite rare in view of my country’s foreign policy these past eleven years: an opportunity to view my country’s government, among those of other countries, favorably—even with a modicum of pride. This pleasure arises from a domestic policy that, however assaulted by hostile interests, seems so far to have demonstrated a robustness not to be seen among many other human rights rooted in America’s Constitution, namely, freedom of speech.

A theme to be noted in the urgent and plaintive laments of the lobby in question of how the Internet affords a voice to those who have not received any imprimatur from any sort of mediating or legitimizing body is that America’s First Amendment to the Constitution seems to afford all manner of scalawags the means of exposing their twisted views to the whole world, for goodness’ sake!

What might come of this newfound ability of any/everyman to address a potentially global audience with his own, personal, unsanctioned views is indeed anyone’s guess. But the guesses of those who seek to suppress open discussion of the Holocaust are dire indeed, apparently by some sort of fear, which they characterize as the dissemination of “anti-Semitic” sentiments.

Among the presentations may be noted a few that describe the concerted utilization of exactly this new technology for the purpose of disseminating today’s dominant views of the history in question. Utilization of this technology enjoys an implicit assumption by both speakers and audience that they themselves are forces for Good, while those of revisionists—among others—are by no means so favored by those foregathered here.

The speakers occasionally refer to talks that preceded theirs. Do not be distracted by such references; in no case are they such that one might miss an important point from not having heard the speech referred to. The speeches are displayed at http://tinyurl.com/87 evaz6 on the Web site in the order of their presentation; access them in that order if you seek an experience maximally resembling the experience of attending the conference. If, on the other hand, you might be content to “browse” the speeches according to the pertinence of their content or the accessibility of the speaker, then you may avail yourself of the following list, in which I have attempted, for the purposes of my audience, to present the performances in something like their level of reward for the modal revisionist.

Naama Shik, 35 min. (Israeli), is easily the star of this show. “Enemy” though she is, she conveys not just commitment, but passion in her work, which in no way (she says this) involves opposing or suppressing “Holocaust denial.” To the contrary, her program (that of her employer, Yad Vashem) entails what may honestly be called counter speech, however a-factual it may actually be. Yad Vashem in some ways resembles the Internet itself, in that it composes relatively little of its material but rather relays, on the Internet and via other media, the contributions of others, typically people who think they’re related to people who they think “were murdered” in “the Holocaust.” Shik styles this relaying as “education,” an arrogation typical not only of her tribe but of her employer and of the country she lives in.

She continually emphasizes a goal on her institution’s part to “train” its attendees in individual thought and evaluation of material. Such an agenda, if truly and faithfully followed, can only favor the discoveries of revisionists in the long run, regardless of whether this speaker realizes the fact. Among the startling views she espouses in her engaging presentation is the notion that Germans/Nazis are not soulless monsters, but rather human beings exactly like, as she says, “us.” Her talk includes actual samples, with soundtracks, of Yad Vashem online material, and so is informative on that score, too.

Eli Hacohen, 47 min. (Israeli), presents an informative historical overview of “Holocaust denial” on the Internet. He is obviously an authority on the subject, for one motivated by concerns rather different from those for whom this newsletter is written. While his facts are selected in accordance with his bias in the matter, they are credible and appear to provide pretty good coverage of the subject. Counter speech does not figure into his subject, and in fact suppression of “Holocaust denial” gets relatively little attention in this report. Accent: he refers to Arthur Butz with sounds that are difficult to recognize as such, and to his institution as “an Illinois university,” which provides less of a cue than “Northwestern University” would, at least to those familiar with the seminal work of the godfather of Holocaust revisionism. The speaker has nothing good to say about Dr. Butz or his work, of course. CODOH’s name flashes up in his visuals at about 29:35. The name of CODOH’s godfather makes no appearance at all, unfortunately.

The Opening Event, 15 min. (various), is pretty much formulaic, but it includes a brief talk by a representative of an organization that might have more influence on worldwide opinion than the IAJLJ and Israel put together, Google. Arnd Haller, Legal Director for Northern and Central Europe,

Google Germany, is assuredly not a partisan in the subject at hand, at least so far as his organizational affiliation (and his apparent ethnicity, for that matter) is concerned. Haller’s talk, larded as it was with genial platitudes and pious proclamations, steered clear entirely of the notion of suppression/censorship. To the contrary, his emphasis was, as might be expected, on what might be regarded as Google’s “product,” counter speech. He said the best way to counter “bad speech” was with “good speech.” For all his selfish motivations in so saying, his pronouncement to this effect was nonetheless heartening to this lover of speech-in-general and the freedom to disseminate it, whatever it might be. He refrained even from intoning devotion to “free speech,” which, in fact, all the other participants did as well.

Nimrod Kozlovski, 38 min. (Israeli): The subject is hacking, and exclusively that hacking done in support of “Holocaust denial.” He makes no mention of hacking against “Holocaust denial,” of which there are many examples, the fruits of some of which remain enshrined to this day on the Web site of Wikileaks. This speaker is a salesman for his employer, an Israeli cyber security supplier, but that fact chiefly seems to imbue his presentation with rather more feeling and content, however partisan its thrust might be (his employer’s Web site, unfortunately for Anglophones, is only in Hebrew). He discusses famous hacking events against Israel and sites advancing propaganda in that country’s interests. He notes that most hacking in the world seems to be done by and to governments, and within that ambit, among military and espionage organizations, among which Israel’s Mossad receives mention in connection with its famous StuxNet initiative directed against networks in Iran associated with that country’s nuclear-energy activities. He goes into considerable detail as to Turkish and Iranian efforts to hack various Israeli targets, official and private alike. Otherwise, his references unfortunately tend to be abstract, rather than detailing actual cases. Accent: his attempts to say “myth” sound like “meet.”

Christopher Wolf’s 27 min. (American) talk is interesting primarily since he is the only speaker who addresses the American situation. In the context of the talks concerning other countries, his country truly sounds like the “land of the free,” however much effective suppression frank discussion of Holohistory actually encounters there. He argues, perhaps in the context of his own country, that law just doesn’t work well for the purpose of suppressing revisionism. At no point does he express the slightest approval of the American tradition of free speech, though he makes frequent reference to it. The best thing he has to say about this crucial human right is that it affords a certain amount of relief to enforcement agencies, which in its absence would face an ultimately insuperable challenge in circumscribing it to any “useful” extent. One of his arguments against the use of law takes the peculiar form of noting that when legal countermeasures fail, they erode respect for law in general, and so such measures, when undertaken, must be so constituted and pursued as to have devastating effect against the target. He suggests that (extralegal) pressures on Yahoo, Google, and other such central actors offer promise of the “desired” results outside the framework of law-based initiatives. He also advocates education (indoctrination), without specifying whether this should be prescribed by law, as it in fact is in many American states. He describes his exchanges with Deborah Lipstadt in which she expresses her famous (and evidently genuinely felt) aversion to government censorship.

Tatjiana Hörnle, 28 min. (German), provides an informative history of the stepwise criminalization of “Holocaust denial” in Germany, giving the impression that a “tide” of such speech is rising in her country and that the government goes about plugging holes in the dike it has erected to contain it as each in turn begins to gush undesired speech. This speaker is comparatively detached about her subject, betraying no particular personal dedication to the goal of suppressing the proscribed expression. In fact, on one seemingly minor point, she makes so bold as to reveal a personal inclination (carefully described as such) in favor of liberality. She makes it clear that in Germany, at least on this topic, the courts have acquired the habit of decreeing what is historically true and what is false, and suppresses any personal objection she might harbor to this development. Her account clearly depicts the incremental process by which disapproved historical speculations have been made criminal offenses in the host country for the conference. She describes legal issues in terms readily accessible to interested laypersons, in particular the knotty issues of jurisdiction encountered in, among other cases, that of the late John Demjanjuk.

Juliana Wetzel, 28 min. (German): This legal scholar, who says she is not in fact a lawyer, undertakes to refute an earlier speaker’s remark that “hundreds” of Holocaust-denial trials have occurred in Germany, asserting that such trials in fact barely exceed a dozen. Of course, her count necessarily omits those hundreds of cases, many contemplating a sentence of death, involving “war criminals” in which the defense, if only permitted to, would undoubtedly have adduced devastating evidence to the effect that the alleged crimes had in fact never even been committed. Wetzel mounts the conference’s most pointed attacks on “soft denial,” that very widespread form of revisionism that is based on solid scholarship backed up by traceable, often incontrovertible evidence such as that practiced by Ernst Nolte, on whose work she dwells at some length. She further attacks the “relativization” exemplified by the work of David Irving, James Bacque, and many others, which compare the toll of the Holocaust with that of the vast and numerous war crimes committed by the Allies in their campaign against Germany. This speaker, who emphatically claims a “trademark” on the word “holocaust” on the part of those advertising German wartime atrocities against Jews, coins a term that should arouse keen interest in readers of this newsletter: “secondary anti-Semitism.” By this term, she refers to the anti-Jewish feelings that understandably arise in persons discovering the falsity of much of the Holocaust publicity in which the western world is soaked every day, day after day.

Sergey Lagodinsky, 35 min. (German), gives a legalistic, but interesting, account of the ongoing government campaign in Germany against expression of any sort of modulation in evaluation of the characters or accomplishments of individual National Socialists. He explains that National Socialist sympathies on the part of a speaker might make speech on his part criminal, that might not be criminal on the part of a person not suspected of harboring National Socialist sympathies—the closest approach to true “thought crime” described in this conference. While his accent is accessible to Anglophones, his pronunciation of “honor” sounds like “orner,” which provided considerable puzzlement until I managed to decode it. He describes the development of annual demonstrations centering on the grave of Rudolf Hess in Wunsiedel and a progression of legal measures against them, never once mentioning the ultimate resolution of the matter by physical disinterment of Hess’s remains and their cremation and dispersal at sea, ŕ la Osama bin Laden’s.

Stephen Rothman, 35 min. (Australian): This speaker is but one in a succession of speakers from countries other than the US who speak of the need to balance the right to free speech against a right not to be offended or disturbed. The latter “right,” fortunately, is nowhere to be found in the Bill of Rights, but initiatives for “hate speech” laws are in fact based on assertions of such a right, often in favor of tiny minorities whose offense is evidenced by nothing more than their own declaration that they are offended, and by still less on the part of members of the putatively offended minority who have failed for one reason or another to complain. Rothman describes how such arguments, now ensconced firmly in Australian legislation and judicial precedent, have severely eroded Australians’ ability and willingness to speak their minds. His talk includes a good deal of interesting Australian history that has nothing in particular to do with “Holocaust denial.” The latest issue of the IAJLJ’s Justice magazine (http://tinyurl.com/85san7d) carries an article by Rothman that closely parallels this speech, for those who prefer reading to listening. The magazine contains some other coverage of the conference, including articles by other speakers, noted below.

Marc Levy, 24 min. (French): English comes with difficulty to this Frenchman’s tongue, though he makes his effort with good humor, if not charm. He quotes Himmler’s supposed 1943 speech at Posen by way of proving that the National Socialists intended their supposed genocidal project to remain forever undocumented. He details the lamentable situation in France, in which ISPs are subject to prosecution if they fail to remove material identified to them (Levy does not specify by whom) as violating the noxious Gayssot Law against “Holocaust denial.” This alter Kämpfer mentions that he participated in the prosecutions of the 1970s against his countryman Robert Faurisson. In wearing a yarmulke, this speaker projected his Jewishness more than any other speaker, though his intentions may have been as much devotional as proclamatory. For all his disquisitions on the vigor of the French suppression campaign, he admitted that law is ultimately no more than a deterrent, and no sort of cure for the social tendencies giving rise to this conference.

David Matas, 17 min. (Canadian): This short speech is devoted extensively to the case of erstwhile Canadian Ernst Zündel, and otherwise to the straitened circumstances of free expression in Canada. His long and legalistic article in the current issue of Justice probably encompasses his talk.

The speeches of Marcos Grabivker (Argentine), Rodrigo Luchinsky (Argentine), and Matthias Küntzel (German) are unfortunately badly garbled and outright missing in the audio, and so are not recommended for those having a less than compelling interest in the material. Fortunately, Grabivker has a long article in the current issue of Justice that likely encompasses the material in the two Argentines’ talks. Küntzel’s talk focuses on “Holocaust denial” by Muslims and Muslim institutions.

Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin said that the discussion of the genocide, promoted by MK Zahava Gal-On (Meretz), was not connected to the current strained relations between Israel and Turkey, the source writes.

Rivlin also told Globes: “As Jews, and as human beings, we cannot ignore this issue and we must not turn away from our commitment to morality… As [a country] struggling in the international arena with Holocaust denial, we cannot deny the tragedy of another people.”

In December 2011, the Knesset Education Committee discussed the Armenian genocide for the first time. Gal-On, who also initiated that discussion, said then: “For years, Israel always took into account its relations with Turkey. That is the central issue in terms of recognition of the murder of the Armenian people, which has yet to take place in Israel’s Knesset,” Haaretz.com wrote.

http://codoh.com/library/document/1683

Last edited by Alex Linder; July 20th, 2012 at 11:19 AM.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 AM.
Page generated in 0.17245 seconds.