Should the UK extradite Holocaust denier?

[Matthew Best]

Adelaide Institute founder(?) Gerald Toben has been arrested in England en route from USA to Dubai on an extradition warrant from Germany for holocaust denial.

Should the UK extradite people for crimes which are not against the law in the UK?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7652274.stm

[phantomb]

Is the UK subject to any specific extradition treaty with Germany through the EU or not?

[ChrisH]

We should not be prepared to extradite someone on the strength of what he believes, however repellent his belief may be. We don't have 'thought police' in the UK. Yet...

[Carnivore]

Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. If Dr Toben had commited this crime in Germany then fled to Britain ahead of the police, certainly he should be extradited.

However, this is not what happened in this case. Germany wants to prosecute someone who is not German and commited no crimes in Germany. They want to prosecute an Australian for posting stuff on the Internet that the German government doesnt like, and they have had him arrested in Britain, by British police. Toben has been arrested for something which is not a crime in his home country, the country he was travelling from, the country he was travelling to, or the country he was arrested in. In most western countries his views, however misguided or repellent, would be regarded as protected under rights guaranteeing freedom of speech.

Why does Germany get to take away an Australian's legal rights? What other countries get to play this game? I have posted stuff on the internet quite critical of religion, should a theocratic government like Iran be able to extradite me for blasphemy?

The OPs article mentions that Belgium flouts extradition rules when Poland requests persons be extradited on murder charges related to abortion. In this instance Britain should likewise tell Germany to take a running jump.

[e-sabbath]

Distasteful as this guy is, freaking a-men to what Carnivore said.

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by ChrisH

We should not be prepared to extradite someone on the strength of what he believes, however repellent his belief may be. We don't have 'thought police' in the UK. Yet...

Since this is not the case at all, that's all rather irrelevant.

[geni]

Originally Posted by phantomb

Is the UK subject to any specific extradition treaty with Germany through the EU or not?

It is but we can make exceptions as we should do so in this case.

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by Carnivore

Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. If Dr Toben had commited this crime in Germany then fled to Britain ahead of the police, certainly he should be extradited.

I cannot agree with this. To hold and express what beliefs one will is one of the most basic and vital of all human rights. Germany is simply wrong to so blatantly attempt to violate this right, and any other nation that in any way helps them to commit such violations is wrong to do so.

Any nation that wishes to maintain any credible claim to support rights of free thought and expression is obligated to protect any within its borders who are in danger of persecution for exercising this right. Under no circumstances should any civilized nation extradite persons from within its borders to another nation that has expressed an intention to prosecute someone for exercising this right.

[Carnivore]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

I cannot agree with this. To hold and express what beliefs one will is one of the most basic and vital of all human rights. Germany is simply wrong to so blatantly attempt to violate this right, and any other nation that in any way helps them to commit such violations is wrong to do so.

I basically agree with you, yet I can understand Germany's position on the single specific issue of Holocaust denial. The period of Nazi rule in Germany lead to a truly global tragedy, and the Holocaust occupies a unique position in modern history. Those people who seek to deny or downplay the Holocaust are almost always seeking to downplay or deny the horror of Germany's involvement and the evil of it's leaders. I can understand modern Germany's absolute intolerence of the glorification of Nazism, the knee jerk "Never again!" attitude. The fact is that Holocaust deniers who travel to Germany are aware of German law and are usually not seeking to highlight the lack of freedom of speech surrounding this single issue in Germany. They really are trying to rehabilitate the Nazis, to convince modern audiences that Nazi rule and Nazi ideas maybe werent so bad, that maybe they deserve another try.

Like I say, I dont agree with Germany's position on this issue, but I'm not going to hassle them too much about it either.

Quote:

Any nation that wishes to maintain any credible claim to support rights of free thought and expression is obligated to protect any within its borders who are in danger of persecution for exercising this right. Under no circumstances should any civilized nation extradite persons from within its borders to another nation that has expressed an intention to prosecute someone for exercising this right.

Here I agree completely.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Adelaide Institute founder(?) Gerald Toben has been arrested in England en route from USA to Dubai on an extradition warrant from Germany for holocaust denial.

Should the UK extradite people for crimes which are not against the law in the UK?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7652274.stm

Well in the USA we have freedom of speech even if what is said is patently absurd. Why get in legal trouble for saying something even if it is stupid?

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by Carnivore

I basically agree with you, yet I can understand Germany's position on the single specific issue of Holocaust denial. … I can understand modern Germany's absolute intolerence of the glorification of Nazism, the knee jerk "Never again!" attitude.
·
·
·
Like I say, I dont agree with Germany's position on this issue, but I'm not going to hassle them too much about it either

Ultimately, it's their country, to run as they will, but I don't think they deserve a pass on this. What it all boils down to is that they are trying to distance themselves from a past regime that was most noted for horrendous violations of basic human rights, by committing (admittedly less) horrendous violations of basic human rights. If anything this only shows that they are not as far from Naziism as they wish to claim. Their position is hypocritical at best, and they deserve to be hassled for it.

[Matthew Best]

There were a few things I wasn't sure about from the BBC article. It says he has been convicted in Germany already of denying the mass murder of Jews in the Holocaust. Is it this offence (for which he's already been convicted) that he's being extradited for? That would put at least a slightly different slant on the matter - as it would imply that he has committed an offence in Germany, rather than just on the internet.

If Carnivore's take on the story is correct then I would agree with him, but I am not sure of the facts in the case - not too surprising when relying on mainstream press I suppose.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Carnivore

Why does Germany get to take away an Australian's legal rights? What other countries get to play this game? I have posted stuff on the internet quite critical of religion, should a theocratic government like Iran be able to extradite me for blasphemy?

The OPs article mentions that Belgium flouts extradition rules when Poland requests persons be extradited on murder charges related to abortion. In this instance Britain should likewise tell Germany to take a running jump.

I don't think it makes a lot of difference, but according to the BBC story, Dr Toben was born in Germany. Do we know when he gained Australian citizenship? He has been imprisoned in Germany previously for a similar offence.

It seems to be a general problem of the extradition agreement that came into effect in 2004 that someone can be extradited for something which is not a crime in the country where they have been detained. This case has the additional complication that it's not clear that the act itself was committed in the country where it is a crime either; i.e. the conviction itself seems unsound.

The reason I raised the question about the date of Toben's naturalisation is that I think I've read that Americans are covered by US law whereever they are; i.e. they can be charged with at least some things that are legal in the country they do them in, and I wondered if perhaps something similar might apply in this case. However, I think it would have been mentioned if that was relevant.

[Matthew Best]

Quote:

Americans are covered by US law whereever they are

That can't be true - otherwise just about every American under 30 would be arrested on returning from Amsterdam!

[Gurdur]

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

Ultimately, it's their country, to run as they will, but I don't think they deserve a pass on this.

Fine, don't give them a pass then.

OK, what happens now?

Quote:

What it all boils down to is that they are trying to distance themselves from a past regime that was most noted for horrendous violations of basic human rights, by committing (admittedly less) horrendous violations of basic human rights. If anything this only shows that they are not as far from Naziism as they wish to claim.

Dude, you just Godwined yourself. Hyperbole plus!

Quote:

Their position is hypocritical at best, and they deserve to be hassled for it.

Oooooer. That sounds ever so masculine. Do let us know the results of your hassling of them. I'm sure we all look forward to the report.

[Bob Blaylock]

Originally Posted by Gurdur

Originally Posted by Bob Blaylock

If anything this only shows that they are not as far from Naziism as they wish to claim.

Dude, you just Godwined yourself. Hyperbole plus!

I don't think Godwin's Law was meant to apply to discussions that were about Naziism in the first place. In this case, we're talking about the country that was the home of Naziism, that is now ashamed of its Nazi past, and is trying to distance itself from Naziism by acting like Nazis.

[Gazpacho]

I'm all for Holocaust denial laws for people living in former Third Reich countries. On the other hand, if the German government allows open networks, it gets the consequences.

Although Zundel was prosecuted for publishing material in Canada and distributing it in Germany, his case was slightly different. The Canadian government decided under Canadian law that he wasn't welcome, and sent him back whence he came.

[lionking]

Personally I don't think so.

Extraditing someone for material published on a website would create a huge precedent for Britain. It is illegal to denigrate Islam in a number of countries, so if someone publishes an attack on Islam on a website would Britain extradite that person to Iran? I wouldn't think so. (I know Iran is not part of the EU, but the principle is the same).

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Carnivore

In this instance Britain should likewise tell Germany to take a running jump.

Agreed.

[Gazpacho]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Well in the USA we have freedom of speech even if what is said is patently absurd. Why get in legal trouble for saying something even if it is stupid?

It's not just "stupidity." It's an ideology.

[Zelenius]

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.

[Gazpacho]

Originally Posted by Zelenius

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.

Only murder?! What about calling for vandalism, arson, beatings, boycotts or quotas?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

That can't be true - otherwise just about every American under 30 would be arrested on returning from Amsterdam!

Actually, it appears what I said is true. Certain US laws do apply to Americans regardless of where they are. Just a couple of examples:

Under the Protect Act of 2003, United States citizens or residents who engage in illicit sexual activity abroad can face 30 years in a U.S. prison, even if that activity is legal in the country in which it occurs.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to Americans working for American companies, and even American-controlled foreign employers, in other countries.

[Oliver]

Answering the OP: Yes, the UK should.

Call me a conservative, I like the laws over here - if someone disagrees: piss off, liberal scum!

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Answering the OP: Yes, the UK should.

Call me a conservative, I like the laws over here - if someone disagrees: piss off, liberal scum!

Perhaps you can add something useful to the discussion. How does Germany claim jurisdiction over something posted in a foreign country by a foreign national?

Do you also know when Dr Toben became a naturalised Australian?

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Call me a conservative, I like the laws over here - if someone disagrees: piss off, liberal scum!

What the hell does that even mean?

Are you equating holocaust deniers with liberals?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

What the hell does that even mean?

Are you equating holocaust deniers with liberals?

Huh? Do you have to be a Holocaust Denier to dislike the Laws in Germany?

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

What the hell does that even mean?

Are you equating holocaust deniers with liberals?

What it means, apparently, is that if you viloate the laws of Germany, you have to leave the planet, since they can apparently enforce their laws on anybody, anywhere. I'm waiting for them to show up and toss me in the pokey for modeling a BF-109 with full WW II German markings--including that illegal-in-Germany Swashtika...
And I said something bad about Islam the other day, and about the Pope, so I'll fortify my domicile against the hordes of Swiss Guards and whatever cops the Various Islamic nations send after me...

[ravdin]

As much as I understand the "never again" attitude, I can't help but think of a certain failed artist who started giving speeches in beer halls in Munich in the 1920s. A lot of tragedy could have been averted if they had just laughed at him and pelted him with rotten vegetables- but unfortunately he was taken seriously enough that the authorities put him in jail. He wrote a lousy book there, and well, you know the rest.

I'm confident the truth is on our side, not the Holocaust deniers. Let their filthy books see the light of day, so they can be subject to the public ridicule they deserve. We have nothing to fear from them.

[Cavemonster]

I disagree ravdin.
George W. was subject to intense ridicule over the course of his first term and he still got reelected. Right now the republican ticket includes perhaps THE most ridiculous VP candidate in US history, yet the race is close.

I don't have faith in humanity to reject dangerous ideas in the open idea market. Just like I don't have faith in people to reject junk food in the nutritional market.

[ravdin]

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I disagree ravdin.
George W. was subject to intense ridicule over the course of his first term and he still got reelected. Right now the republican ticket includes perhaps THE most ridiculous VP candidate in US history, yet the race is close.

I don't have faith in humanity to reject dangerous ideas in the open idea market. Just like I don't have faith in people to reject junk food in the nutritional market.

I'm not sure where to start.

1. Are you comparing George W. Bush to Holocaust deniers? I'm no fan of his, but the comparison is just loony. Seriously.

2. If GWB is too dangerous to be our president, then how do you suggest we appoint our leaders?

3. As for your junk food analogy- when people have a variety of options, sometimes they make poor choices. It's a real shame when that happens. But I still think it's a better system than taking all choices away in favor of what smart guys such as yourself think is best for everyone.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by ravdin

I'm not sure where to start.

1. Are you comparing George W. Bush to Holocaust deniers? I'm no fan of his, but the comparison is just loony. Seriously.

2. If GWB is too dangerous to be our president, then how do you suggest we appoint our leaders?

3. As for your junk food analogy- when people have a variety of options, sometimes they make poor choices. It's a real shame when that happens. But I still think it's a better system than taking all choices away in favor of what smart guys such as yourself think is best for everyone.

I guess Cavemonster meant that People will follow the stupidest
kind of people - who COULD be Holocaust Denier or even worse.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time to waste any energy on Holocaust
truthers - therefore I'm glad Germany has a special place for those
ignorant Nuts.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Oliver

Personally, I think it's a waste of time to waste any energy on Holocaust
truthers - therefore I'm glad Germany has a special place for those
ignorant Nuts.

The point of the thread is not what Germany chooses to enforce within its own boundaries, but the fact that it presumes to enforce those laws on citizens of other countries outside of the boundaries. Care to comment on that?

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

The point of the thread is not what Germany chooses to enforce within its own boundaries, but the fact that it presumes to enforce those laws on citizens of other countries outside of the boundaries. Care to comment on that?

Yep. Since Europe and the UK have treaties regarding extradition of
people who actually broke the law in one of the EU countries, and
therefore in strong contrast to the CIA simply kidnapping people, it's
obviously legitimate what the UK did.

I doubt that they would extradite him if it would violate international
or domestic law. And I doubt that Germany would do such a request
if it would be against treaties in the first place.

Quite simple, isn't it?

[Roadtoad]

This whole thing just creeps me out.

I don't know the whole story, but I can say I agree with Bob B., that this sets a very dangerous precedent.

It's even scarier when you realize that Britain is allowing parity for Sharia Law.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Oliver

.

Quite simple, isn't it?

I thought it was, but you've answered a different question than I'm asking, and seem to be talking about things which have not actually happened yet.

Quote:

Yep. Since Europe and the UK have treaties regarding extradition of
people who actually broke the law in one of the EU countries, and
therefore in strong contrast to the CIA simply kidnapping people, it's
obviously legitimate what the UK did.

Well, the UK hasn't actually done anything yet, except hold Dr Toben, it's under review whether to deport him.

Quote:

I doubt that they would extradite him if it would violate international
or domestic law. And I doubt that Germany would do such a request
if it would be against treaties in the first place

What about the fact that Germany appears to be making something illegal that is happening outside Germany and is done by non-German nationals?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

I don't know the whole story, but I can say I agree with Bob B., that this sets a very dangerous precedent.

The whole extradition treaty strikes me as bad, and is I think due to the way it was rushed through. I hope there is some will to sort it out.

The really worrying thing is the apparent attempt by Germany to impose its laws on citizens of other countries; in conjunction with the extradition treaty that is pretty scary.

Quote:

It's even scarier when you realize that Britain is allowing parity for Sharia Law.

I fail to see any connection. Are you worried by the fact that Jewish law has a similar status in the UK?

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

I fail to see any connection. Are you worried by the fact that Jewish law has a similar status in the UK?

Yes.

[Oliver]

You don't get the simple point here, zooterkin:

If you rob a Bank in the UK and got arrested in Germany, Germany
will send you to the UK to face the consequences of the crime you did.

Töben is the same thing, other crime:

Quote:

Tina Whybraw, for the Crown, on behalf of the German authorities, said that he was accused of committing the offences in Australia, Germany and other countries.

He spent seven months in a German prison in 1999 awaiting trial for charges under Holocaust law which forbids incitement and “insulting the memory of the dead”. He was found guilty and sentenced to ten months’ jail but released a day later when a supporter posted bail, and fled the country. *snip*


Dr Toben also faces jail in Australia for breaching a Federal Court order in 2002 to remove material that it found “vilified Jewish people”. *snip*

In 2006 Dr Toben was among academics who attended a conference entitled “Review of the Holocaust: global vision” held by President Ahmadinejad of Iran. *snip*

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4861271.ece

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Oliver

You don't get the simple point here, zooterkin:

If you rob a Bank in the UK and got arrested in Germany, Germany
will send you to the UK to face the consequences of the crime you did.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that particular example.

Quote:

Töben is the same thing, other crime:

A crime which is not a crime in the UK or most other countries, unlike bank robbery.

Regarding the quote, are you saying it's for the earlier offence, for which Töben skipped bail, that his extradition has been sought? If so, then it's not at all clear from the stories I've seen. Why is what he did in Australia after he changed nationality even being mentioned?

ETA: If it is for the earlier offence, committed in Germany, for which he was sentenced to 10 months in prison, then that's a lot more understandable (though it still has the complication of being something which is not illegal in the UK). Given he has spent 7 months in prison, how much more time would he be liable to serve, anyway?