Translated Italian blog Olodogma
1441 - For the lawyer. Andrea Bitetto the Einaudi Center, Holocaust denial is not fought with the Carabinieri
After the approval of the last chance law of cutthroats Zionists against freedom of expression we propose some of the politically correct articles published in the standard print; highly critical articles on the approval of such mezzuccio-gimmick that serves only to Taliban metastases of Zionism realized and his shoeshine shabbat goyim-and shamashim.
The articles are not commented upon by us, this, however, is slightly commented. We appreciate the article from a technical point of view, we dissociate ourselves completely when it strays from that field; no coincidence that at that time we entered our observations. Below the article ...
June 17, 2016 - Andrea Bitetto
(Lawyer, partner of the Centre for Documentation and Research Luigi Einaudi of Turin.)
But denial is not fought with the Carabinieri
The Chamber of Deputies finally approved the bill that introduces into Italian so-called Holocaust denial a crime. Measure that many consider not only not necessary, or unnecessary, but even dangerous.On a technical level, the introduction of the crime of Holocaust denial is done by amending the law 13 October 1975 n. 654 (Ratification and implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature in New York March 7, 1966), by inserting a new article, Article. 3a, in which the legislator intends to punish with imprisonment from 2 to 6 years all those cases in which the propaganda, incitement and incitement - already the subject of the aforementioned law - are committed so resulting real danger of spreading, and it is based "in whole or in part, on the denial of the Holocaust or the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes" as defined by the Statute of the international criminal Court (art. 6, the crime of genocide; art. 7, crimes against humanity, art. 8, war crimes), ratified by Italy with law no. 232 of 1989.
This, in terms chronicles, the news. If you switch to one of his critical examination of opposition emerge multiple reasons.
On a technical level the criminal case is characterized by a large degree of indeterminacy of the pipeline, with the 'clear and concrete risk of lacking the requirement of materiality of the pipeline, which is unfailing prerequisite for any modern criminal law and garantista.
In fact, it is not easy to identify cases that may constitute the real danger of the spread of propaganda, incitement and incitement.
In addition, the law, always on a technical level, assimilates three pipelines, in fact: the propaganda, incitement and incitement, which are objectively difficult to distinguish, but that is mainly characterized by the 'subjective element of responsible conduct.
And you should know that nothing is more difficult during the trial, to ensure that the subjective element of a crime.
Finally, the case is constructed as a dangerous crime: this choice of legal policy is not irrelevant, since the danger crimes are always a garantista perspective, the most difficult crimes to detect if only because the conduct subject to criminal it is earlier than the event.
These minimum technical and legal observations that can be advanced to a first reading. Minimum because I remain faithful to the ancient principle that sutor credidam it above and leave space to those who, by criminal lawyer, has greater sensitivity and analytical tools than me. Instead, what should be said is a different, and broader, grounds for opposition in respect of such law.
Opposition of reason that is whether to criminalize conduct relating, like it or not, the expression of thought and then to his freedom of expression. In stating this I am fully aware that, when trying to establish a principle, that undertaking is apparently even more difficult to defend when one may have to take up the defense, à la Walter Block, the indefensible. But this difficulty can not be an obstacle, indeed, it is the utility confirms the paradox.
The newly adopted law demonstrates a certain confusion of the legislature, and perhaps also its willingness to provide regulatory responses to problems or issues that should not concern.
A sort of vacuous horror before which the Legislature, chiefly the Italian, seems to fall systematically in an attempt to meet the public's sensitivity, or a part of it. Giving then constant examples of what has been defined by Fiandaca "the symbolic and expressive function of criminal standardization, "or the tendency to respond to current events or current affairs by issuing some regulatory measure. Measure which, most of the times, is not necessary, or useless. In this case, even dangerous.
As mentioned, however, the choice of the legislature is also the sad confirmation that Italy is afflicted by a daze deep and harmful. Best would say that to be afflicted are primarily politicians, who use the wrong tools or issues that need little or should affaccendare the Legislature. Unfortunately, however, up to the efficiency of a parliament will be measured by the press with the number of issued rulings, there is no hope of recovery.
Confusion is then maximum, I understand, when you have to handle various levels of courts: the historical, the political, the legal, the moral. Little would probably invoke Croce's philosophy of distinct: the mass society, and its mass culture, they soon threw in liberating sense, these antiquities storage. Nevertheless, make a historical judgment on the aberrations committed by the Nazis, fascism, communism or something satrapy Middle East, it should not take the round stamp of some criminal judgment against this or that manager. Different, too different, have the tools, the objectives, the conditions and limits of the two forms of judgment:
always open, always revisable - pace of anti-revisionists in permanent service - the historical one;
limited, conditioned by ritually and legitimately authorized and admissible evidence - to be assessed according to the strictest canon of evidence ' "beyond reasonable doubt" - the criminal.
These considerations, which seem to me even trivial enough to bleed into the realm of obviousness, must not, however, be considered as such by most. They forced me to write at least to testify that you can be proud opponents of the idiocies of a certain history - that of Irving who deny the Holocaust, or the naive minimizers of other brutalities committed in the name of history or of Justice - while remaining opposed to legislative initiatives like the one just passed by the Italian Parliament.
In little more than a generation has passed since sessantottardo "forbidden to forbid" the post-modern "no denying" with the feeling that many proponents of the first slogans liberating sit today in the ranks of the defenders of the lining of State History, that the latter uses the monopoly of force to garnish the History of monopoly. Even this apparent absurdity should not surprise us: those who have observed seriously the dynamics of any revolutionary movement, the first of Tocqueville, has always warned against the illusion of radical change, which fell often, if not always, the mere replacement of those in power, be it a class, a new form of government, a new Prince. In short, the revolution as a rhetorical tool for the occupation of the bunkers of power, primarily cultural, and retains policy.
What is worrying, and I hope to worry about the ranks of the freedom-loving, is that the Italian legislator thus proves insensitive to the very essence of what Kenneth Minogue called the cornerstone of Western culture, which is the moral freedom.
Freedom, in fact, to choose without conditions their attitude, their beliefs, expressing the latter even in public, and even when they are or minority or simply foolish and superficial.
Deny the obvious, like Holocaust deniers historians, it is a historical absurdity: at them there are the irrefutable evidence, undisputed, unequivocal in their drama. Historians deniers and squads of culturally naive nostalgic who borrow judgments for political purposes does not deserve gruesome other penalty than that of their historical and moral judgment. Sanction whose only acts should be delivered publications to libraries, acts of conferences which reaffirm what History, the serious one, she took care to teach.[To all there is a limit! So we intervene briefly asking the lawyer. Andrea Bitetto what "publications", "the conference proceedings" "that History, the serious one" delivered to teachers! We make a small example? Let's see ...
1) What does the history "that serious" on the decision to exterminate the Jews?
2) What does the history "that serious" about who would take this decision?
3) What does the history "that serious" about who was ordered to murder?
4) What does the history "that serious" when it was given such an order?
5) What does the history "that serious" to those who would be imparted?
6) What does the history "that serious" by what means? (On that alleged, and indispensable, order to exterminate the Jews see here-1 , then you see here-2 .)
7) What does the history "that serious" on the decision to create the gas chambers?
What does the history "that serious" Who would take it?
9) What does the history "that serious" about when would be taken?
10) What does the history "that serious" about 4,000,000 deaths at Auschwitz accepted as evidence at the Nuremberg trials and valid number from 1945 to 1995?
11) What does the history "that serious" about the "homicidal rooms to water vapor" attributed to the Treblinka camp and accepted as proven at the Nuremberg trials?
12) What does the history "that serious" on the practice of building "lamp shades of human skin" also recently conferred by a self-proclaimed eyewitness to Auschwitz?
13) What does the history "that serious" of 28-32 people stowed, per square meter, in the gas chambers at Belzec?
14) What does the history "that serious" about current "1,500,000" deaths attributed today to the Auschwitz camp while the official total number of inputs to the field is 1.3 million people?
15) What does the history "that serious" on hospitalization in 10% of the Auschwitz camp hospital sector fixed internees, bearing in mind that in Auschwitz there were about 70,000 (or more) inmates of which 10% is 7,000 hospitalizations FIXED ! Also admissions to long hospital stays of more than two months? ( See here-1 ) ( See here-2 )
16) What does the history "that serious" evidence of design, existence and their use, the gas chambers, are in Zyklon-B is carbon monoxide?
We stop here to not further bore the reader, but the list of NO answer questions would be very long!
How do you respond to these questions banal history "that serious"?
NOTHING! Is silent!
Or, and morally, the reaffirmation of the principles of an open society, that pluralism and freedom also to talk nonsense, as long as this nonsense do not exceed the threshold of mere manifestations of thought.
The alternative model, and to which the legislative initiative here in comments apparently undoubtedly turn, is the model of nationalization, nationalization of the historical and moral judgment, which was crystallized once and for all, in the State of truth, sealed and sanctioned in Official gazette, and in the State's conduct, the only morally acceptable in a civil forum.A state, then that becomes the same historical time and pedagogue, indisputable guardian, except for the intervention of the Republic of attorney and the Carabinieri, of what is true, historically, and just, morally. A State so sure of himself and his powers of illusion to be able to delete the superficiality, ignorance, vulgarity, by the company, as if it were a disease to be treated.
Such an attitude, or rather, such a presumption is contrary to the essence not only of the liberal tradition, but it is contrary to that concept even more extensive that we can define the Western tradition. This is based on the defense not of the opinions of many, the majority, but rather on the defense of dissent, even when this is clearly not acceptable. As long as there will be a person who disagrees with respect to all other, our civilization must defend the right of the dissenting freely assert their thoughts. Even when this is obnoxious, offensive, son of bias or direct descendant of an interested and culpable ignorance. An open and pluralistic society can and should rely on their ability to reaffirm the goodness and the merits of historical judgment and must avoid, or risk denial of herself, of trying to find fallback in typical monopoly of power of the state power.The law deals with acts and harmful behavior, but it does not deal with thoughts, no matter how offensive they may be of historical fact that no one has ever questioned or denied.
Luigi Pareyson, in his tragic philosophy of freedom remembered as "no one will seriously deny that it is better to free evil that good imposed. The fine imposed bears within itself its own negation, because it is only true good that is done freely, they can do evil; while the free evil has in itself its own corrective, which is freedom itself. " That's precisely the essence of the philosophy of freedom.
The freedom that Ronald Dworkin recognized, in the discussion on whether to sanction by law the so-called "hate speech", even the most vulgar opinions and retrive. Not because, of course, you have to share these views, but because - said Dworkin - in a democratic regime that just make the constitutive principle that each individual opinion is important (otherwise it denies the very essence of democracy in origin), can not to be allowed full freedom of expression of the individual opinion. Whatever it is. If you leave this line it is the same abandon liberal democracy.
And mind you, it seems to me that especially the latter argument the Legislature has so much realized as to arrive recently to abolish the criminalization of the offense of abuse. Insult whose protection was good, in the nineteenth century codifications, the honor and the dignity of the individual. Honor and dignity that the democratic mass society have undoubtedly also overhauled thanks to the spread of new communication models (first of all the internet and then social media) who have elevated to the rank of opinion even those who used to be destined to merely receive , and maybe misunderstand, the opinions of others.
It took note of this - because from a liberal perspective, the law follows the company and evaluated the man for what he is and not for what we want it to be - the Legislature, in balancing the two honor nineteenth conflicting goods and freedom the expression of the current times, the latter did prevail. But you know, now from experience, that the consistency of the legislator is no longer postulated, as they liked to do - wrong - the twentieth century positivists.
To conclude, therefore, it has to reiterate the reasons that were supposed to refrain from Legislator symbolic regulatory intervention, but dangerous and wrong. But especially risky, not only for its application consequences, but also because a witness of Is gone completely forget the warning of the Beckett of Murder in The Cathedral Thomas Stearns Eliot, for which the worst betrayal was represented by doing the right thing for the wrong reason.
Denying prohibited! Against Holocaust denial a crime, http://www.linkiesta.it/blogs/la-pelle- ... z2i4KuBCaD
Source: http://www.centroeinaudi.it/agenda-libe ... nieri.html