German Bundestag Election 2017 and 'Holocaust Politics'

[Moderator]

A recent article in the leftist newspaper "Die Zeit" is openly for abolishing holocaust denial laws. The article was written by the leftist editor of the newspaper Josef Joffe.

http://www.zeit.de/2018/07/holocaustges ... -zeitgeist

The motivation for writing the article are the Polish holocaust laws which seek to outlaw the statement that Poland was involved in the holocaust. However, he does talk about holocaust denial laws:

""Wie es wirklich gewesen ist", um den berühmten Ranke-Spruch aufzugreifen, kann nicht per Gesetz verfügt werden – das ist der absurde Teil. Hier müssen sich auch Belgier, Deutsche oder Franzosen an die Nase fassen, welche die Leugnung des Holocausts unter Strafe stellen."

"What really happened" - quoting the famous bon mot by Ranke - cannot be decreed by a law - this is the absurd part.... Oh well, the second sentence is really hard to translate. It effectively means that the holocaust denial laws in Belgium, Germany and France are no good.

Excellent post, Pia.
Thank you, M1

[Pia Kahn]

"Excellent post, Pia.
Thank you, M1"

Your welcome M1, I'm glad to help.

[Hektor]

A recent article in the leftist newspaper "Die Zeit" is openly for abolishing holocaust denial laws. The article was written by the leftist editor of the newspaper Josef Joffe.

http://www.zeit.de/2018/07/holocaustges ... -zeitgeist

The motivation for writing the article are the Polish holocaust laws which seek to outlaw the statement that Poland was involved in the holocaust. However, he does talk about holocaust denial laws:

""Wie es wirklich gewesen ist", um den berühmten Ranke-Spruch aufzugreifen, kann nicht per Gesetz verfügt werden – das ist der absurde Teil. Hier müssen sich auch Belgier, Deutsche oder Franzosen an die Nase fassen, welche die Leugnung des Holocausts unter Strafe stellen."

"What really happened" - quoting the famous bon mot by Ranke - cannot be decreed by a law - this is the absurd part.... Oh well, the second sentence is really hard to translate. It effectively means that the holocaust denial laws in Belgium, Germany and France are no good.

Indeed a translators, challenge: Let me try.
"It's something were Belgians, Germans and French have to pick onto their nose, which put Holocaust denial under punishment."

Essentially "Holocaust Denial Laws", become bad once they step on toes of the wrong people. And I think they realized that it was initially the persecution of Revisionist as well as suppression of freedom of speech that motivated people to investigate the matter further and become Holocaust Revisionists in the first place.

It's kind of a Nexus-shirt to them. And on other forums I've seen people pointing out in a debate, that can not debate the matter further, because they don't know whether they may violate Paragraph 130 of the penal code book. That's the one that deals with "Holocaust Denial". More specifically it is 130.3:

(3) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost.
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__130.html

You wanna give it a try translating?

Because it is actually quite tricky and fishy how they formulated it. Not sure, if it would come through to a non-German speaker immediately.

This is btw. the paragraphy they are referring to:

Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (VStGB)
§ 6 Völkermord
(1) Wer in der Absicht, eine nationale, rassische, religiöse oder ethnische Gruppe als solche ganz oder teilweise zu zerstören,
1. ein Mitglied der Gruppe tötet,
2. einem Mitglied der Gruppe schwere körperliche oder seelische Schäden, insbesondere der in § 226 des Strafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art, zufügt,
3. die Gruppe unter Lebensbedingungen stellt, die geeignet sind, ihre körperliche Zerstörung ganz oder teilweise herbeizuführen,
4. Maßregeln verhängt, die Geburten innerhalb der Gruppe verhindern sollen,
5. ein Kind der Gruppe gewaltsam in eine andere Gruppe überführt, wird mit lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe bestraft.
(2) In minder schweren Fällen des Absatzes 1 Nr. 2 bis 5 ist die Strafe Freiheitsstrafe nicht unter fünf Jahren
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/vstgb/__6.html

This is a translation from:

Article 6
Genocide
For the purpose of this Statute, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

Bear in mind that this "international law" was only introduced long AFTER WORLD WAR TWO. That means that it wasn't possible to violate it, when National Socialism was still governing in Germany! The wording also limits the applicability of the paragraph to National Socialism under exclusion of Allied mass crimes or for that matter any other crimes of that sort. That's why you can "deny Dresden" or deny extermination of Germans, Ukrainians, Balts, Tartars, Armenians or for that matter anybody else.

[Pia Kahn]

(3) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost.

This is extremely difficult to translate, because the word order is completely wacko for English speakers. In German it makes sense because the grammar tells you the relationship of the words. So this is my first attempt

"Anyone who condones, denies or plays down - in public or in a meeting - in a manner, which is capable of disturbing the public peace, a crime according to § 6 {1} of the Code of crimes against peoples {Völkerstrafgesetzbuch}, which was committed under the rule of national socialism, shall be sentenced to a fine or to imprisonment for up to 5 years."

If it doesn't make any sense to a native English speaker, then please give me your feedback.

[Pia Kahn]

I actually had a discussion with the foremost judge in criminal law in Germany about this law, Thomas Fischer. He has a blog on the website of the newspaper "die Zeit".

I pointed out to him that a deed committed under the rule of national socialism "unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung" - if that's correct English - does not mean a deed committed by the nazi state. You could say for example: Under the rule of president Roosevelt, the American people became immensely rich. Or under the rule of President Lincoln, the southern states declared secession from the USA. This is how this term is used in German.

Given the definition of genocide, if a jew living under the rule of the nazi state killed a German with the intention of killing all Germans, then this would be a genocide under Art. 6 committed under the rule of national socialism". Thus, denying this murder would be a crime.

You can imagine what happened. He said this was absurd without giving any reasons.

I pointed out to him that this law is unconstitutional for several reasons and told him the arguments. I quoted the supreme court and explained why their decision was false. He responded to me with sarcasm and by pointing out his authority. No rational response.

Then the discussion raged on about the holocaust. I told him that I was not going to publish my opinion but that I would like to point out the chemical arguments put forth by Germar Rudolf and Richard Green. So technically I didn't deny the holocaust and just presented the arguments from both sides. Then, the guy completely freaked out, called me an asshole, threatened me with prosecution and banned me from publishing on "die Zeit".

I think this is the bravest thing I have ever done in support of freedom of speech.

[Pia Kahn]

Well, a few months after our discussion Thomas Fischer posted a blog post about "Volksverhetzung", in which he asked: Should the Auschwitz lie be a criminal act?

http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitges ... ht/seite-4

This is what he wrote:

"Soll die "Auschwitzlüge" strafbar sein?
Ich meine: Im Grundsatz nein, im Zweifel nein, im Ergebnis ja. Das ist eine wahrhaft unklare Antwort, und vielleicht wird sie Sie – nach dem oben Gesagten – überraschen. Aber hier gilt, was immer gilt: Im Zweifel für die Freiheit und im Zweifel – mit Schmerzen – für die Dummheit."

His answer is:

"Should the Auschwitz lie be punishable?
In my opinion: In general No, in case of doubt no, in consequence yes. This answer is truly unclear and maybe it will surprise you following what I have said previously. But, in this case, we must stick to the rule that is always applicable: In case of doubt for freedom and in case of doubt - feeling pain - for stupidity."

You can really sense that this man is struggling with his conscience.

After stating that 99% of all deniers are liars and the liars should be punished, Mr. Fischer's posts the final sentence of his blog:

"Den einen Trottel, der ernsthaft glaubt, die Erde sei eine Scheibe, werden wir ertragen können."

"We should tolerate the exceptional fool, who truly believes that the earth is flat."

http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitges ... ht/seite-5

When I read it, I though that he was talking about me. He did not prosecute me, so I was lucky.

[Hektor]

I actually had a discussion with the foremost judge in criminal law in Germany about this law, Thomas Fischer. He has a blog on the website of the newspaper "die Zeit".

I pointed out to him that a deed committed under the rule of national socialism "unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung" - if that's correct English - does not mean a deed committed by the nazi state. You could say for example: Under the rule of president Roosevelt, the American people became immensely rich. Or under the rule of President Lincoln, the southern states declared secession from the USA. This is how this term is used in German.

Given the definition of genocide, if a jew living under the rule of the nazi state killed a German with the intention of killing all Germans, then this would be a genocide under Art. 6 committed under the rule of national socialism". Thus, denying this murder would be a crime.

You can imagine what happened. He said this was absurd without giving any reasons.

I pointed out to him that this law is unconstitutional for several reasons and told him the arguments. I quoted the supreme court and explained why their decision was false. He responded to me with sarcasm and by pointing out his authority. No rational response.

Then the discussion raged on about the holocaust. I told him that I was not going to publish my opinion but that I would like to point out the chemical arguments put forth by Germar Rudolf and Richard Green. So technically I didn't deny the holocaust and just presented the arguments from both sides. Then, the guy completely freaked out, called me an asshole, threatened me with prosecution and banned me from publishing on "die Zeit".

I think this is the bravest thing I have ever done in support of freedom of speech.

It's absurd, because that whole paragraph 130 of German penal code is absurd for a number of reasons.
It violates several legal principles enshrined in the provisional constitution the socalled "Basic Law":

- It violates the dignity of people first of not being able to publish research findings, secondly because the dignity of Germans is violated, because that legislation privileges non-Germans over German people. (article 1)
- Free development of ones person is impaired, by punishing expression of opinion and limiting access to information. (article 2)
- Given that the legislation privileges "victims of Nazi crimes" it violates equality before the law (article 3)
- Given that the Holocaust is a civic religion and the paragraph actually protects it from criticism article 4 is violated.
- Freedom of expression is violated, as well as freedom of research and teaching (article 5).

OK, it may also infringe on other rights and principles, but those are the most important. Note the emphasic on "public peace". Why would disputing the Holocaust disturb the peace? Only because the Holocaust is instrumental in keeping the Germans in check. They basically admit by implication that they Holocaust is a means of oppression and control in Germany!

[Pia Kahn]

"Note the emphasis on "public peace". Why would disputing the Holocaust disturb the peace?"

Yes, this is a huge topic. Please not that the denial does not have to actually disturb the public peace. It merely has to be capable of disturbing the public peace irrespective of whether it actually does disturb the public peace. It is completely unclear what "public peace" is and what is capable of disturbing the public peace. Please note that denial has to be performed in such as way that it is capable of disturbing the public peace. Thus, it should be possible to deny without disturbing the public peace. However, nobody knows how you are allowed to deny.

Thus, this law also contravenes against Art. 103 II GG, in particular "the principle of clarity and definiteness (of the wording of enactments)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulla_poena_sine_lege

"Nulla poena sine lege certa
There is to be no penalty without definite law. This provides that a penal statute must define the punishable conduct and the penalty with sufficient definiteness to allow citizens to foresee when a specific action would be punishable, and to conduct themselves accordingly. The rule expresses the general principle of legal certainty in matters of criminal law. It is recognised or codified in many national jurisdictions, as well as e.g. by the European Court of Justice as a "general principle of Union law".[4]"

This is a point, which Silvia Stolz makes over and over again in her talk about her trial.