Iving to go to Jail for three years...

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

We're talking about comments made in 1989.

1989.

The supposition that this speech is being prosecuted 17 years later, or that the law exists against it, is because it might incite riots or mayhem is insane. I don't even see where the prosecution even tried to make a case that his 1989 remarks incited riots or murders or anything.

Why would they? It was not necessary for them to do so for two reasons:

Under the legislation, they did not need to prove incitement, simply that he had made the comments. Do prosecutors routinely spend time trying to prove things that our not necessary to secure a conviction?

And possibly more importantly, he pled guilty. Therefore the prosecution did not need to make a case at all.

I don't understand why the lapse of time should change the outcome - how long do you need to avoid justice to have charges dropped?

Had he shouted "fire" in a theatre 19 years ago, he would still be liable to be charged for that. This is irrespective of whether anyone was actually injured or not.

FTAOD, I think the law is wrong, but disagree with the specifics under which you are attacking it.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

What makes you think that the laws are consistent?

The European convention article quoted is, essentially, meaningless as it calls on parties to make such denial a crime unless 1) they only want to do so in cases where it is used to incite violence or 2) they don't want to.

I am not aware that anyone has ever been prosecuted for denial of any genocide other than the Holocaust.

I never lived or traveled extensively (or even briefly ) in any of the 11 European countries on record of having anti-Holocaust denial speech laws. If I read something that tells me that its just not anti-Holocaust denial speech that is being limited from free speech but all anti-genocide denial speech -- I have to go by what I read. Unless I can find proof that its not true or forged evidence ....

You say the European convention article is meaningless. Care to explain or back up that comment? The Wiki article said that its what the European courts use to explain why certain speech is limited when defendents say that they ought to have freedom of speech to deny that a genocide took place.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Shera

I never lived or traveled extensively (or even briefly ) in any of the 11 European countries on record of having anti-Holocaust denial speech laws. If I read something that tells me that its just not anti-Holocaust denial speech that is being limited from free speech but all anti-genocide denial speech -- I have to go by what I read. Unless I can find proof that its not true or forged evidence ....

You say the European convention article is meaningless. Care to explain or back up that comment? The Wiki article said that its what the European courts use to explain why certain speech is limited when defendents say that they ought to have freedom of speech to deny that a genocide took place.

Agreed - I can't find any original material outlining what the legislation actually says either (and even if I could I can't read German). And I meant to include the source for the quotation used but I forgot - it is an article from the Guardian in Nov 05 reproduced here:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-22-2005-82110.asp

On the convention article if you follow the link in your original post and then the link to the article in the actual convention, the full text reads:

"Article 6 – Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to establish the following conduct as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:

distributing or otherwise making available, through a computer system to the public, material which denies, grossly minimises, approves or justifies acts constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as defined by international law and recognised as such by final and binding decisions of the International Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, or of any other international court established by relevant international instruments and whose jurisdiction is recognised by that Party.

2 A Party may either

a require that the denial or the gross minimisation referred to in paragraph 1 of this article is committed with the intent to incite hatred, discrimination or violence against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a pretext for any of these factors, or otherwise

b reserve the right not to apply, in whole or in part, paragraph 1 of this article."

In other words the convention says you must pass laws making these things a crime.

Unless you want to only make it a crime if there is intent to incite hatred, discrimination or violence. OR

Unless you don't want to make them a crime.

Or to simplify it down even further - if any nation wants to make these illegal under domestic law it can, but it doesn't have to.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne

So how far would you go in banning books and lectures which ran against the accepted grain of history?

I would make it illegal to falsify historical evidence. Oh wait a minute, it already is.

Quote:

What else would you ban because you didn't feel it was accurate enough to be acceptable?

I would make historical documents forged with an intent to deceive a crime regardless of which era or geographic area it was suppose to belong to. Oh wait a minute, it already is.

Quote:

{skip}Irving may have falsified evidence, but that doesn't mean he doesn't believe what he's saying, and nor does it mean his perspective is automatically wrong.

That doesn't make sense. If he could find evidence to back up his version of history, logically it must mean that his version of history never existed. He was very active in creating false evidence. Per Richard Evans he:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4449948.stm

Quote:

willfully mistranslated documents, {skip} and falsified historical statistics.

Richard Evans is a professor of history at Cambridge who spent two years researching all of David Irvings writings.

Quote:

It just means he's a bad historian,

No. There's a difference between being incompetent and being a criminal. Forging historical documents is a crime.

Quote:

and should be called on it by people who can rip him a new butthole with the facts.

And that’s what happened.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

I don't understand why the lapse of time should change the outcome - how long do you need to avoid justice to have charges dropped?

Had he shouted "fire" in a theatre 19 years ago, he would still be liable to be charged for that. This is irrespective of whether anyone was actually injured or not.

FTAOD, I think the law is wrong, but disagree with the specifics under which you are attacking it.

7 years. There is no statute of limitations on murder though.

ex post facto laws are flat out illegal.

Quote:

Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses modified by Amendment XVI.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

[wolfgirl]

Some of you have tried to put a personal spin on this question, and I'm going to attempt to do the same.

I am an atheist, as I believe many others here are. We live in a country that is overwhelmingly not atheist. We are a minority here and not well liked by many of the majority. At this time, the xians have most of the power in the government. So far, this is all true.

Now let's say one day they decide that we are a danger to them and we mustn't be allowed to say what we think about religion. They make it a crime to deny that Jesus was the son of God, blah, blah, blah. Evolution is no longer allowed to be taught. After a while, with no sounds to the contrary, everyone simply knows that xianity is correct, and there is no longer anyone who denies it because they will be arrested if they do. Anyone who says that maybe there isn't something quite right about the xian religion is renounced as a crackpot.

Just because the majority, even the vast majority, thinks that something is correct, doesn't mean that those who disagree shouldn't be allowed to speak their case. What if there is even a grain of truth to what they're saying? Should they just be shut down so that history will have only one account of what happened? And that one account is dictated by the majority, who now have been given complete and total control over what anyone can learn or read or even say about that topic, so there is no chance that any dissenting opinions could ever be heard.

Sounds scary to me.

I will reiterate (before I am blasted) that I don't deny the Holocaust happened, or that millions of people (Jewish and otherwise) suffered horribly and died at the hands of the Nazis. I just think that the subject should always be open for discussion. If there are any questions about what exactly happened, those questions should never be silenced. Just like anything in history, there will always be some debate about the specifics. And that's a good thing. Having one group of people decide how history will be written is dangerous.

Everyone who questions anything to do with the Holocaust is not a Holocaust-denier, but just a curious inquisitor.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Ed

7 years. There is no statute of limitations on murder though.

ex post facto laws are flat out illegal.

7 years seems a very short period. Is that until the crime is reported or until the case is heard?

Does that mean that those involved in child abuse scandals that do not come to light until years later cannot be tried? (A quick google suggests this is indeed the case.)

How does this apply to situations like this where the accused is outside the jursidiction of the court? Provided they stay away long enough they get away with it?

ex post facto are illegal and I think would be thrown out under EU law. Other reports suggest that the laws Irving was charged under date back to 1947 so I wonder if the reference to 1992 refer to a consolidation of existing law rather than an introduction of a new offence.

[Ed]

The problem with anything other than free speech is that it might very well be turned on you, with elequent justifications and appeals for the common good and so on.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by wolfgirl

Some of you have tried to put a personal spin on this question, and I'm going to attempt to do the same.

I am an atheist, as I believe many others here are. We live in a country that is overwhelmingly not atheist. We are a minority here and not well liked by many of the majority. At this time, the xians have most of the power in the government. So far, this is all true.

Now let's say one day they decide that we are a danger to them and we mustn't be allowed to say what we think about religion. They make it a crime to deny that Jesus was the son of God, blah, blah, blah. Evolution is no longer allowed to be taught. After a while, with no sounds to the contrary, everyone simply knows that xianity is correct, and there is no longer anyone who denies it because they will be arrested if they do. Anyone who says that maybe there isn't something quite right about the xian religion is renounced as a crackpot.

Just because the majority, even the vast majority, thinks that something is correct, doesn't mean that those who disagree shouldn't be allowed to speak their case. What if there is even a grain of truth to what they're saying? Should they just be shut down so that history will have only one account of what happened? And that one account is dictated by the majority, who now have been given complete and total control over what anyone can learn or read or even say about that topic, so there is no chance that any dissenting opinions could ever be heard.

Sounds scary to me.

I will reiterate (before I am blasted) that I don't deny the Holocaust happened, or that millions of people (Jewish and otherwise) suffered horribly and died at the hands of the Nazis. I just think that the subject should always be open for discussion. If there are any questions about what exactly happened, those questions should never be silenced. Just like anything in history, there will always be some debate about the specifics. And that's a good thing. Having one group of people decide how history will be written is dangerous.

Everyone who questions anything to do with the Holocaust is not a Holocaust-denier, but just a curious inquisitor.

Good post.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

7 years seems a very short period. Is that until the crime is reported or until the case is heard?

Inditement. The govt. has to take action before then. There is a case pending now using DNA as a means of identification that hinges on exactly when the charges were filed.

Quote:

Does that mean that those involved in child abuse scandals that do not come to light until years later cannot be tried? (A quick google suggests this is indeed the case.)

Yuppsie. Big problem with these kinds of cases. I think that there are exceptions for child abuse being considered here and there.

Quote:

How does this apply to situations like this where the accused is outside the jursidiction of the court? Provided they stay away long enough they get away with it?

US law is US. That is why we are better than other countries.

If one breaks another country's law and one is silly enough to travel there, tough titties.

Quote:

ex post facto are illegal and I think would be thrown out under EU law. Other reports suggest that the laws Irving was charged under date back to 1947 so I wonder if the reference to 1992 refer to a consolidation of existing law rather than an introduction of a new offence.

Maybe. ex post facto laws are very, very scarey. Particularly if they have to do with speech. I guess we could just burn offending books if the laws change.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by Chaos

I think you make an interesting point. Irving´s works are meant to be history non-fiction books. They will one day be used as historical documents (second-hand sources). Therefore if Irving knowingly and willingly falsifies historical data, in an effort to make the most vile bunch of mass murderers that ever existed look harmless, and thus to pave the way for the next Nazi regime, and another Holocaust, he IS committing fraud

{skip}

Thanks Chaos. I was beginning to think that most people on the list were not actually reading my posts.

[Kaylee]

In regard to the Europeans laws against holocaust denial and genocide denial, perhaps they function to deal with certain gaps? For example:

*Libel laws exist for individuals but not for an entire ethnic or racial group.

*Most people who are defrauded by being sold books based not on actual historical documents but on historical documents forged by the author would probably not be in a financial position to sue him or her.

So on that basis these anti-genocide denial laws appear to pick up the gap where they are needed. The fact that 11 European countries went just a little beyond the American approach of banning hate speech just might make sense. I think laws banning genocide denial speech is very close to anti-hate speech laws.

I think the forum agrees that its an evil neccesity that some speech be limited from free speech protection. We differ where it makes sense to have that boundary fall. My opinion is that some countries may have decided to be more stringent in that area because of their history and also because of current challenges they may have with internal ethnic strife.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Shera

Thanks Chaos. I was beginning to think that most people on the list were not actually reading my posts.

? The notion is silly. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. So we are going to outlaw that which is not considered by todays conventional wisdom to be true? Really? I hope we are smarter than that.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Ed

Inditement. The govt. has to take action before then. There is a case pending now using DNA as a means of identification that hinges on exactly when the charges were filed.

The arrest warrant under which Irving was arrested was issued in November 1989 - presumably that would be sufficient action to meet the necessary time constraints?

Quote:

US law is US. That is why we are better than other countries.

If one breaks another country's law and one is silly enough to travel there, tough titties.

But presumably you can be indited in your absence? If so then you can't avoid the charge by skipping the country for long enough.

Quote:

Maybe. ex post facto laws are very, very scarey. Particularly if they have to do with speech. I guess we could just burn offending books if the laws change.

Agreed

[RandFan]

Quote:

*Most people who are defrauded by being sold books based not on actual historical documents but on historical documents forged by the author would probably not be in a financial position to sue him or her.

Been there done that. If this is a problem then narrowly craft laws to criminalize forging historical documents for financial gain. There is no need for thought police.

Quote:

So on that basis these anti-genocide denial laws appear to pick up the gap where they are needed. The fact that 11 European countries went just a little beyond the American approach of banning hate speech just might make sense. I think laws banning genocide denial speech is very close to anti-hate speech laws.

Where have we banned hate speech? I'm actively campaigning against such idiotic rules in institutions of higher learning but I didn't know of any such laws outside of academia and perhaps some workplace rules. Help me out here?

Quote:

I think the forum agrees that its an evil neccesity that some speech be limited from free speech protection.

Yes, but be damn careful what you ban. Be narrow in your focus. Prohibit only that which can cause specific harm to an individual or pose an eminent threat to life and property.

Quote:

We differ where it makes sense to have that boundary fall. My opinion is that some countries may have decided to be more stringent in that area because of their history and also because of current challenges they may have with internal ethnic strife.

Yes, so let's call out the thought police.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

He shouted "Fire!" back in 1989. That is one of the things he is being prosecuted for. That theater is empty, the movie is on DVD, and has been remade.

So, please.

And he is being prosecuted for breaking a 1992 law. Ex post facto.

Per the article Jaggy directed me to:
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-22-2005-82110.asp

Quote:

The prosecutors filed charges under the 1947 law banning Nazi revivalism, specifically a paragraph criminalising the "public denial, belittling or justification of National Socialist crimes".

"A charge was filed in relation to two speeches in 1989 in which he denied the existence of gas chambers," said Otto Schneider of the Vienna prosecutor's office. He added that the alleged offences would carry a sentence of up to 10 years' jail.

So per this report there's no ex post facto involved.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by RandFan

? The notion is silly. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible. So we are going to outlaw that which is not considered by todays conventional wisdom to be true? Really? I hope we are smarter than that.

Umm, as far as I know there is no doubt that Irving falsified historical documents.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by wolfgirl

I just think that the subject should always be open for discussion.

But Irving didn't "discuss" anything.

Unless you consider forgery, misrepresentation, and outright lying to be a form of discussion.

This was very clear in the Irving libel trial. It wasn't a trial about whether or not scholars should be permitted to study the Holocaust. It was whether or not what Irving did qualified as scholarship, or as Holocaust denial -- and the answer was very clearly, no, it wasn't scholarship.

Quote:

Everyone who questions anything to do with the Holocaust is not a Holocaust-denier, but just a curious inquisitor.

But not everyone who denies the Holocaust are curious inquisitors. In fact, very few of them are.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Shera

Umm, as far as I know there is no doubt that Irving falsified historical documents.

Except that's not what he's being imprisoned for, is it?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Ed

Inditement. The govt. has to take action before then.

And it did. The indictment happened in 1989.

Quote:

Yuppsie. Big problem with these kinds of cases. I think that there are exceptions for child abuse being considered here and there.

On the other hand, if you are actually charged, and you leave the jurisdiction, the indictment (and arrest warrant, &c) will be valid forever.

Quote:

ex post facto laws are very, very scarey.

Absolutely. Good thing this wasn't an ex post facto law, then.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by drkitten

But Irving didn't "discuss" anything.

Unless you consider forgery, misrepresentation, and outright lying to be a form of discussion.

This was very clear in the Irving libel trial. It wasn't a trial about whether or not scholars should be permitted to study the Holocaust. It was whether or not what Irving did qualified as scholarship, or as Holocaust denial -- and the answer was very clearly, no, it wasn't scholarship.



But not everyone who denies the Holocaust are curious inquisitors. In fact, very few of them are.

Speaking as a non-lawyer, surely the point of the libel trial was whether the various statements made about him were true or not.

One of those statements was that he was a holocaust denier, which was found to be true. I don't see that the libel trial would care whether he denied the holocaust based on scholarship or bigotry (although given the other statements that were found to be true it is pretty clear it was bigotry) because once it is established that he IS a holocaust denier then you cannot libel him by calling him one.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Agreed - I can't find any original material outlining what the legislation actually says either (and even if I could I can't read German). And I meant to include the source for the quotation used but I forgot - it is an article from the Guardian in Nov 05 reproduced here:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-22-2005-82110.asp

On the convention article if you follow the link in your original post and then the link to the article in the actual convention, the full text reads:

"Article 6 – Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity

1 Each Party shall adopt such legislative measures as may be necessary to establish the following conduct as criminal offences under its domestic law, when committed intentionally and without right:

distributing or otherwise making available, through a computer system to the public, material which denies, grossly minimises, approves or justifies acts constituting genocide or crimes against humanity, as defined by international law and recognised as such by final and binding decisions of the International Military Tribunal, established by the London Agreement of 8 August 1945, or of any other international court established by relevant international instruments and whose jurisdiction is recognised by that Party.

2 A Party may either

a require that the denial or the gross minimisation referred to in paragraph 1 of this article is committed with the intent to incite hatred, discrimination or violence against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as a pretext for any of these factors, or otherwise

b reserve the right not to apply, in whole or in part, paragraph 1 of this article."

In other words the convention says you must pass laws making these things a crime.

Unless you want to only make it a crime if there is intent to incite hatred, discrimination or violence. OR

Unless you don't want to make them a crime.

Or to simplify it down even further - if any nation wants to make these illegal under domestic law it can, but it doesn't have to.

The Wiki article was rewritten since I last looked at it. (That page gets revised very frequently, its amazing. ) Here is how the pertinent section reads now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Quote:

At times, Holocaust deniers seek to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, when faced with criminal sanctions against their statements or publications. The European Court of Human Rights however consistently declares their complaints inadmissible. According to Article 17 of the Convention, nothing in the Convention may be construed so as to justify acts that are aimed at destroying any of the very rights and freedoms contained therein. Invoking free speech to propagate denial of crimes against humanity is, according to the Court's case-law, contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was adopted in the first place. Reliance on free speech in such cases would thus constitute an abuse of a fundamental right.

I don't understand your comments though. (Or why Article 6 got dropped from the revised Wiki article ). Since Europeans can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, aren't the member countries agreeing to a set of the same rules. How else can they use one court?

I admit I'm getting a little tired though. I think its time for me to take a break from international law. But I'll be back! By tomorrow night if not before. </end Schwarzenegger mode>

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by RandFan

{skip} If this is a problem then narrowly craft laws to criminalize forging historical documents for financial gain.

I like that idea.

Quote:

Where have we banned hate speech?

I'll see what I can track down. I'm taking a break though, real life interferes.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Except that's not what he's being imprisoned for, is it?

Discussed in post #62.

Also, I don't think laws limiting genocide denial from free speech can be considered in a vacuum. Holocaust deniers invariably falsify documents to back up their claims. If they stuck to actual historical documents they would not be able to deny that genocide took place.

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Speaking as a non-lawyer, surely the point of the libel trial was whether the various statements made about him were true or not.

One of those statements was that he was a holocaust denier, which was found to be true.

Not quite. You're oversimplifying somewhat. The term "Holocaust denier" is not self-defining, and has a meaning rather distinct from someone simply saying "the Holocaust didn't happen."

Quote:

I don't see that the libel trial would care whether he denied the holocaust based on scholarship or bigotry (although given the other statements that were found to be true it is pretty clear it was bigotry)

But the bigotry (instead of the scholarship) aspects are a key part of what "Holocaust denier" means.

In broadest possible terms, the only reason the term "Holocaust denier" is libellous is because it implies that one cannot be a good scholar and a Holocaust denier simultaneously. This could have been one of Penguin Books' escape route -- essentially, denying that the term "Holocaust denier" is anything but a factually-neutral descriptor. Penguin could have argued that the term "Holocaust denier" is no more pejorative than calling someone a "Red Sox fan" or "left-handed."

Penguin did not make this argument, in my mind correctly. I think it's correct because there is a very well established scholarly tradition about the elements of Holocaust denial, and implicit in these elements is an aspect of bad scholarship -- sloppy at a minimum, and more likely outright false and misleading.

So Penguin proposed (and the judge accepted) that merely making statements questioning the reality of the Holocaust would not be sufficient to establish one as a "Holocaust denier." That's a key aspect of both cases -- the words don't mean what you may naively think them to mean. And in particular, Penguin was perfectly willing to stipulate that their burden of proof necessary to succeed in the case was much higher than merely meeting a literal naive interpretation.

And, as the record shows, they had no problem meeting the higher burden of proof.

Case law is fairly clear, in all the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, that Holocaust denial is not simply a case of a person holding as a reasoned opinion one that conflicts with the accepted verdict of history. Had that been the case, the Irving case would have been much, much shorter.\

Quote:

once it is established that he IS a holocaust denier then you cannot libel him by calling him one.

But that's the thing. To establish that he "is" a Holocaust denier, you need to establish much more than simply that he said "the holocaust may not have happened."

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Shera

Discussed in post #62.

You mean "dodged," not "discussed." It's a different thing, you see.

Quote:

Also, I don't think laws limiting genocide denial from free speech can be considered in a vacuum. Holocaust deniers invariably falsify documents to back up their claims. If they stuck to actual historical documents they would not be able to deny that genocide took place.

But again, forging historical documents is NOT what he's being imprisoned for. Or even *accused* of, for that matter.

He's being imprisoned for having the wrong opinion. Any way you slice, dice, or chop it, that's the crux of the matter.

[Ed]

Originally Posted by Jaggy Bunnet

The arrest warrant under which Irving was arrested was issued in November 1989 - presumably that would be sufficient action to meet the necessary time constraints?

Absolutely. You may recall there is an ancient arrest warrent out for Roman Polansky for popping an underage girl. Don't look for him at the Oscars anytime soon.

Quote:

But presumably you can be indited in your absence? If so then you can't avoid the charge by skipping the country for long enough.

There are tons of outstanding inditements where the person has skipped to a country that won't extradite. When they come home ... gotcha. Bernie Cornfeld comes to mind for some reason.

[wolfgirl]

Originally Posted by drkitten

But not everyone who denies the Holocaust are curious inquisitors. In fact, very few of them are.

If you look back, you'll see that I clearly made these two separate groups of people.

1. Holocaust-deniers - by my definition, those who deny that the Holocaust took place. And you're right, they are probably not curious inquisitors, but more likely racist, or just misinformed.

2. Those who question certain aspects of the history of the Holocaust - these I clearly said were not Holocaust-deniers (again, by my definition), but curious inquisitors. They believe (rightly or wrongly) that there are details that have not been fully explained or explored, and can't be because the very act of asking the questions is considered racist and, apparently, even illegal.

The fact that these two groups of people are often lumped together (as you did yourself) is what I have a problem with. Nobody is allowed to question ANYTHING to do with the Holocaust for fear of being labeled a crackpot or worse.

I do believe that both of these groups of people have the right, though, to voice their opinions. Let what they have to say stand up for itself (or fall down on itself, as the case may be).

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by Shera

The Wiki article was rewritten since I last looked at it. (That page gets revised very frequently, its amazing. ) Here is how the pertinent section reads now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial


I don't understand your comments though. (Or why Article 6 got dropped from the revised Wiki article ). Since Europeans can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, aren't the member countries agreeing to a set of the same rules. How else can they use one court?

I admit I'm getting a little tired though. I think its time for me to take a break from international law. But I'll be back! By tomorrow night if not before. </end Schwarzenegger mode>

Nope - each country has their own national laws. Appeals to the European court occur when one party believes the national laws conflict with European laws. As the article of the convention does not require any nation to have or not have laws against holocaust denial, then it is essentially meaningless.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally Posted by drkitten

Not quite. You're oversimplifying somewhat. The term "Holocaust denier" is not self-defining, and has a meaning rather distinct from someone simply saying "the Holocaust didn't happen."



But the bigotry (instead of the scholarship) aspects are a key part of what "Holocaust denier" means.

In broadest possible terms, the only reason the term "Holocaust denier" is libellous is because it implies that one cannot be a good scholar and a Holocaust denier simultaneously. This could have been one of Penguin Books' escape route -- essentially, denying that the term "Holocaust denier" is anything but a factually-neutral descriptor. Penguin could have argued that the term "Holocaust denier" is no more pejorative than calling someone a "Red Sox fan" or "left-handed."

Penguin did not make this argument, in my mind correctly. I think it's correct because there is a very well established scholarly tradition about the elements of Holocaust denial, and implicit in these elements is an aspect of bad scholarship -- sloppy at a minimum, and more likely outright false and misleading.

So Penguin proposed (and the judge accepted) that merely making statements questioning the reality of the Holocaust would not be sufficient to establish one as a "Holocaust denier." That's a key aspect of both cases -- the words don't mean what you may naively think them to mean. And in particular, Penguin was perfectly willing to stipulate that their burden of proof necessary to succeed in the case was much higher than merely meeting a literal naive interpretation.

And, as the record shows, they had no problem meeting the higher burden of proof.

Case law is fairly clear, in all the jurisdictions with which I am familiar, that Holocaust denial is not simply a case of a person holding as a reasoned opinion one that conflicts with the accepted verdict of history. Had that been the case, the Irving case would have been much, much shorter.\




But that's the thing. To establish that he "is" a Holocaust denier, you need to establish much more than simply that he said "the holocaust may not have happened."

Can I count this as tomorrow's new thing learned?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by wolfgirl

If you look back, you'll see that I clearly made these two separate groups of people.

No, you didn't. In fact, you are lumping them together yourself, by suggesting that the treatment appropriate to curious inquisitors must be the same as the one appropriate to (narrowly defined) Holocaust deniers. And I specifically reject your guggestion.

Quote:

The fact that these two groups of people are often lumped together (as you did yourself) is what I have a problem with. Nobody is allowed to question ANYTHING to do with the Holocaust for fear of being labeled a crackpot or worse.

Except that's not true. Well, I suppose in a limited sense it's true, since anyone can attempt to label anyone else for anything. But if you're going to start invoking rule-of-law instead of just rule-of-gossip, then the role of questioning -- and more specifically, of the treatment of evidence -- is very relevant. And fortunately, for the most part, the courts have recognized this need and have been fairly good at filling it.

See my response to Jaggy above regarding Irving's libel suit. Penguin Books (or more specifically, their author Deborah Lipschitz) called Irving a "Holocaust denier," to which he took exception and about which he filed suit. Penguin could have attempted to lump both groups, the genuine racist, anti-Semitic neo-Nazi nutcases, and the legitimate scholars, together and claimed that the term "Holocaust denial" is not actually defamatory. They did not -- and the court accepted their distinction. Penguin acknowledged a duty to distinguish genuine but controversial scholarship from the fraudulent peddling of racist lies -- and had no problem proving to the judge's satisfaction that Irving was, in fact, fraudulently peddling racist lies.

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Shera

Thanks Chaos. I was beginning to think that most people on the list were not actually reading my posts.

Yeah. Join the club.

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by Chaos

Yeah. Join the club.

Hey. All you did was say you agree with Z-N, and I acknowledged it. So back at ya!

[Chaos]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Hey. All you did was say you agree with Z-N, and I acknowledged it. So back at ya!

I am not talking about this thread specifically.

Again and again, my posts are either ignored, or, when I see the reply (especially by those who, to put it politely, are pre-disposed to disagreeing with me) I think "well, now, you didn´t read what I wrote, did you?"

[Luke T.]

In other news, Man to face charges for printing Koran on toilet paper

Quote:

BERLIN - A German businessman who printed the name of the Koran on toilet paper and offered the rolls for sale to mosques and media will face trial for disturbing the peace.

[ZeeGerman]

Since this thread has grown to a considerable size already, I'd like to add some comments without referring to particular posts.
Firstly, the law that Irving broke originates in 1947 and has to be considered in that historical context. Back then, Germany and Austria went through a process called "Entnazifizierung" (Denazification) - enforcedy the allies - which went hand in hand with the successful attempt of the (western) allies to form stable, democratic societies in these two countries. In that situation, putting holocaust denial under the protection of free speech would simply have been counterproductive at best. Unlike today, when denying the holocaust is considered a quite wacko position by the vast majority, back then it would have found quite many believers.

Secondly, the issue of free speech is not so straight forward as one might think.
In 1994 there was a ruling of the German supreme court saying that holocaust denial is

Quote:

„eine Tatsachenbehauptung, die nach ungezählten Augenzeugenberichten und Dokumenten, den Feststellungen der Gerichte in zahlreichen Strafverfahren und den Erkenntnissen der Geschichtswissenschaft erwiesen unwahr ist. Für sich genommen genießt eine Behauptung dieses Inhalts daher nicht den Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit.“

(" a statement which is, according to numerous accounts of eye wittnesses, court decisions and findings of historical science, evidently untrue and as such does not deserve the protection of free speech" - translation mine)

So, obvious lies or more generally statements that are obviously false do not fall under the protection of free speech over here.
This does not mean that I'm not allowed to proclaim that 1+1=3, it only means that this statement is not protected under the terms of free speech against constraints imposed by other laws which deal with e.g. libel, incitement etc.

The issue of libel is certainly a fuzzy one, but the idea that the victims and their decendants feel deeply offended by holocaust denial is not a hard one to grasp. So we have a conflict of interest at hand - free speech vs. respect to human dignity.
Who makes the decision for the particular case of holocaust denial?
Well, in Germany there is the "Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland" (Central Consistory of Jews in Germany) which is (inofficially) considered as THE authority regarding questions of the historical image of the holocaust, anti-semitism etc. Currently, I would say that any attempt to put holocaust denial under the protection of free speech would cause a tremendous outcry from this institution.
Would I join the outcry? Personally, no. Holocaust deniers are nut jobs and our society is in no danger to be infiltrated in any form by them, IMO. But I respect the position of the Consitory which is somewhat represenatative of the Jews in Germany. If they have a problem with holocaust denial, the law that puts it under punishment is fine with me.

Zee

[Luke T.]

Speaking of Nuremberg...

Quote:

Don't mention the war. In fact, don't imitate or make insulting reference to the war either, a German police official has warned English fans planning to attend the soccer World Cup in this summer.

"England fans should be aware that the Nazi salute and provocative behavior like goose-stepping in public will be punished," Thursday's Sun tabloid, Britain's biggest-selling daily newspaper, quoted Gerhard Hauptmannl, the Nuremberg police chief, as saying.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...897456,00.html

Quote:

Gerhard Hauptmann, police chief of Nuremberg, Germany, warning British soccer fans who might be tempted to try Basil Fawlty-style Hitler imitations or the Nazi salute at the upcoming World Cup match there:

"We are prepared to use our police powers to hold fans for up to two weeks without charge if we feel they are a threat to public safety and order. This used to be the city of the Nazi rallies but is now famous as the city of human rights."

There goes another irony meter!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/quick...-nws-qt14.html

[zenith-nadir]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Hey. All you did was say you agree with Z-N, and I acknowledged it. So back at ya!

Here's my take. My grandmother was the only survivor out of her entire family to make it out of Auschwitz. She saw her father, mother, sisters, brothers, relatives and their friends die from starvation, forced labor, torture, and medical experiments. I remember as a child the tattoo on her arm and the pain in her face when she recited the Kaddish annually in memory her family and friends. She rarely talked about her experience but she did talk. That is not a "play for emotion" but a fact.

That said, the numbers I can google say there were 200,000 Jews, approximately 140,000 Poles, about 20,000 Gypsies, 10,000 Soviet prisoners of war, and more than 10,000 prisoners of other nationalities who didn't make it out of Auschwitz. IMO to have guys like Irving profitting via his books and lectures to other fellow white supremacists and neo-Nazis denying this ever happened means he must be a committed racist. That is if you believe - as Irving does - that the holocaust was an organized vast lie involving hundreds of thousands of witnesses and millions of documents. If Irving and his ilk are willing to do this then one must think they are capable of just about anything.

Therefore I feel democracies such as Austria, France and Germany have every right to pass laws to deligitimize folks like Irving who are not "questioning" history but rewriting it to deny an act so vile that even today it seems to stretch beyond human understanding.

[ZeeGerman]

Originally Posted by Luke T.

Speaking of Nuremberg...



http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,...897456,00.html



There goes another irony meter!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/quick...-nws-qt14.html

Hmm, when it comes to Germany, anything published in the Sun should be taken with a LARGE grain of salt. They had not the slightest problem with inventing completely absurd ideas and putting it on the titlepage in the past.

That being said, the nazi salute is punishable in Germany for a long time now. That the Sun has finally figured that one out just now is truly a remarkable achievement of jounalism. It might be hard to grasp for non europeans but it does have a certain sociological and emotional justification. Before you indulge in more sarcasm from a moral high ground about our lack of freedom regarding free speech, do me the favor and explain to me the whole brouhaha about flag burning in the US, will you?

Zee

[Luke T.]

Originally Posted by ZeeGerman

Before you indulge in more sarcasm from a moral high ground about our lack of freedom regarding free speech, do me the favor and explain to me the whole brouhaha about flag burning in the US, will you?

Zee

Okay.

It pisses people off (including me, big-time), BUT...it's not illegal. And I'm glad.