Holocaust denial writer jailed for five years

http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,,2014554,00.html ^

[Muentzer2005]

A German neo-Nazi publisher was yesterday sentenced to five years in prison for inciting racial hatred and denying that the Nazis murdered six million Jews.

Ernst Zündel, who was extradited from Canada to face trial in Germany in 2005, received the maximum sentence available for the crime of Holocaust denial after being found guilty on 14 counts ...

"You might as well argue that the sun rises in the west, but you cannot change that the Holocaust has been proven," he said, referring to Zündel's work Did Six Million Really Die? The prosecution accused him of using "pseudo-scientific methods" in an attempt to overturn the accepted facts on the Holocaust.

But campaigners for Zündel, 67, said he was a peaceful advocate of the right to free speech who was being denied that right. His supporters filled the courtroom.

At the close of the trial Zündel - who also wrote The Hitler We Loved and Why, and has described Hitler as "a decent and very peaceful man" - asked the court in Mannheim to set up an international commission of historians to explore the Holocaust. He said he wanted "hard facts" and not just witness statements, and that if the commission could prove Jews were gassed he would "hold a press conference at which I would publicly apologise to Jews, Israelis and the world".

[familyop]

You're welcome. Actually, there's enough material on Europe shortly before, during, and shortly after World War II to keep anyone busy for a long time. Most people simply don't have enough time to spare for so much study.

[-YYZ-]

"One of the interesting rulings by the Tribunal, when Zundel's Canadian attorney presented evidence that Zundel had not written the words he was being accused of saying was "The truth is not a defense in this court.""


While I despise Canada's hate-speech laws as much as anyone, what you have implied above is not correct. "The truth is not a defense in this court." refers to the fact that speech judged to cause hatred towards an identifiable group cannot be excused just because it is based on a true fact. For example, to say that gays are overrepresented in the ranks of child molestors, if you had facts to that effect, if used in writings whose intention is to disparage gays, would be considered hate speech, even if true. OTOH, if you never actually said something you are accused of saying, that be considered by the court to be exculpatory.

Now, that's still effed up, no doubt, but it's a little different than what you implied.

[word_warrior_bob]

This is what will eventually happen to anti global warming authors.

[OESY]

The Federal Election Commission hit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with a $299,500 fine today for playing too fast with election rules. The Swift Boat Vets were a "527" organization, which has no limits on contributions, but were acting like federal political committees, the FEC charged. 527s are allowed to work for or against certain candidates, but if they have no other "major purpose," according to FEC spokesman Bob Biersack, then they should register as a committee. Source: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002141.php

COMMENT: Thank goodness, unlike Germany, we have our FEC to protect our Free Speech rights when a candidate's supporters object that the truth hurts their candidate. Note the finess with which the FEC is able to construct its convoluted argument.

Perhaps our holier-than-thou types should be more concerned about First Amendment rights in this country. Martin Niemoller would be, but he was German.

.

[Garvin]

If the newspapers of today are directing their negative reporting towards certain groups as was done in the 30's and 40's in Germany/Italy? And if we look at who is the target of these articles, will we be able to predict the victims of the next Holocaust? Just a thought.

[CarrotAndStick]

I try to read when I do get a chance...most of this interests me. Europe, like India, is made up of countries with varying cultures and languages. In India, we call them 'states'! However, the underlying commonality of the culture in each of the respective regions somewhat holds it in bind.


It is an interesting observation though, that some of the most bloodiest conflicts happen between people who have more similarities than differences...it's a strange paradox.

I guess when the differences are small, it is easier to pick them out and enhance them...but when they are vast, everyone's different, and hence, ironically, the same! Lol!

[veronica]

You are comparing disagreeing with a theory, to denying the deaths of millions of people.

[-YYZ-]

"Zundel claimed he had Canadian Citizenship and even served as a CO in the Canadian military in the 60s."

Why would he have joined the militarily voluntarily, just to be a CO? We didn't have the draft in Canada at that time, nor were we involved in any wars in the 60s, just a few peace-keeping operations. So what was he conscientiously objecting too, and why?

[NCLaw441]

I agree that words that incite violence should not be, and in the US, are not, protected. My point goes solely to speech denying that the Holocaust occurred. THAT speech, as hateful as it is, ought to be protected. In my view, the more effective destruction of an attitude such as that shown by the writer who was arrested would be to devastate his argument with the clear proof that exists that the Holocaust did in fact occur. It is obvious that there are those who deny that occurrence, and their speech withers next to evidence of the atrocities that occurred.

[Polybius]

As much as I despise the garbage he and his ilk write, the real story is the fact that not only was a man put in prison for writing something, but that our cousins to the north cooperated. This is what passes for liberty in Europe these days. Sorry, but I'll take a million Ward Churchills over that any day.

The way to deal with such scum is to prove them to be fools, not make them imprisoned martyrs.

[Hacksaw]

You can have the Ward Churchills, and the rest of us will side-up with the Winston Churchills who would punish such traitors. Propaganda for genocide is a tool of war against free nations.

No, I don't think the rest of us will toss aside the 1st Amendment. People who wish to do so are anti-American.

[A. Pole]

Just wait until they start jailing the Global Warming deniers.

My thought exactly.

[word_warrior_bob]

No I'm not, I'm comparing free speech, whether I hate what he's saying or not.

[veronica]

I agree that words that incite violence should not be, and in the US, are not, protected. My point goes solely to speech denying that the Holocaust occurred. THAT speech, as hateful as it is, ought to be protected. In my view, the more effective destruction of an attitude such as that shown by the writer who was arrested would be to devastate his argument with the clear proof that exists that the Holocaust did in fact occur. It is obvious that there are those who deny that occurrence, and their speech withers next to evidence of the atrocities that occurred.

Depends on the context.

I'll try again. In certain European countries, words led to deeds, and most Germans are painfully aware of that. That is why they have the laws they do. Ernst Zundel has thumbed his nose at the law for years, to say nothing of his continuing pro-Nazi incitement. If he wants to be a martyr from jail so be it. To see him defended at this site as harmless retired painter, is both laughable and nauseating.

[familyop]

The German culture was the same between Jewish people and other Germans in obvious ways. However, there were vast differences between his avowed religion and Judaism. Hitler spoke hateful canards against Jewish people in the context of his religion in his book, his speeches and to his friends (for example, his repetitions of the canard that the Jews killed Jesus). He moved the debate from emphasis on religious differences to an emphasis on his insistence that Jewish people were of a race and culture foreign to Germans.

[SALChamps03]

I believe this man to be an idiot. However, he should not be in jail because of something he writes, unless it defames or libels an individual.

[veronica]

The way to deal with such scum is to prove them to be fools, not make them imprisoned martyrs.

He broke the law he pays the price. Boo hoo.

[veronica]

You people just don't get it.

Apparently it can happen again.

[Polybius]

Free speech brings personal responsibility with it. Holocaust denial is in many ways not free speech. Free speech means you can have an opinion, but not necessarily that you can deny a horrible fact and in doing so you in fact advocate another genocide since you do not even recognize the first one.

I know it is a fact. You know it is a fact. How will future generations know that is was a fact?

Because they will be jailed if they even raise the question?

Would raising the question that the Katyn Massacre was not a Nazi atrocity be a punishable offense?

As it turned out, the Katyn Massacre was a Soviet atrocity and even Russia belatedly admitted it.

If you jail those who question or argue a position, with time, new generations will wonder if, like the Soviets, the powers that be are trying to hide the truth.

The way to combat such lies is to prove them wrong after the fool has given his best effort. Jailing the fool only gives him the glory of martyrdom and makes young minds wonder why you must resort to forcibly silencing him rather than proving him wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt.

[A. Pole]

You mention Islam. We are all aware that some adherents to that religion commit murder and suicide because of things written by their prophet. Would you defend his writing as the exercise of free speech?

In many Muslim countries disparaging of Muhammad or denial of Koran is a crime. Are you guilty of this crime?