French Gayssot Act

[astro3]

Kingfisher on the Gayssot Act:

“The law therefore forbids disputing the decision of any French or international court where these specific crimes are concerned.

No excuse me, that 1945 Nuremberg document (Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945) is NOT about specific crimes, that is my whole point – its only about the three new categories of crime that were brewed up, viz.
Crimes against Peace , War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity

For example, the third of these is defined as:

Crimes against humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/v ... 3ae6b39614

NB I didn’t give a paraphrase of the Gayssot Act I gave an exact translation.

It’s important we use CLEAR LOGIC here, so let me state the issue most generally.
The Gayssot Act attempted to define a new kind of the offence: it declared that any person would be punished if they
disputed … the existence of one or more crimes against humanity – then, these new crimes are defined, in quite general terms.
That is NOT the same as disputing the perpetration of such acts in a specific historical frame. If I ‘dispute’ whether the Nazis gassed six million jews, I am NOT disputing the ‘existence’ of any of the three crimes against humanity as alluded to in the Gayssot Act.

Kingfisher adds: “It seems to be implied, but no more, that decisions of the IMT are covered, in anticipation, by the Charter.”
Legal judgements hinge upon words used. They are about words written down. It may have been intended that the ‘decisions of the IMT’ should be ‘covered in anticipation’ by the Charter – all I am saying, is that there is absolutely no need for any French court to give it that meaning. The Gayssot Act does not allude to the ‘decisions of the IMT.’
Q.E.D.

[Kingfisher]

astro3

I don't think you translated more than half a line. You quoted a line and a half in the original French.

By "crime" I didn't mean a specific criminal action but a "crime" in the sense that murder, rape and burglary are crimes, i.e. the three new crimes defined Crimes against Peace , War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity. I understand that you may have interpreted it differently but that was what I intended. The "crimes" in this sense were defined by the London Charter.

Shall be punished under the the penalties provided for in the sixth paragraph of Article 24 any who shall have disputed by one of the means set forth in Article 23 [of an 1881 act on freedom of the press -Kingfisher], the existence of one or more crimes against humanity as defined by Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal appended to the London Agreement of 8 August 1945 and have been committed either by the members of an organization declared criminal under Article 9 of the said Charter, or by a person convicted of such crimes by a French or international court.

The crimes may be defined in general terms but Gayssot specifically forbids questioning instances of the crimes defined under the Charter when a conviction has been obtained in a French or International court, or if committed by a member of an "organization declared criminal under Article 9 of the said Charter". So this includes rulings of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, and the SS trials in Germany.

The London Charter defines the crimes, but the courts rule whether a particular instance constituted one of these crimes, unless the accused was a member of an organisation deemed criminal, which was to cover the SS, in which case membership alone appears to be enough.

[astro3]

Here are five Universal declarations enshrining the right of freedom of speech and opinion - it seems puzzling that a national law can just override them.

1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 71:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

1953: European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Article 10:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises."
Restrictions on this apply “for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others...”

1966: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19:
“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression: this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

1976: European Court of Human Rights
Ideas that offend, shock, or disturb the State or part of the population are deemed to have the full protection under freedom of speech. It considers that any limitation of this freedom must correspond to an “imperative social need,” affirming this in the landmark case of Handyside:
“Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of [a democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10... it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society.’”
This “Handside paradigm” means that a democracy is required to protect the right to express minority opinions. But such a right to freedom of expression is not absolute, as indicated by section 2 of Article 10 of the European Convention.

2011: UN Human Rights Committee
"Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events. Restrictions on the right of freedom of opinion should never be imposed and, with regard to freedom of expression, they should not go beyond what is permitted in paragraph 3 or required under article 20. "
(Well-found, Ivam!) http://www.ccprcentre.org/wp-content/up ... _Vol.I.pdf

[hermod]

Here are five Universal declarations enshrining the right of freedom of speech and opinion - it seems puzzling that a national law can just override them.

1953: European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Article 10:
“Restrictions on this apply “for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of or morals...”

1976: European Court of Human Rights
But such a right to freedom of expression is not absolute, as indicated by section 2 of Article 10 of the European Convention.

2011: UN Human Rights Committee
" Restrictions on the right of freedom of opinion should not go beyond what is required under article 20. "

As those declarations state, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute and it doesn't protect the right to express dangerous opinions and facts. Nothing easier than labelling "Holocaust denial" a bunch of hazardous lies threatening democracies and human rights because of a potential rehabilitation of Nazism. That's what courts and committees of human rights do. And that's why the laws against "Holocaust denial" will spread and touch more and more countries during the future years and decades...

[borjastick]

Precisely and why jewish control freaks in the US, like Feinstein want more controls on the internet. It is the internet that has undone the holocaust myths and exposed the lies of the Zionist money baggers. Control what we can read and say on the web and you have further control on anything you don't want the masses to know.

[astro3]

Faurisson sued the French government over the Gayssot Act, and lost. The UN repeated the French government's point of view that denying the Holocaust amounts to an impermissible "principal vehicle of anti-semitism", that anti-denial laws "served the respect of the Jewish community to live free from fear of an atmosphere of anti-semitism," and that Holocaust revisionism is therefore NOT covered by the right to freedom of speech.

Here is Faurisson's submission:
http://www.bayefsky.com/pdf/128_francevws55058.pdf, para 2.3:

On 13 July 1990, the French legislature passed the so-called "Gayssot Act", which
amends the law on the Freedom of the Press of 1881 by adding an article 24 bis; the latter
makes it an offence to contest the existence of the category of crimes against humanity as
defined in the London Charter of 8 August 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were
tried and convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. The
author submits that, in essence, the "Gayssot Act" promotes the Nuremberg trial and
judgment to the status of dogma, by imposing criminal sanctions on those who dare to
challenge its findings and premises.

I have the temerity to disagree with Faurrisson on this matter - It in no way promotes the judgement of the Nuremberg trial to the status of dogma.
It might have been intended to do that, but it doesn't.

Faurisson's appeal spends quite a while defending himself on the grounds that his claims were true (comparing himself with Galileo, etc) - this is a complete mistake, it will only irritate the judge. I urge any revisionist on trial to say nothing about the veracity of his statements, but purely to summon witnesses and demand evidence be rpovided concerning anti-semitism and disturbance of the peace, those are the key issues.





see page 14, points 9.6 and 9.7

[Kingfisher]

Faurisson's appeal spends quite a while defending himself on the grounds that his claims were true (comparing himself with Galileo, etc) - this is a complete mistake, it will only irritate the judge. I urge any revisionist on trial to say nothing about the veracity of his statements, but purely to summon witnesses and demand evidence be rpovided concerning anti-semitism and disturbance of the peace, those are the key issues.

I think that is sound advice, though I doubt if even that would work, but it has a better chance. If they have decided to ban "Holocaust Denial" they will reassert this baseless claim and there is nothing you can do about it. Nevertheless it is the only line of attack, in court at least.

[hermod]

Faurisson's appeal spends quite a while defending himself on the grounds that his claims were true (comparing himself with Galileo, etc) - this is a complete mistake, it will only irritate the judge. I urge any revisionist on trial to say nothing about the veracity of his statements, but purely to summon witnesses and demand evidence be rpovided concerning anti-semitism and disturbance of the peace, those are the key issues.

I think that is sound advice, though I doubt if even that would work, but it has a better chance. If they have decided to ban "Holocaust Denial" they will reassert this baseless claim and there is nothing you can do about it. Nevertheless it is the only line of attack, in court at least.

I agree with you, Kingfisher. They will always assert that anti-Jewish pogroms were avoided thanks to their bans of "Holocaust denial". There is no way to counter that. It's like with the post-9/11 measures in America. They can assert that no terrorist attack took place on the U.S. soil thanks to their measures and there's no way to know what would have happened without those measures.

If they have decided to assert that "Holocaust denial" is "one of the most severe forms of racial defamation and of incitement to hatred of Jews" and it threatens Jewish lives and human rights, there is no way to prove them wrong.

That's a vicious circle. "Holocaust denial" can show that National Socialist Germany was not evil, but "Holocaust denial" can't make it widely known because it's banned (even in countries where there are no laws against "Holocaust denial") and it is depicted as a rehabilitation of something evil. Most people agree with "Holocaust denial" being banned because they feel threatened by National Socialism and "Holocaust denial". They fail to understand that it's impossible for them to know if National Socialism is a real threat when the victors' version is the only one allowed to be told and heard. "Holocaust denial" would in fact enable them to examine both versions and to know if they're right to be afraid of National Socialism and "Holocaust denial", but most of them are too afraid to dare go into that or too stupid to realize that. So they just continue to swallow the victors' atrocity propaganda days after days without questioning it. For their own safety. A kind of Pascal's Wager...

[astro3]

Coming back to the 2011 UN document found by Ivam, it has a footnote after

"49. Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression

Which says:

So called “memory-laws”, see communication No. 550/93, Faurisson v. France.

http://www.ccprcentre.org/wp-content/up ... _Vol.I.pdf p.257, para 49.

In other words, this UN statement is denying the legitimacy of “Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts” – and here alludes to the Faurisson case!

What matters now, is whether this ‘UN Report of the Human Rights Committee CCPR Centre 2011’ has been signed and ratified by member states. For anyone being prosecuted for H-D, I believe a UN Resolution can only be appealed to if the national government has thus approved of it. Can anyone find out about this?

In the meantime we can all agree with Ivam that:

With this as the latest ruling from the human rights council, any law that prohibits free speech about the holocaust is definitely a violation to human rights.

[Kingfisher]

From
Robert Faurisson v. France, Communication No. 550/1993 , U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993(1996).

ANNEX

Views of the Human Rights Committee under article 5,

paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

- Fifty-eighth session -

concerning

* Communication No. 550/1993 * **

9. The Gayssot Act is phrased in the widest language and would seem to prohibit publication of bona fide research connected with matters decided by the Nuremburg Tribunal. Even if the purpose of this prohibition is to protect the right to be free from incitement to anti-semitism, the restrictions imposed do not meet the proportionality test. They do not link liability to the intent of the author, nor to the tendency of the publication to incite to anti-semitism. Furthermore, the legitimate object of the law could certainly have been achieved by a less drastic provision that would not imply that the State party had attempted to turn historical truths and experiences into legislative dogma that may not be challenged, no matter what the object behind that challenge, nor its likely consequences. In the present case we are not concerned, however, with the Gayssot Act, in abstracto, but only with the restriction placed on the freedom of expression of the author by his conviction for his statements in the interview in Le Choc du Mois.

It seems clear that the Human Rights Committee here rejects the validity of the Gayssot Law in principle, stating, however that it is not called on here to pass general judgement on the Gayssot Law but only on this specific case "In the present case we are not concerned, however, with the Gayssot Act, in abstracto, but only with the restriction placed on the freedom of expression of the author by his conviction for his statements in the interview in Le Choc du Mois."
The document is very long and I have not read it, but the little I have read suggests that Faurisson was rejected for procedural reasons in that he had not exhausted the appeal procedures available within France.

[EDIT before further posting in thread]

What is expressed here is of course an opinion, not a ruling, but the relevance is specific reference to 'so called “memory-laws”, see communication No. 550/93, Faurisson v. France' in the 2011 UN document.

[astro3]

That seems like an individual opinion expressed after the main report: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/VWS55058.htm reviewing Faurisson's prosecution.
..........................................................................

Toben has discussed the 2011 UN judgement: http://barnesreview.org/wp/archives/469

He quotes it as follows:

9. … No person may be subject to the impairment of any rights under the Covenant on the basis of his or her actual, perceived or supposed opinions. All forms of opinion are protected, including opinions of a political, scientific, historic, moral or religious nature. It is incompatible with paragraph 1 to criminalise the holding of an opinion. [emphasis added and here reference is made to Faurisson v. France, No. 550/93]. The harassment, intimidation or stigmatisation of a person, including arrest, detention, trial or imprisonment for reasons of the opinions they may hold, constitutes a violation of article 19, paragraph 1.

10. Any form of effort to coerce the holding or not holding of any opinion is prohibited. Freedom to express one’s opinion necessarily includes freedom not to express one’s opinion.

11. …This right … embraces even expression that may be regarded as deeply offensive – [emphasis added], although such expression may be restricted in accordance with the provisions of article 19, paragraph 3 and article 20.
…
28. The first of the legitimate grounds for restriction listed in paragraph 3 is that of respect for the rights or reputations of others…

33. Restrictions must be “necessary” for a legitimate purpose…

47. Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with paragraph 3, and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defenses as the defense of truth…

48. Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant [emphasis added], except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant…

49. Laws that penalise the expression of opinions about historical facts [reference here to So called “memory-laws,” see Faurisson v. France, No. 550/93.] are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events. Restrictions on the right of freedom of opinion should never be imposed and, with regard to freedom of expression they should not go beyond what is permitted in paragraph 3 or required under article 20.

[astro3]

The Gayssot Act text only applies to the press, not to ordinary citizens.
Here http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTex ... rieLien=id
Scroll down to
MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI DU 29 JUILLET 1881 SUR LA LIBERTE DE LA PRESSE
Then its article 9:
It is adding a text "sur la liberté de la presse,"

(see above Kingfisher for complete relevant text of Article 9)

That's it.
It cannot apply to ordinary citizens.

I'm really disagreeing with Faurisson bigtime over this one. He stated in his appeal:

On 13 July 1990, the French legislature passed the so-called "Gayssot Act", which amends the law on the Freedom of the Press of 1881 by adding an article 24 bis; the latter makes it an offence to contest the existence of the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 8 August 1945

http://www.bayefsky.com/pdf/128_francevws55058.pdf para 2.3
That is correct.

Then he says:

"in essence, the "Gayssot Act" promotes the Nuremberg trial and judgment to the status of dogma, by imposing criminal sanctions on those who dare to challenge its findings and premises."

Absolutely not. Only in your dreams!
(But I've said that several times on this thead, no-one seems in a hurry to agree with me)
He then omits to state, that nothing in the Gayssot Act text makes that section apply to individual citizens - its just a limit imposed upon what the Press can publish.

[Hannover]

astro3:

The Gayssot Act text only applies to the press, not to ordinary citizens.

astro:
Have you contacted Faurisson about this? The impact could be huge.

Thanks, Hannover

[hermod]

The Gayssot Act text only applies to the press, not to ordinary citizens.
Here http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTex ... rieLien=id
Scroll down to
MODIFICATIONS DE LA LOI DU 29 JUILLET 1881 SUR LA LIBERTE DE LA PRESSE
Then its article 9:
It is adding a text "sur la liberté de la presse,"

(see above Kingfisher for complete relevant text of Article 9)

That's it.
It cannot apply to ordinary citizens.

nothing in the Gayssot Act text makes that section apply to individual citizens - its just a limit imposed upon what the Press can publish.

Tell that to Mr Reynouard who was sentenced to one year in prison and to pay a fine of 60,000 euros for "contesting crimes against humanity" by writing and distributing a 16-page brochure entitled "The Holocaust: What They Hide from You." (http://balder.org/judea/pdf/Vincent-Rey ... om-You.pdf)...

[Thames Darwin]

I think "press" is being interpreted in rather a broad way in the case of the Gayssot law. In theory, it applies to written material, as opposed to oral statements. The law was passed with Faurisson very particularly in mind, although you have to wonder why, given that he'd already been fined at least twice before 1990 under a racial incitement law. I presume it was to tack on larger fines for printing rather than just speaking..