Should the UK extradite Holocaust denier?

[rwguinn]

Well, this is an incorrect reading. I should be:



Much less scary when read correctly.

You're correct. My bad.
Still scary, as it appears that the Germans reserve the right to define the term...

[Georg]

From about a year ago… (http://www.theparliament.com/latestnews/news-article/newsarticle/council-of-europe-to-vote-on-creationism/)
The Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly will debate a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted “in forms of religious extremism” and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights. Same mentality. Holocaust denial, creationism, rejection of the theory of evolution. What belief is next? Those of you who have been defending Germany's thoughtcrime laws, as well as similar laws in other European regimes; how will you feel when they get around to criminalizing some belief that is important to you? It will happen, if this trend is allowed to continue.
When they came for the Holocaust deniers, I said nothing because I wasn't a Holocaust denier.
When they came for the creationists, I said nothing, because I wasn't a creationist.
·
·
·
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak up.


What a load of BS.
Did you deliberately leave out the crucial parts? That comes close to lying in my book. Either that, or you lack reading comprehension.
From the link you yourself provided:


Europe's main human rights body will today vote on a resolution opposing the teaching of creationist and intelligent design views in school science classes.

The Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly will debate a resolution saying attacks on the theory of evolution were rooted "in forms of religious extremism" and amounted to a dangerous assault on science and human rights.

The resolution, on the agenda for the plenary in Strasbourg, says European schools should "resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion." It describes the "intelligent design" argument as an updated version of creationism.



Not so scary anymore, is it? Or do you actually want creationism to be taught in science classes? Teach the controversy and all?
You´re a funny guy, Bob.

BTW, regarding the Max Hardcore case, do you still think the restrictions on freedom of speech are a German/European thing?
Why is the U.S. superior in that regard? Please explain.......

[Bob Blaylock]

What a load of BS.
Did you deliberately leave out the crucial parts? That comes close to lying in my book. Either that, or you lack reading comprehension.


That the resolution most directly is about what may or may not be taught in school is irrelevant. The language itself tells the real story. Expression of a particular belief is being described as “a dangerous assault on science and human rights”. Someone who uses that sort of language isn't going to be satisfied just to have that belief censored in the school curriculum. That language is indicative of a mindset that isn't going to be satisfied until evolution-deniers are treated the same way that Germany treats Holocaust-deniers; or the same way that France has been treating Brigitte Bardot for speaking out against the Islamification of her country.


BTW, regarding the Max Hardcore case, do you still think the restrictions on freedom of speech are a German/European thing?
Why is the U.S. superior in that regard? Please explain......


Obscenity is an entirely different beast. It isn't an expression of opinions that may or may not be important to those who hold them. It isn't an expression of one person's “truth” that may or may not be contrary to some other, more widely-accepted truth. Our courts have been struggling for two centuries to define even what obscenity is, and to what extent it is to be allowed or suppressed. I'm not going to try to argue for or against it in this context, because it is entirely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

[brodski]

I'm unclear as to whether this resolution ever passed, or how much legal force it was to have if it did, the article which you linekd to states that the resolution is not binding. Please, at least read your own sources.


If, by expressing such a belief, I am attacking human rights, then certainly, without any argument, the next step is to deny me the right to hold and express that belief. the next step down that slippery slope yes- but what makes you think we will go down that path? Remember, this resolution is not, and cannot be, binding. As you showed. The fact that one thing impinges on human rights does not mean that it should be banned, rights tend to conflict with each other all the time- and need to be balanced against each other- given that freedom of religion is also a human right as recognised by Seth Council of Europe, what makes you think that Creationism is going to be banned?

Just as Germany is doing to those who believe that the Holocaust didn't happen as generally accepted. no, belief or holding a belief has nothing to do with it.
And just as whatever will be done to those who hold whatever belief they choose to go after next. The precedent has been set, and this resolution takes that precedent a small step further. no, it doesn't, it is not related at all to the national laws of the member states, you have constructed this out of wholecloth.

You're OK with this now, because the beliefs that have been attacked are not beliefs that you hold. When a belief that you strongly hold is the one that is being attacked in this manner, then how will you feel? guess what, I'm in Europe and I am free to deny the holocaust, claim that Muslims are taking over France (or my nation) and deny evolution. I don't because they're all bloody silly beliefs not based on reality, I could also claim that holding these beliefs are illegal throughout Europe, but I don't- for simmilar reasons.

I don't agree with dismissing this as a “slippery slope fallacy”, because the “slippery slope” has happened and is happening. There is nothing fallacious about it.
er, yes it still is a fallacy even if you totally misunderstand the resolution of the Council of Europe.

Does the Max Hardcore case mean that the US government is about to start burning books? That “slippery slope” has happened and is happening. Or perhaps that would be blowing things um out of all proportion.

[brodski]

Obscenity is an entirely different beast. It isn't an expression of opinions that may or may not be important to those who hold them. It isn't an expression of one person's “truth” that may or may not be contrary to some other, more widely-accepted truth. Our courts have been struggling for two centuries to define even what obscenity is, and to what extent it is to be allowed or suppressed. I'm not going to try to argue for or against it in this context, because it is entirely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

Once you allow the government to define what expression is and is not obscene, then you allow they do determine what expression is and is not acceptable, how do you know that the expression of what some may consider obscene is not "an expression of one person's “truth” that may or may not be contrary to some other, more widely-accepted truth". If attacks on freedom of expression are troublesome to you, then the case is entirely relevant.

[Bob Blaylock]

To put my arguments another way...take Oliver's ongoing anti-American campaign. Let's say that the U.S. passes a law that designates specific people as "illegal combatants", and states that such people may be arrested and detained without trial, or lawyer, etc. (not gonna' require a lot of imagination on that one!).

Let's say further that a person says or does something while in the U.S. that results in them being designated as an "illegal combatant". Nothing that is illegal under any other law (such as actually commiting acts of terrorism); the government just decides that person is suspicious, and wants to imprison them.

In Germany, or the U.K., I believe it is illegal to imprison someone in such a manner. They have the right to know the charges against them, they have the right to a lawyer, etc.


It's illegal in the United States as well. The people being referenced are captured enemy combatants, otherwise known as “prisoners of war”. In case you hadn't noticed, the U.S. is at war right now, and when we capture enemy combatants, we have two choices as to what to do with them: We either kill them on the spot, or else we capture them and hold them until the war is over.

Prisoners of war are not the same thing as criminals or accused criminals. They are being held for entirely different reasons, and are subject to entirely different rules and conventions as to how they are to be handled.

Most nations, including Germany and also including the U.S., have signed on to the same various international conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war. If Germany were at war, I doubt if its treatment of prisoners of war would differ very much from ours.

[Georg]

That the resolution most directly is about what may or may not be taught in school is irrelevant. The language itself tells the real story. Expression of a particular belief is being described as “a dangerous assault on science and human rights”.


It is entirely relevant, because that is all the resolution is about, which you left out in your "reporting" the case. When you´re in a hole.....

Someone who uses that sort of language isn't going to be satisfied just to have that belief censored in the school curriculum. That language is indicative of a mindset that isn't going to be satisfied until evolution-deniers are treated the same way that Germany treats Holocaust-deniers; or the same way that France has been treating Brigitte Bardot for speaking out against the Islamification of her country.


That´s your assumption, or maybe better called your fantasy.
Or would you have some evidence for your claims?


Obscenity is an entirely different beast. It isn't an expression of opinions that may or may not be important to those who hold them. It isn't an expression of one person's “truth” that may or may not be contrary to some other, more widely-accepted truth. Our courts have been struggling for two centuries to define even what obscenity is, and to what extent it is to be allowed or suppressed. I'm not going to try to argue for or against it in this context, because it is entirely irrelevant to the matter under discussion.



Already answered by Brodski.
And again in this context: Since the U.S. does have restrictions on the freedom of speech, why is it superior to European countries in that regard?
Is throwing a pornographer into jail more freedom-of-speech-loving than throwing holocaust deniers into jail? If yes, why?

[Fiona]

Bob I think the point is that the people held at Guantanamo are NOT prisoners of war. That is why they are not covered by the rules and safeguards which apply to prisoners of war. Or has that now changed?

[Georg]

It's illegal in the United States as well. The people being referenced are captured enemy combatants, otherwise known as “prisoners of war”. In case you hadn't noticed, the U.S. is at war right now, and when we capture enemy combatants, we have two choices as to what to do with them: We either kill them on the spot, or else we capture them and hold them until the war is over.



Not all detainees were caught in combat on some battlefield.
If you really argue for the bolded part, how long you want to keep them without even telling them what exactly they have done wrong?
The "war on terror" will not ever be won, so that would basically mean you could keep them forever without knowing if they even committed any crime.
My definition of freedom-loving does not cover for that.
Yours?

[Bob Blaylock]

And again in this context: Since the U.S. does have restrictions on the freedom of speech, why is it superior to European countries in that regard?
Is throwing a pornographer into jail more freedom-of-speech-loving than throwing holocaust deniers into jail? If yes, why?


That's very simple and obvious.

One of the most basic and vital of all human rights is the right to believe what you will, and, to express this belief. If you believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, then that is what you believe, and you have every right to say so, and any government that tries to tell you otherwise is wrong.

The Holocaust denier is exercising this right. The evolution denier is exercising this right. Brigitte Bardot was exercising this right when she complained about how she thinks Muslims are ruining France.

A pornographer is not exercising this right. Obscenity is not an expression of an opinion or a belief. As far as our courts have been able to form any coherent opinion on the matter, one of the important defining traits is that to be obscene, the material in question must lack any “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)” Such definition specifically excludes the Holocaust denier, the evolution denier, or Brigitte Bardot's anti-Islamic rants, from being suppressed as obscenity; as they are expressing seriously-held beliefs that have political value..

[Bob Blaylock]

It's illegal in the United States as well. The people being referenced are captured enemy combatants, otherwise known as “prisoners of war”. In case you hadn't noticed, the U.S. is at war right now, and when we capture enemy combatants, we have two choices as to what to do with them: We either kill them on the spot, or else we capture them and hold them until the war is over.

Not all detainees were caught in combat on some battlefield.
If you really argue for the bolded part, how long you want to keep them without even telling them what exactly they have done wrong?
The "war on terror" will not ever be won, so that would basically mean you could keep them forever without knowing if they even committed any crime.
My definition of freedom-loving does not cover for that.
Yours?


They aren't accused of crimes. They were captured fighting against us in a war. It's not claimed that they “did anything wrong” in this; presumably they are as dedicated to their side of the war as our own soldiers are to our side of the war.

But now we've removed them from combat. If we let them go, then presumably, they will return to battle and continue fighting against us. So we hold them until the war is over. If the war never ends, then we never release them. The war will end when we have killed and captured enough of them that those who remain are no longer able to effectively continue to make war against us.

Are you telling me that if Germany were at war, that it would release prisoners of war while the war was still going on, knowing that these former prisoners would then turn and continue attacking Germany as they were doing before they were captured?

[Georg]

You forgot one important issue:

Not all detainees were caught in combat on some battlefield.

So?

ETA: That means you have people rotting away in Gitmo maybe forever, when nobody knows if they are actually enemy combatants or not. Freedom-loving?
And I do not think it is very freedom-loving either to put the combatants in jail forever, if the "war" lasts that long, especially if you admit that

presumably they are as dedicated to their side of the war as our own soldiers are to our side of the war.

[Georg]

That's very simple and obvious.

One of the most basic and vital of all human rights is the right to believe what you will, and, to express this belief. If you believe that the Holocaust didn't happen, then that is what you believe, and you have every right to say so, and any government that tries to tell you otherwise is wrong.

The Holocaust denier is exercising this right. The evolution denier is exercising this right. Brigitte Bardot was exercising this right when she complained about how she thinks Muslims are ruining France.

A pornographer is not exercising this right. Obscenity is not an expression of an opinion or a belief. As far as our courts have been able to form any coherent opinion on the matter, one of the important defining traits is that to be obscene, the material in question must lack any “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test)” Such definition specifically excludes the Holocaust denier, the evolution denier, or Brigitte Bardot's anti-Islamic rants, from being suppressed as obscenity; as they are expressing seriously-held beliefs that have political value..


Looks like shifting the goalposts for me. Earlier on you argued:

This is just plain, obvious, common sense. If you use your “freedom of speech” in a manner that violates someone else's rights, then that's where it ends.


I think it's clear enough. You don't limit one person's rights until it becomes necessary to do so in order to protect some other right that is in conflict with it.




Under Germany's thoughtcrime law, it is the speech itself that is the crime, and not some genuine crime for which the speech is merely a tool. This is an important difference between Germany's thoughtcrime law, and every other instance that you or anyone else has proposed involving libel/slander, fraud, incitement, extortion, etc.


You now narrow down "freedom of speech" to "freedom of expression of belief".
Where were the rights of others violated in the Max Hardcore case?
Was someone forced to buy or watch his videos?
Was someone forced to "act" in his videos?

According to your earlier expressed pov, this restriction of freedom of speech cannot be justified. So the U.S. has just different topics than Europe/Germany where they draw the line.
How is that substantially better?
It´s still some years in jail for producing ponography against some years in jail for holocaust denying, and I fail to see why one way would be superiour compared to the other.
And again I point out that I do not necessarily agree with the German law.
My goal is to show that the expressed arrogance of you towards Europe has no basis in reality.

[WildCat]

Bob I think the point is that the people held at Guantanamo are NOT prisoners of war. That is why they are not covered by the rules and safeguards which apply to prisoners of war. Or has that now changed?
There is a colloquial definition of "prisoner of war", which is any enemy captured in a war.

Then there is the Geneva Convention-defined Prisoner of War, in which captured combatants receive protections and privileges as an incentive and a reward for abiding by the laws of armed conflict. You appear not to understand the difference. It's why the Bush admin. uses the term "enemy combatants", as opposed to the term Prisoner of War which has an entirely different definition.

At any rate, it's a derail of this thread and there are several existing threads appropriate for this discussion if you'd like.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Georg, do you think that Germans are so uncivilized and barbaric that hearing a few demented kooks denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities would cause riots, destruction, and deaths? If not, how can this be tantamount to incitement?

[tyr_13]

And again in this context: Since the U.S. does have restrictions on the freedom of speech, why is it superior to European countries in that regard?
Is throwing a pornographer into jail more freedom-of-speech-loving than throwing holocaust deniers into jail? If yes, why?

It is important to note that America isn't seeking the extradition of pornographers who did not produce their pornography in America, and are not in or heading to America.

That's a little bit of a huge difference.

I'm not claiming moral superiority or anything like that, and I'm not even agreeing with all of America's speech limits, but being American doesn't mean we can't call out Germany for doing something stupid.

[Georg]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Georg, do you think that Germans are so uncivilized and barbaric that hearing a few demented kooks denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities would cause riots, destruction, and deaths? If not, how can this be tantamount to incitement?


"Germans" aren´t, some Germans maybe are. I´m not necessarily talking about riots, but we do have antisemitic violence here. The guys being violent have to have their ideas from somewhere. Whether you can say that the violence is caused by Töben-like *********, I do not know, which is why I am torn on this issue.
If a causal relationship would be established, I´d be in favour of the law. If not, then not.
I agree with eskarina though, that this is a topic where I thought different a couple of years ago, where I would clearly have said that this law is O.K.
You know, those "young" Germans, trying to act idealistic and responsible....

Today, I have doubts, and this forum is the main reason for it.
I have changed my opinion on a number of topics through reading about them here, which is a good thing, I´d say.
The topic at hand, I´m not sure yet, maybe I´m in something like a transition phase:).
Sorry for answering so late, but I only discovered your older post directed at me today. If you have more questions, feel free to ask.
And thanks for admitting that the American restriction isn´t very good either (the porn case).

[Georg]

It is important to note that America isn't seeking the extradition of pornographers who did not produce their pornography in America, and are not in or heading to America.

That's a little bit of a huge difference.

Since I argued against the extradition before, we have no argument here.
But what about the C.I.A. kidnapping suspects that then get transported to other countries? No official extradition, but not the superiour way either, is it?

I'm not claiming moral superiority or anything like that, and I'm not even agreeing with all of America's speech limits, but being American doesn't mean we can't call out Germany for doing something stupid.


Call Germany out as long as you like. I´m far from defending my home country in every aspect. It is the arrogance of especially Bob Blaylock that I do not like and that is not at all justified.

[Oliver]

But what about the C.I.A. kidnapping suspects that then get transported to other countries? No official extradition, but not the superior way either, is it?



It is. Because those are enemy combatants with no rights whatsoever.
Töben, the innocent guy, on the other hand ... :D

[Darth Rotor]

I strongly disagree with this, especially when you consider that he was breaking German laws and wasn't even in Germany or going to Germany. I agree 100% with those who claim this sets a terrible precedent, especially when it comes to countries where insulting Islam is considered a crime. However wrong, and distasteful his views are, I believe he should have the right to speak them anywhere. I think that even Germany should repeal its Holocaust denial laws, as terrible as the Holocaust was.

We should let all racists, bigots and Holocaust deniers hang themselves by their own ropes. Persecuting Holocaust deniers gives them way too much free publicity, and may even inadvertently help them by making them look like victims, which in fact they are. This free publicity seems to be an unintended consequence of what may have been a well intentioned attempt to limit free speech. I have very strong doubts that these anti-Nazi, and anti-Holocaust denial laws have helped prevent a rebirth of Nazism or anti-Semitism.

I hate the views of Holocaust deniers and racists, but believe they should have the right to voice them, so long as they are not calling for the murder of the people they are against.
Here is a thought. Under Sharia law, a man is required to wear a beard about five inches in length, at the least. I do not do so, but do not live in a land where that law is enforced. That land wishes to have me extradited so I can be prosecuted for failing to adhere to the law.

Hmmmmmmmm. Extradition needs a case by case assessment. The Germans are IMO making themselves look quite the fools for having prosecuted this fool for his soap box moaning in the first place.

[Darth Rotor]

OK - so you are like Skeptic, your objection to the German legislation is not based on a "right to free speech" being abrogated but simply on where the line to abrogate that right is drawn. Like the German legislative you are quite happy to limit the right to free speech, you (as I do) just draw the line in a different place.
Another line drawn, by various people, happens to be called a border. Borders drawn slightly differently lead to dispute, for example the Durand Line. Line drawing need not be used to attempt to discredit any other party in the discussion. Line drawing is what people do, and we both seem to share the view that the line he is across, physically, is relevant.

(Thanks for the link to the extradition bit, by the way.)

Your pooh poohing of line drawing adds little to the discussion, and is a slight self contradiction, given your points on the lack of merit in extradition as an option.

DR

[zooterkin]

On the subject of jurisdiction, Roman Polanski, in 2004, successfully sued Vanity Fair magazine for libel. The magazine is published in America, Polanski lives in France, and the court case was in London. Polanski gave his evidence by video link, since if he had gone to the UK there was a possibility that he would be extradited to the US.

[Damien Evans]

On the subject of jurisdiction, Roman Polanski, in 2004, successfully sued Vanity Fair magazine for libel. The magazine is published in America, Polanski lives in France, and the court case was in London. Polanski gave his evidence by video link, since if he had gone to the UK there was a possibility that he would be extradited to the US.

What for?

[Roadtoad]

Boffing a 13-year-old, courtesy of her stage mother.

[Darat]

...snip...

Your pooh poohing of line drawing adds little to the discussion, and is a slight self contradiction, given your points on the lack of merit in extradition as an option.

DR

Where have I been "pooh poohing of line drawing"?

[Damien Evans]

Boffing a 13-year-old, courtesy of her stage mother.

Yuck.

[rwguinn]

On the subject of jurisdiction, Roman Polanski, in 2004, successfully sued Vanity Fair magazine for libel. The magazine is published in America, Polanski lives in France, and the court case was in London. Polanski gave his evidence by video link, since if he had gone to the UK there was a possibility that he would be extradited to the US.
The big difference there is that Polanski commited his crime IN The US and fled to France to avoid prosecution afterwards.
The guy in question here commited what Germany considers a crime in Austrailia, not Germany

[zooterkin]

The big difference there is that Polanski commited his crime IN The US and fled to France to avoid prosecution afterwards.
The guy in question here commited what Germany considers a crime in Austrailia, not Germany

I was referring to the libel case, with regards to jurisdictions.

The magazine is published in America, Polanski lives in France, and the court case was in London.

The detail about extradition is incidental in this instance (though it's what made the connection when I was watching the documentation about Polanski last night).

[Darat]

That's probably because something was published in the UK? And the UK libel courts work on the principle of "you made the claim you prove it".

[Ian Osborne]

That's probably because something was published in the UK? And the UK libel courts work on the principle of "you made the claim you prove it".
It's still pretty strange that the courts allowed a fugitive to give evidence by video because he feared extradition.

[Darat]

Yes - I'm just trying to find something that gives the reason for such a decision.

[zooterkin]

Yes - I'm just trying to find something that gives the reason for such a decision.

It was decided by the House of Lords (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4253457.stm), in a 3-2 majority verdict.
Lord Nicholls said: "Despite his fugitive status, a fugitive from justice is entitled to invoke the assistance of the court and its procedures in protection of his civil rights."

The fact that Mr Polanski was guilty of a serious crime and feared extradition did not take the case outside the general rule.

I think the libel case does raise some issues relevant to the Toben case (issues which are probably already well known if you are a lawyer, but I don't know the answers); what exactly constitutes 'publishing', for example. Does it make any difference where the Vanity Fair magazines were printed, for example, and whether there was a separate edition for the UK market. Did their distribution in the UK have to be 'official' in some way, or would someone taking a copy of the American magazine into the country have been enough for the case to have been brought. Some of these answers may help in establishing the principles for jurisdiction over material on the internet. Does something simply need to be viewable in a country for you to be able to take action, or does some sort of intent need to be established, or is it only actionable in the country where the material was written or hosted? Who can be held liable; the author, whoever is hosting the material on their server, the ISP of the person viewing it?

[Darat]

"Who can be held liable; the author, whoever is hosting the material on their server, the ISP of the person viewing it?"

In the UK anyone involved in the libel, so the distributor of magazine can be sued, the newsagent that sells the magazine, the ISP if its on line and so on.

[tyr_13]

Yes - I'm just trying to find something that gives the reason for such a decision.

Beer. That's the best I can come up with.

[zooterkin]

It seems the European Arrest Warrant is causing other problems (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/20/immigration-extradition-poland-lithuania-law), too.

Up to 1,000 extradition cases are expected to have been dealt with by the end of the year, more than double the number last year, and four times the number in 2006 according to figures from the City of Westminster magistrates court, which handles all extradition hearings.

The increase is largely down to the volume of European arrest warrants (EAWs), many of them issued by Poland.

[Skeptic]

Beer. That's the best I can come up with.

Well, that's as good as the numerous "Europe is decadent" rants we'll hear about it, too.