People are sometimes jailed for Holocaust denial.

[Usrename]

It happens.

Like earlier this year, a Canadian was extradited to Germany and convicted:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/15/zundel-germany.html

Or the British historian in 2006:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/international/europe/21austria.html

It's hardly something a ration person would call simply an academic dispute.

That is all.

[MrModerate]

1. Extraditing heads of state is a little touchier . . .

If you're referring to who I think you are . . .

[cali]

2. No. In germany it is not simply an academic dispute.

I don't agree with their laws, but it's hardly on my list of global concerns. Are there any other countries where one can be imprisoned for holocaust denial. You certainly can't here. There's more than one professor who denies the holocaust and has tenure.

[Usrename]

7. I think is more common than not in Europe.

The Brit history professor was given three years in Austria last year.

[cali]

8. David Irving, I believe. But I also believe it's

only Austria and germany.

[Usrename]

11. I don't know why, but I feel pretty sure about Scandanavia, too.

I think it's because I recall some hypocracy about the fact that they will jail someone there for Holocaust denial, but they will not jail someone for a vicious cartoon of the prophet of Islam.

But I would have to do more looking into it to be sure.

In any event, Germany and Austria are modern European countries, aren't they.

[cali]

10. It seems that 14 countries have laws against holocaust denial

from wiki:

Holocaust denial is explicitly illegal in 14 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain and Switzerland. Italy and the Netherlands have recently considered legislation but rejected such proposals in 2007 and 2006 respectively. Slovakia criminalized Holocaust denial in late 2001 but repealed the legislation in May 2005.

Many countries also have broader laws against libel or inciting racial hatred, as do a number of countries that do not specifically have laws against Holocaust denial, such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The Council of Europe's 2003 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cyber Crime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems includes an article 6 titled Denial, gross minimisation, approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity, though this does not have the status of law.

Of the countries that ban Holocaust denial, a number (Austria, Germany and Romania) were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and many of these also ban other elements associated with Nazism, such as Nazi symbols. Additionally, scholars have pointed out that countries that specifically ban Holocaust denial generally have legal systems that limit speech in other ways, such as banning hate speech. In the words of D. Guttenplan, this is a split between the "common law countries of the US, England and Wales, and former British colonies from the civil law countries of continental Europe and Scotland. In civil law countries the law is generally more proscriptive. Also under the civil law regime the judge acts more as an inquisitor, gathering and presenting evidence as well as interpreting it".<74>

Many Holocaust deniers claim their work should be protected by a universal right to free speech, and see these laws as a confirmation of their own beliefs, arguing that truth does not need to be legally enforced. However, the argument that laws punishing holocaust denial are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Declaration on Human Rights have been rejected by institutions of the Council of Europe (the European Commission of Human Rights,<75> the European Court of Human Rights<76>) and also by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.<77>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

[Usrename]

12. Aha, there you have it.

I hope we don't get arrested for talking about this. ;)

[cali]

16. Yeah, but read the whole article, particularly

about the split between countries regarding the orgins of law. And the info about other hate speech being penalized also.

[Mike03]

56. That is true

I believe Professor Kevin MacDonald of Cal State Long Beach has tenure and has authored at least a trilogy of anti-semitic works. That is my recollection from the Spring issue of the Intelligence report from the Southern Poverty Law Center. And I'm sure there are others. Not sure if he actually denies the Holocaust, but he blames Jews for everything wrong with society.

[fenriswolf]

3. since when is it illegal to

discuse what we percieve to be history? i am not denying anything but just stating isnt one of our freedoms acemdeic freedom and the right to discuss/investigate/talk about things in a manner that is not the norm? should people be executed for trying to investigate an event in history in an effort to see if the data or information was percieved or accounted for incorrectly?

[BlooInBloo]

13. LOLOL!!

[fenriswolf]

17. whats your point?

[cali]

21. Executed? Really? Where?

And just so you know, David Irving is that rare bird among deniers; a historian- and there's quite a bit of dispute about that. Most of these people have zilch in the way of academic credentials in the field.

[fenriswolf]

23. im not backing them up

but isnt freedom what we are all about? what about educational freedom?

[cali]

33. no it's not and even a cursory bit of research would

show you that zundel's prosecution seems to be totally justified. He was tried and convicted for inciting hate and for shipping illegal materials doing just that, in large quantity, to germany, from the U.S and Canada.

[fenriswolf]

37. i wasnt talking specifics,just in general

not a topic i pay attention to and don't know the specifics, just seeing if anyone on DU thought that certain topics should be taboo to research. If he was doing something illegal or hatemongering then yeah jail him, my question was is it illegal to research a topic that is sensetive like the holocaust or even now 9/11.

[cali]

41. no it's not illegal to research the holocaust in germany

at all. In fact some significant scholarship on the subject takes place in germany.

[gatorboy]

4. How do you feel about that personally?

Do you believe someone should be put in jail for making that statement?

[Usrename]

9. I just think this something that is often left out of the discussion.

What with everyone expressing their unabashed opinions about holocaust deniers and all.

I just haven't heard any mention of the criminal aspects of it discussed here.

[gatorboy]

59. Excellent dodge.

Bravo!

[Usrename]

66. I'm glad someone appreciates it.

;)

[CT_Progressive]

5. People are sometimes jailed for ramming their face into a police officers fist, too.

Anecdotal.

[Solon]

6. And that is wrong...

No one should be jailed for their beliefs, thoughts, or words, outside of direct threats, in any true democratic society, no matter how erroneous those beliefs, thoughts, or words are.

[cali]

15. here's the take from wiki

Additionally, scholars have pointed out that countries that specifically ban Holocaust denial generally have legal systems that limit speech in other ways, such as banning hate speech. In the words of D. Guttenplan, this is a split between the "common law countries of the US, England and Wales, and former British colonies from the civil law countries of continental Europe and Scotland. In civil law countries the law is generally more proscriptive. Also under the civil law regime the judge acts more as an inquisitor, gathering and presenting evidence as well as interpreting it".<74>

Many Holocaust deniers claim their work should be protected by a universal right to free speech, and see these laws as a confirmation of their own beliefs, arguing that truth does not need to be legally enforced. However, the argument that laws punishing holocaust denial are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Declaration on Human Rights have been rejected by institutions of the Council of Europe (the European Commission of Human Rights,<75> the European Court of Human Rights<76>) and also by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.<77>

[Solon]

27. My litmus test is quite simple, if I have the right to call them idiots, they have the right...

to be idiots and to let others know they are idiots. Seems simple, don't you think?

[cali]

35. actually, its not

read about zundel's prosecution. He was prosecuted for inciting hate. I wouldn't be comfortable with that here, but after having done a little researh, I understand why he was prosecuted in Germany.

[Solon]

42. I could understand it within a few decades of WWII, but such laws need to be expire sometime...

In 50 more years, or another century, it doesn't matter, but we have mountains of indisputable evidence that the Holocaust, in all its horror, happened. This is one of the best things Eisenhower did, he made sure as much of the Holocaust and its aftermath was documented. So, even when these idiots pop up in future years, we can point to the evidence and damn them figuratively if not legally.

[cali]

46. It's not just about the holocaust.

evidently a significant number of European countries allow for persecution of hate speech of many flavors, and as I said, zundel was prosecuted for incitement.

[Usrename]

49. You are making a distinction without a difference here.

Of course it is about the Holocaust.

[cali]

52. No. It's not a distinction without a difference

I gather you didn't read what I posted. Here:

Many countries also have broader laws against libel or inciting racial hatred, as do a number of countries that do not specifically have laws against Holocaust denial, such as Canada and the United Kingdom.

So yes, there are laws against holocaust denial which is considered to be speech inciting racial hatred, and there are also laws against inciting any form of racial hatred.

[Usrename]

55. So what's the difference?

If it exists, what is it?

I understand the distinction, so don't waste time going on and on about that, just try to explain to me what the meaningful difference is between the two.

[cali]

58. the difference I would guess

is the murder of 5 or 6 million Jews; the near extermination of an entire people that lies in Germany, Austria and other countries' pasts.

[Usrename]

64. You would be wrong.

If you believe that the current slaughter of innocent Arabs is different somehow, you are wrong.

[cali]

65. Oh no I wouldn't be wrong.

We're talking about why Germany and Austria and other nations who perpetrated the genocide of the Jews, have certain laws. It has zip to do with U.S. invasion of Iraq.

And if you want to get into saying that the terrible death and destruction the U.S. has committed in Iraq is the same as what happened in Nazi Germany, Poland, Austria, France, ect, you're wrong on that too, but I'm not going to get into in depth with you. It seems to me you just don't know enough to have a meaningful exchange. I will say, that terrible as the results of the U.S. invasion of Iraq is, it is NOT analogous to the Holocaust. Hint: it's not about numbers.

[fenriswolf]

20. true but its right around the corner

THOUGHT CRIMES ARE CAPITAL OFFENSE

[cali]

22. not here it's not right around the corner n/t

[Usrename]

26. Why not?

Aren't global warming deniers at least as dangerous to life and limb as the Holocaust deniers are?

[Solon]

30. And they should be confronted, not legally penalized, for their beliefs...

excepting any overt methods of fraud, such as faking documents like peer reviewed journals, etc. Even then, professional sanctions would be enough.

[Usrename]

36. I agree with you.

I'm not someone that fears other peoples boneheaded ideas. I was just questioning how anyone can be sure that this kind of law won't happen here. I'm not sure of anything lately.

[Solon]

38. It would be struck down as unconstitutional....

There are restrictions to free speech in the United States, but they are limited to speech that is percieved as a direct threat on someone's life or speech that can cause imminent bodily harm to someone, like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Any expansion of this would be overly broad and considered a violation of the First Amendment.

[fenriswolf]

51. wasnt a women jailed

for reading the constitution.

[cali]

53. got a citation for that?

[AZ Criminal JD]

40. It is called the First Amendment

Those other countries don't have it or anything like it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Oh, I don't know.

It seems to me that if an American is going to be so quick to support the German law they wouldn't be to dead set against it being here.

One either believes that freedom of speech is an inalienable human right or they don't.

[cali]

43. Like shooting fish in a barrel; catching your misrepresentations and lies

from my first post in this thread:

. No. In germany it is not simply an academic dispute.
I don't agree with their laws, but it's hardly on my list of global concerns.

Got that? I don't agree with their laws. And zundel's prosecution was for inciting racial hatred.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. Hmm.

I'm trying to reconcile this:

"I wouldn't be comfortable with that here, but after having done a little researh, I understand why he was prosecuted in Germany."

with this

"I don't agree with their laws."

[cali]

48. he=zundel. Prosecuted for INCITEMENT

really, it's not complicated for most people. I did a little research. I understand what zundel did and why he was prosecuted. try it, it might expand your.... oh, never mind.

Oh, and we should never prosecute the Klan under hate laws either, right?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. You said yourself...

"you wouldn't be comfortable here."

Which would lead one to conclude that you think over here it'd be protected speech.

[BlooInBloo]

14. Context counts. And in the context of Germany, and German history. it's reasonable.

[Usrename]

18. If you read the OP and the links, a guy was extradicted from CANADA!

What does CANADA have to do with this theory of yours?

[BlooInBloo]

19. My only interest in this thread was Germany's Holocaust denial laws...

... If you're interested in Canada's extradition laws, you'll need to find someone else to speak with, because they don't interest me in the least.

[Usrename]

24. Actually, it looks like he was just deported back to Germany..

where he was immediatly arrested at the airplane.

But their extradition laws, concerning this particular crime, would be the only thing that seems interesting to me about it.

Go figure.

[BlooInBloo]

28. It takes all kinds - heh!

[cali]

31. A lot and it's pretty fascinating too

I also think prosecuting Zundel both in Canada and Germany was justified. If you read the whole wiki article you may see why. From the wike article:

Despite having lived in Canada for over forty years prior to moving to the United States, Zündel had never been able to obtain Canadian citizenship. Applications for citizenship were rejected by the government in 1966 and again in 1994 for reasons that have never been publicly disclosed.<1> So, upon his return to Canada, he had no status in the country as he was not a citizen and as his landed immigrant status had been forfeited by his prolonged absence from the country. Upon entry into Canada, Zündel claimed refugee status in hopes of preventing his deportation to Germany. This claim elicited public ridicule, Rex Murphy, a columnist for the Globe and Mail and a well known commentator on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation wrote "If Ernst Zündel is a refugee, Daffy Duck is Albert Einstein... Some propositions are so ludicrous that they are a betrayal of common sense and human dignity if allowed a moment's oxygen."<18>

snip

German prosecutors charged Zündel on July 19, 2005, with fourteen counts of inciting racial hatred, which is punishable under German criminal law, Section 130, 2.(3) (Agitation (sedition) of the People) with up to 5 years in prison. The indictment says Zündel "denied the fate of destruction for the Jews planned by National Socialist powerholders and justified this by saying that the mass destruction in Auschwitz and Treblinka, among others, were an invention of the Jews and served the repression and blackmail of the German people."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel

But there's much more. Zundel shipped large quantities of hate literature from Canada and the U.S. to Germany. That's at the root of the prosecution.

[cali]

45. Despite having lived there for 40 years, he was not a citizen

he was deported not extradited. You know the difference, I'm sure.

[Usrename]

47. Yep.

I don't blame them for not granting him citizenship, either.

[sadiesworld]

25. I find it quite frightening, actually.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. No they're not.

Nobody's ever been jailed for holocaust denial.

[Usrename]

32. sooooooo.. Holocaust denial denial...

have to give this some more thought...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. No you don't.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

63. You surely mean in the USA, yes? -nt

[Mike03]

54. Holocaust Denial is Despicable

Sometimes I wonder if these people do it just to hurt others; they know full well the evidence for the Holocaust is unassailable, adamantine, irrefutable, but they "deny" it to cause pain, and for no other purpose. No intelligent person with any capacity to do research could seriously deny such a horrific chapter in world history.

Do you think any of them truly believe what they are saying?

Honestly, although denial of the Holocaust assaults my common sense and just about every other aspect of my though process, I have not intellectually thought through whether or not it should be a crime to deny the holocaust. These frauds hang themselves with their own words in rampant acts of self-humiliation. Maybe it should be a crime, maybe not, I just haven't thought the issue through enough to have reached a conclusion.

It is certaintly a deliberately hateful, hurtful, devastating thing. Maybe it is hate speech.

[Usrename]

57. I agree with your take on it, and that gets closer to the real point.

I don't know what these guys are thinking, or whether they believe any of it themselves or not.

The problem, at least the one that I'm having, is that I do understand there are some real questions that are being asked, and I think that there should be some real answers.

I don't believe it's always good enough to just throw out an accusation of Holocaust denier in response to some of the questions.

[cali]

61. what are the real questions being asked by holocaust deniers

I can't think of a single one. There are legitimate revisions of holocaust history all the time. They aren't being done by holocaust deniers. but really, I'm curious what do you think are the real questions being asked.

[Usrename]

62. Well, since you ask it like that, I'll have to agree.

No real questions are being asked by Holocaust deniers.

[cali]

60. well said. It is also done not just to cause pain

but to incite hate. Reading about zundel's case made it clear that such was his intent.