Nulla poena sine lege

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
PRHL
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:38 pm
Location: 46282 Dorsten
Contact:

Nulla poena sine lege

Postby PRHL » 2 months 17 hours ago (Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:37 am)

The following is a (mainly automatic) translation of my German utterances here https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11933, so please excuse the mistakes:

Nulla poena sine lege - one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law!
See: European Convention on Human Rights, Article 7 – retroactivity

It is totally illegal and even a grave violation of fundamental human rights to punish "holocaust denial" in Germany. The term "holocaust" does not appear at all in the law, thus it is just completely impossible to punish its "denial".

Yes, yes, yes, I know: The German judge who sentenced Ernst Zündel to jail expressis verbis argued: "It is unimportant whether the holocaust happened or not, its denial is illegal, and that is all that counts in court."

However, even if you do not care about the term holocaust but only about its meaning, i.e. the ... wait! It is not defined! The law only allows punishment of certain utterances that concern *REAL* events! So in the first and absolutely necessary place it is of the highest importance, that "it" (?) *REALLY* happened, *AND THEN*, that these and only these real events are clearly defined *IN THE LAW*.

Therefore, I strongly advise that the only topic in the courtroom should be "nulla poena sine lege". In consequence it would inevitably be the only topic in all media reports. This could look like this:

*** "The defendant, despite all the friendly persuasion by the judge, only stubbornly and obstinately asserted that a) the word" Holocaust "does not appear in the Criminal Code, thus any denial process according to" nulla poena sine lege "per se is a human rights crime and b) many eyewitnesses such as Herman Rosenblat were convicted as counterfeiters and c) even a well-documented and IMT-recognized genocide such as the "Jewish soap" was officially revoked and even (by Yehuda Bauer) condemned as a Nazi invention, as a "sadistic form of psychic torture and d) even by high representatives of the Catholic Church (cf. Bishop Neuhäusler) the gassings in Dachau were denied without punishment and e) even the total number of victims of 6 million was reduced by the best known authorities (cf Geralt Reitlinger and Raul Hilberg) and on top of that, the numbers of individual concentration camps, in particular the Auschwitz memorial plaques, were repeatedly reduced. Thus, it is completely impossible to know when the fact the "Holocaust denial" is fulfilled, and thus each process is in itself a totalitarian arbitrariness, a most serious human rights crime. The defendant then refused, despite all the extremely massive judicial threats, to say anything on any subject, as long as the legal certainty of the term holocaust was not presented to him. Because the defendant undeniably proved to be incorrigible, the judge, by virtue of his office and expressly invoking the highest authority, declared all these allegations of the defendant absolutely utterly wrong. As additional evidence, the judge cited the tens of thousands of previous denial trials that were never revoked. Finally, the defendant was sentenced to ten years in prison without parole for his particularly malicious and despicable stubbornness and contempt for humanity. At the same time, a briefing on the common criminality of the denial criminal was ordered to forensic psychiatry. "***

Anyone who has not yet mutated into a do-gooder then has something to think about.



avatar
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2328
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Re: Nulla poena sine lege

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 2 months 9 hours ago (Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:23 pm)

I think if you focus too much on the legal logic of your innocence according to the law, were you ever to be arrested, that you're going to miss the boat on the big picture of "what can you do to help break the holocaust myth."

There's a holocaust court case happening right now (Monika Schaefer and brother) and it's getting little publicity.

You're right in what you've said in other posts: the myth maligns Pope Pius XII and European Catholics in general. I'd bet that 75% of Jews think that Pope Pius XII knew about the holocaust and said little as a way of letting it happen. They even level that accusation against a top New York Rabbi: Stephen Wise, so of course they're going to think that about the Pope.

Think about what you can do to break the myth. Get your presentations better. That holding of the ipad did not look good in that video. It's unreadable to the audience. You tilting your head to look at your stomach to read the upside down (to you) text looks terrible. The audio has a hiss. Get better audio via a boom mic above your head, or a Zoom mic, but out of camera view. Figure out a way to read your points on a monitor behind the camera. Think of strategy. Make some moves. Focus away from what it does to you (ego) and more about (egoless) what you can do to help.
I don't agree with Steven Anderson on many things, but notice the professionalism that a religious revisionist can do. Compare this to yours. Learn how to edit. Use two cameras. You have an interesting and cool Germanic face and there should be some close shots on your face, similar to your presentation picture on this forum. I'm not saying your video should be on this Steven Anderson professional level, but spend 3 fulltime days on professional presentations, and redo that video please. Some of the best stuff like lighting aids, are from German companies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rhGMCY ... 1531867227
Last edited by Carto's Cutlass Supreme on Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3162
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Nulla poena sine lege

Postby Hektor » 2 months 9 hours ago (Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:38 pm)

PRHL wrote:Nulla poena sine lege - one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law!
See: European Convention on Human Rights, Article 7 – retroactivity

It is totally illegal and even a grave violation of fundamental human rights to punish "holocaust denial" in Germany. The term "holocaust" does not appear at all in the law, thus it is just completely impossible to punish its "denial".

Yes, yes, yes, I know: The German judge who sentenced Ernst Zündel to jail expressis verbis argued: "It is unimportant whether the holocaust happened or not, its denial is illegal, and that is all that counts in court."

However, even if you do not care about the term holocaust but only about its meaning, i.e. the ... wait! It is not defined! The law only allows punishment of certain utterances that concern *REAL* events! So in the first and absolutely necessary place it is of the highest importance, that "it" (?) *REALLY* happened, *AND THEN*, that these and only these real events are clearly defined *IN THE LAW*.
....

They don't use the term Holocaust, true, but here is what they say in the legislation:
(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.

That means an action under National Socialist Rule that complies with § 6 Section. 1 of the Code of Crimes against International Law, which deals with genocide. They'd then say that the Holocaust is such an action and by denying it, you started violating their § 130.

Well, that there was a genocide against Jews during the National Socialist has been decided arbitrarily. It was actually Allied policy to claim that and the FRG regime simply took it over. They then will say that it was proven in court, first in Nuremberg and then through subsequent trials against "Nazi war criminals". What they'll omit is that those trials actually ASSUMED that the Holocaust took place and only tried to establish what the individual involvement of the accused was. The Nuremberg trial never proved that a genocide against the Jews took place involving the killing of 6 million Jews mostly via homicidal gas chambers. In fact there was a lot of testimony contradicting that notion (and physical evidence was never given, the imagery used showed something else and was actually a deceptive trick to make people believe in it). The "Court" simply decided to ignore that testimony (instead of debunking it).

The historian's guild simply took over the verdict(s) and socially constructed the Holocaust from it. There was never a real debate on the issue among historians though. It always was about advancing the narrative that became official. Paragraph 130:3 is making such a debate impossible, shielding the Holocaust against being disproved. Hence it isn't falsifiable and that means that it even isn't a scientific thesis, but something that people have to believe by default.

What can however be proven is that the Holocaust is based on atrocity propaganda by Allied psychological warfare divisions and several other media or civil society entities. Add to that that it is used for present political and financial purposes and you have exactly the sort of statement that "disturbs the public peace", unless you assume that German tax payers like to be defrauded based on innuendo that has its origin in atrocity propaganda that was or is directed against them.

You can further add to this that it is the mythological basis for a lot of political beliefs that are widespread or even hegemonic nowadays. And now you can understand why the issue is forced down people's throats. There is a lot at stake for present day ideological and political elites. If the Holocaust would become generally reject, they and their policies would lose their legitimacy and they can't have that, since after a regime change they'll be hold accountable. You can bet that they'd have a lot to answer for.

User avatar
PRHL
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:38 pm
Location: 46282 Dorsten
Contact:

Re: Nulla poena sine lege

Postby PRHL » 2 months 9 hours ago (Wed Aug 15, 2018 2:19 pm)

As long as it is absolutely impossible to know what genocidal action you are not allowed to deny, it is absolutely impossible to start any trial at all.
Six millions? Jewish soap? Four millions in Auschwiz? Gassings in Dachau - or Mauthausen? Lampshades? Numbers of Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek?

The list goes on, however, the law says nothing at all. So we have only the fact that noting is defined and that even the IMT cannot be taken as any source at all (see "Jeiwish soap").

Let's not waste any discussion about "freedom of speech", "freedom of science", specific investigations of Leuchter, Rudolf etc.
Just stay to the point: Nulla poena sine lege. *Any* trial is in itself a human rights crime because of total lack of content.

As a comparisson: If in the Catholic Church someone is accused of "heresy", you absolutely must first quote the dogma that he has violated.
Examples of dogmas are:
- One God
- Three persons in God
- Two natures in Christ
- Seven sacraments
In this cases, any different opinion is heretical. Use that pattern in denial trials.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3162
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Nulla poena sine lege

Postby Hektor » 2 months 6 hours ago (Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:22 pm)

PRHL wrote:As long as it is absolutely impossible to know what genocidal action you are not allowed to deny, it is absolutely impossible to start any trial at all.
Six millions? Jewish soap? Four millions in Auschwiz? Gassings in Dachau - or Mauthausen? Lampshades? Numbers of Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek?
The list goes on, however, the law says nothing at all. So we have only the fact that noting is defined and that even the IMT cannot be taken as any source at all (see "Jeiwish soap").


Indeed. The FRG legislation assumes that Article 6, which defines actions counting as genocide, was violated in NS-Germany. But that's quite vague. They don't specify in what way this was supposed to be done. It's like saying that Mike is guilty of theft without specifying what he stole from whom, when and at what place and by what means. And then the other question is how they have actually proven that. Sure, the Holocaust issue is a bit more complex than a theft case, but I think the analogy is quite clear hear.

Conventionally the Holocaust is assumed to be the genocide of the European Jews. While revisionist specifically dispute the following points:
- A plan to exterminate all the Jews by NS-Germany.
- The figure of 6 million Jewish casualty.
- The industrial style use of gas chambers.

There is more to it. Revisionists generally do not dispute:
- That Jews were stripped of German citizenship (The lawfulness of this is another matter)
- That Jews were deported into camps and ghettos.
- That Jews died during world war two due to conditions or in reprisals as well as anti-partisan action.

I think Silvia Stolz elaborated on the problem of defining genocide as well.


PRHL wrote:Let's not waste any discussion about "freedom of speech", "freedom of science", specific investigations of Leuchter, Rudolf etc.
Just stay to the point: Nulla poena sine lege. *Any* trial is in itself a human rights crime because of total lack of content.
Those are "Rechtsgueter" (lawful / legal goods) in German law. What legal good does "Holocaust denial violate?

PRHL wrote:As a comparisson: If in the Catholic Church someone is accused of "heresy", you absolutely must first quote the dogma that he has violated.
Examples of dogmas are:
- One God
- Three persons in God
- Two natures in Christ
- Seven sacraments
In this cases, any different opinion is heretical. Use that pattern in denial trials.


The equivalent in law are legal norms that can be violated. The FRG-jurists argument is that "Holocaust Denial" violates the dignity of the victims (while the dignity of the German people or of anyone accused or associate is completely ignored).

In any case, they'd still need to stipulate (with proof) what supposedly happened that is not allowed to be denied.
They don't really do that. Because in that case they'd for example have to exactly tell us how many Jews were gassed at what camp and how that was foolproof proven by scientific means. Instead they hide behind "Offenkundigkeit" (=Obviousness) of the Holocaust.

What they do is violate clearly defined legal goods of the accused, hence violating clear legal norms for the sake of something that is vaguely defined at best. The other issue is that Paragraph 130 is formulated in a way that it only protects special interests and this ain't the interest of the supposed sovereign (the German people). There is a stipulation in the Basic Law as well as a legal principle that legislation as to be applicable in general.

User avatar
PRHL
Member
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2008 12:38 pm
Location: 46282 Dorsten
Contact:

Re: Nulla poena sine lege

Postby PRHL » 1 month 4 weeks ago (Fri Aug 17, 2018 9:05 am)

Nicholas Kollerstrom, Breaking The Spell , 49:
People used to believe in bars of soap and lamp- shades made from the bodi- ly parts of Jewish victims of the gas chambers. (Visiting the International Court of Justice at The Hague I once saw such a “lampshade” on display.) Such accusations were made in detail at Nu- remberg, but started to fade away once forensic testing showed such prod- ucts to be from animal sources. The disappearance of these unthinkable-but-once-accepted horrors left many people wondering, what else was untrue?

That is the question. And that is the first - and, if unanswered, only! - question in any trial.
The current trial against the siblings Monika Schaefer und Alfred Schaefer was prepared by Alfred Schaefer with an impressive list of contradictions concerning holocaust claims ("Einwendung" - objection). And this objection, and only its first part with the holocaust contradictions, should have been read in court by the Schaefers or their defender. Important: All these examples are just public quotations of both public eyewitnesses and public media. So nobody can be charged for incitement. And after that, the trial had to be stopped until the court had a) refuted all the examples given in the objection and b) quoted the legal definition - quoting the exact law! - of what you have to believe concerning holocaust.

Alas, the Schaefer trial seems to be just a disaster as all other trials before. For days and days and days, they talk about this and that and those, and do not care at all about any legal definition. What kind of unnecessary suicide among revisionism.

User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Member
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Nulla poena sine lege

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 5 days 7 hours ago (Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:24 pm)

PRHL wrote:
In any case, they'd still need to stipulate (with proof) what supposedly happened that is not allowed to be denied.
They don't really do that. Because in that case they'd for example have to exactly tell us how many Jews were gassed at what camp and how that was foolproof proven by scientific means. Instead they hide behind "Offenkundigkeit" (=Obviousness) of the Holocaust.




Section 130
Incitement to hatred (3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.

This simply means that any act committed in Nazi Germany is not permitted to be denied. Strictly speaking, it would be criminal to say that Hitler lived in an apartment, breathed, and sat in chairs.

The alleged crimes committed by the SS were tried in the kangaroo Nuremberg trials, and would be "acts committed under the rule of National Socialism", as they are technically guilty under the law.

So denying any action which took place within Germany between January 30th, 1933 to April 30th, 1945 would be criminal.

(Webster's Dictionary 1828 )


AC'TION, noun [Latin actio. See Act.]

1. Literally, a driving; hence, the state of acting or moving; exertion of power or force, as when one body acts on another; or action is the effect of power exerted on one body by another; motion produced. Hence, action is opposed to rest. action when produced by one body on another, is mechanical; when produced by the will of living being, spontaneous or voluntary.
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1354
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Nulla poena sine lege

Postby Dresden » 5 days 7 hours ago (Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:54 pm)

JLAD Prove Me Wrong said:

"This simply means that any act committed in Nazi Germany is not permitted to be denied. Strictly speaking, it would be criminal to say that Hitler lived in an apartment, breathed, and sat in chairs"

How does that make sense? ..... I don't get it.

Why would that be criminal?
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith

User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Member
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Nulla poena sine lege

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 5 days 6 hours ago (Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:09 pm)

Dresden wrote:JLAD Prove Me Wrong said:

"This simply means that any act committed in Nazi Germany is not permitted to be denied. Strictly speaking, it would be criminal to say that Hitler lived in an apartment, breathed, and sat in chairs"

How does that make sense? ..... I don't get it.

Why would that be criminal?


See definitions.

Section 130
Incitement to hatred (3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.

Living in an apartment is an action. Breating is an action. Sitting in chairs is an action. What I said about chairs and breating is incorrect however. When I mentioned Hitler living in an apartment, he commited an action under NS rule of living in a house. To say that he lived in an apartment is a denial of this truth, and subject to punishment.

A more accurate revision would be to say that it is criminal to say that Hitler lived in an apartment, and smoked on Friday evenings.

My larger point is that this law prohibits denying any action, and these are all actions.
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3162
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Nulla poena sine lege

Postby Hektor » 5 days 3 hours ago (Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:03 pm)

JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:....
See definitions.

Section 130
Incitement to hatred (3) Whosoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or downplays an act committed under the rule of National Socialism of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding five years or a fine.

Living in an apartment is an action. Breating is an action. Sitting in chairs is an action. What I said about chairs and breating is incorrect however. When I mentioned Hitler living in an apartment, he commited an action under NS rule of living in a house. To say that he lived in an apartment is a denial of this truth, and subject to punishment.

A more accurate revision would be to say that it is criminal to say that Hitler lived in an apartment, and smoked on Friday evenings.

My larger point is that this law prohibits denying any action, and these are all actions.

There is two more requirements:
1. It has to be "of the kind indicated in section 6 (1) of the Code of International Criminal Law", which I think would mean genocide.
2. capable of disturbing the public peace.


No 1. is half the way plausible. Except that they cite an ex post facto legislation and definition and use it on something in retrospect. OK, I'd accept that this is a technicality. But wouldn't it have to be proven by feasible means that this indeed happened in the way that is "denied"? E.g. industrial style gassing in Auschwitz - What's the evidence for this. Their 'judicial notice' isn't enough for this, since it only dealt with single cases.

No 2. How does a book, research article or statement "disturb the public peace"?

Also, why this exceptionalism. Laws to be valid, have to deal with rules of a general nature. Subsequently a law would have to include other events as well. E.g. the bombing of Dresden (which has been officially minimized), mass murder of (ethnic) Germans in Eastern Europe, which is hardly ever talked about, etc.

The only explanation is that the legislation is there to protect a device that is used to have 'victors' pin a stigma on a 'vanquished' nation.
Now this has been done by the present elites in Germany (political, academic, jurisprudence, etc.). So the next question would be: Why did they do this? What is their goal with it?

User avatar
Dresden
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1354
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:38 pm

Re: Nulla poena sine lege

Postby Dresden » 4 days 23 hours ago (Wed Oct 10, 2018 9:41 pm)

JLAD said:

"What I said about chairs and breating is incorrect....."

Thank you!
Maybe, just maybe, they believe what they are telling you about the 'holocaust', but maybe, just maybe, their contempt for your intelligence and your character is beyond anything you could ever have imagined. -- Bradley Smith


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests