“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:
http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/v ... 3ae6b39614Crimes 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.
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.’