Germany jails Ernst Zundel (5 years for Holocaust denial)

[Doondoo]

Far-right activist Ernst Zundel was convicted of 14 counts of incitement Thursday for Holocaust denial and sentenced to the maximum five years in prison, a sentence quickly applauded by Canadian Jewish groups.

“I think that they’ve given a strong message ... to the world, that I believe will bring a tremendous amount of comfort to Holocaust survivors,” said Bernie Farber, chief executive officer of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

“I think a lot of us can take a very deep breath and move on to other things — other than thinking of Ernst Zundel anymore,” Farber said in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press.

Zundel, 67, who was deported from Canada in 2005, was accused of years of anti-Semitic activities, including denying the Holocaust — a crime in Germany — in documents and on the Internet.


http://www.thestar.com/News/article/182074

[The Magistrate]

1. Good For The Germans, Sir

[pelsar]

2. i actually disagree....

i dont think the guy should be jailed for claiming an event that happened "didnt happen".... He may be a shitty person, an anti semite and probably lots of other things....but the liberal bones in my body says, like the nazis of skoki, that he has that right to believe and say what he believes...

[breakaleg]

3. I would like to more about the specific crime he committed.

If he was deported from the US, but not charged with a crime, and then deported from Canada without being charged, then it makes me wonder what his crime was? If it was a crime here, why wasn't he charged?

Clearly the guy is hateful and an all around anti-semite and whatnot, but do we send people to jail for bad thoughts?

[msmcghee]

4. " . . but do we send people to jail for bad thoughts?"

In this case it was more than a thought. It was a statement. There are limits to free speech - crying "Fire" in a crowded theater being the classic example. There are also laws against inciting riots, libel, slander, etc.

The idea I believe is that speech that endangers others' well being, safety or their lives is not free speech and carries legal consequences when it is used purposely for those reasons. i.e. Veracity and intent matter.

Holocaust denial is part of a social movement - not just an individual's personal thoughts. It is used to demean others socially and threaten their safety. Does it cross the line?

I'd say it's up to each democracy to draw that line where it deems it most appropriate.

[breakaleg]

5. Why wasn't he charged in the US or Canada? Did he break any of those countries' laws?

Because those democracies, didn't charge him, it seems.

[msmcghee]

6. These democracies deported him.

The US back to Canada. Canada back to Germany. He had applied for Canadian citizenship but was denied. (The details are in the article.)

He is a citizen of and a resident of Germany. Germany takes antisemitism very seriously. I'm sure you can imagine why.

The last time I was in Germany I was shocked by the number of skinheads hanging around the train station in Frankfurt, acting tough and being intimidating. They have a real problem there IMO.

Germany has decided that holocaust denial is close enough to crying "Fire" in a theater that they drew the line. People are still free to believe in it - they're just not free to spread "the word" publicly.

[breakaleg]

7. You didn't answer my question. Perhaps someone else knows.

[The Magistrate]

8. In The United States And Canada, Sir

He was viewed as an undesireable alien. The right of a country to refuse admittance and residence to foreigners is not conditioned on the breaking of any law.

[breakaleg]

10. I understand that. But if he had say, committed murder, then he likely would have been tried and

sent to jail rather than deported.

So, I wonder if he didn't actually commit a crime but instead was just a horrible human being and they chose to get rid of him rather than keep him around and deal with him. I wonder if the laws in Germany are more strict and they couldn't deal with him here, so chose to send him away for this reason. All of which leads me to question what "crime" he committed.

[The Magistrate]

14. His Crime In Germany, Sir

Is denial of the Hitlerite crimes, which is viewed as promotion of Nazism there, and not permitted openly. There are certainly neo-Nazis there skilled in working around the letter of these laws, so that they cannot be said to have wholly suppressed the movement in any modern guise, but the thing does strike me as worth trying.

[Violet_Crumble]

9. I agree with you about Germany...

The last time I was in Germany I was shocked by the number of skinheads hanging around the train station in Frankfurt, acting tough and being intimidating. They have a real problem there IMO.

I was there a few months ago and noticed the same thing, though in other parts of Germany, coz I didn't get to Frankfurt...

Given Germany's history, the legal measures taken to outlaw Holocaust denial, as well as any worshipping of Nazism and Swaztikas taken by Germany and other European countries (I'm pretty sure Austria has very similar laws) isn't at all surprising and imo is something that can't and shouldn't be argued against as a free speech issue like it could be in the US, though my belief is that as denial is the final stage of genocide and continues to hurt the victims, I wouldn't be opposed to it being banned in countries like the US...

[Spinoza]

11. But shouting 'fire' in a theatre is NOT

against the law. What if there really is a fire? Or what if there isn't a fire but someone honestly believes there is? Whats actually illegal is KNOWINGLY AND FALSELY shouting 'fire' for PURPOSE of causing a panic. The concept of the limitations on freedom of speech being exemplified by the illegality of 'shouting fire' comes from Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes who in 'Schenk vs Schenk' (1919) wrote: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Note the key words "falsely" and "causing a panic". Judges today consider shouting 'fire' ONLY illegal if it is KNOWINGLY false. (Judges also often also require the motive to cause an imminent panic, but this is not universally applied.)

But what if a Holocaust Denier truely believes what he or she is saying or writing? Here she is NOT knowingly engaging in a falsehood. And if there no desire to cause a panic?

Using the analogy of shouting fire in a theatre as an excuse to restrict the freedom of speech of Holocaust Deniers does not work.

As a child of Death Camp survivors I despise Holocaust Deniers. But they should not be denied freedom of speech. Even in Germany.

[msmcghee]

12. You make some good points. In this case I don't claim . .

. . you are wrong. Just that there is more than one way to see the question (like yours) and that the best way to decide such matters is democratically by those who will have to live by the rules they put in place.

Your statement was:

But what if a Holocaust Denier truely believes what he or she is saying or writing? Here she is NOT knowingly engaging in a falsehood. And if there no desire to cause a panic?

You stated that motive and veracity are important considerations as to guilt. I agreed with that. Wise laws have to account for variations of guilt and innocence.

Someone who vocally denies the holocaust in a situation where using such words could incite others to harm someone else is inciting. It makes no difference if they believed the words to be true or not. As I stated in my post - it's not the belief that is being criminalized. It's using a knowingly volatile phrase to incite physical harm and to damage others psychologically.

Each democracy should decide if it is volatile enough to criminalize IMO. But I respect your position.

[Spinoza]

13. Thanks.

I can't say I respect your position (I am a nut on the subject of absolute freedom of speech), but--as always-- I respect your careful, and conscientious thinking process and your willingness to lucidly and civily explain the reasons behind your beliefs. And you write VERY well.