The Nuremberg judgement was laid down in 1946, but this Gayssot Act relates merely to the category of crime to be used: surely Revisionists must welcome the category of Crimes against Humanity – and hope the Bush and Blair get prosecuted for it – they in no way need to doubt or ‘contest’ that category, through whatever process of historical enquiry they are led.
Its Article 9 states that people will be punished:
qui auront contesté… l'existence d'un ou plusieurs crimes contre l'humanité tels qu'ils sont définis par l'article 6 du statut du tribunal militaire international annexé à l'accord de Londres du 8 août 1945
http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTex ... rieLien=id
I’m not agreeing with Faurisson that:
'It [the Gayssot Act] provides for a prison sentence of up to a year as well as a maximum fine of €45,000 for anyone who publicly disputes the reality of one or more “crimes against humanity” as defined and ruled on, essentially, by the International Military Tribunal of Nuremberg in 1945-1946.'
http://robertfaurisson.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... t-law.html
Were that the case, then it would indeed clobber any Revisionist. It would be more or less just as bad as the German law. If it were a crime to question the judgement of Nuremberg (1946) then all French Revisionists would be in deep S***. However, this is not the case.
I’m not agreeing with Wikipedia that the Act
'makes it an offense in France to question the existence or size of the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945,' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayssot_Act
There is nothing about questioning ‘size’ of crimes against humanity, the law pertains merely to the several categories of crime - ‘size’ would have no meaning in this context.
NB, Article 6 of the London Charter defined the crimes on which basis the Nuremberg trials were to be held:
http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/v ... 3ae6b39614
but does not suggest that anyone is guilty of those crimes.