Berlin Seeks To Bar Holocaust Denial In EU

12 Responses to “Berlin Seeks To Bar Holocaust Denial In EU”

1. Andrew Brehm on April 21st, 2007 2:52 pm

   Not that I am in favour of the law, but I believe a double standard is quite necessary.

   A lie (”the Holocaust did not happen”) is NOT the same as satire. When they speak of Holocaust denial, they are not talking about opinions, they are talking about misleading people, about lies, about misinformation.

   There should be two different standars for lies and opinions. And if you ask about the difference between a lie and an opinion, the answer is: the facts.

   Yes, there is a double standard, but why should one treat two different things the same?

2. Roman Kalik on April 21st, 2007 5:56 pm

   On the one hand, the UN supporting as an infrastructure backbone is a very positive development. This is really the only low-screwup/high-yield eventuality I can see for now.

   On the other hand, this news report reeks of post-event propaganda. It was the helicopters specifically that make this report look wierd. I there *did* feel the heat, but they can’t openly admit it. Too much previous propaganda that can’t just be ignored, and too much pride.

3. Roman Kalik on April 21st, 2007 5:59 pm

   Damn, wrong post. My bad.

4. Roman Kalik on April 21st, 2007 6:05 pm

   Now, on topic. Thanks for posting the link to the other post, the debate there was very interesting to read. The conclusion it has still holds here though, as denying this historical fact is more than just opinion.

   But why, do you ask, should Germany move to have this law across the EU? Because the EU is an ideological void that begs to be filled. What started out as a large-scale economic alliance is now stuck on unifying political issues.

5. jonah84 on April 22nd, 2007 3:28 am

   I am not an expert on European history nor am European but it is strange that the German state which was responsible for the holocaust wants pass a law the would affect all Europeans?

6. lirun on April 22nd, 2007 11:39 am

   i must admit - as someone who comes from a family that was half wiped out by the holocaust.. i can see where this is coming from..

   having said that - u enter tough territory when you start tailor fitting liberties..

   undecided about this one..

7. Finnpundit on April 23rd, 2007 3:30 am

   It’s a big mistake to curtail the freedom of speech in any form. A precedence has been set that can be abused in the future.

   Given the weakness of continental European laws in general (which are based on statist civic codes, as opposed to the stronger Anglo-American common law traditions), which so easily adapted their codes to fascist, - and then communist - regimes in various parts of Europe, we should only look upon this development with great skepticism.

8. Andrew Brehm on April 23rd, 2007 4:00 pm

   “I am not an expert on European history nor am European but it is strange that the German state which was responsible for the holocaust wants pass a law the would affect all Europeans?”

   Why???

   First of all, the current German state is about as responsible for the Holocaust as you and I are. The Federal Republic assumed responsibility but wasn’t and isn’t responsible for what the Nazis did.

   Second, the European Union has laws. And every member state, and their representatives in the European parliament can propose laws, even Germany. Several hundred laws have been passed in the EU that were proposed by Germany, I am sure.

   Third, it would be strange if the EU had a specific rule that would make it impossible for one of her founders to propose laws.

   Fourth, I still happen to think that the Holocaust did, in fact, happen and that saying that it did not is, in fact, a lie. If lying falls under free speech, what would stop a vendor from selling faulty products? If I sold a history book that denied the Holocaust, would I not be selling a faulty product, knowingly, with the intent to defraud my stupid customer?

   Fifth, and this is directed at Finnpundit, what exactly is “stronger” about common law traditions? Common law is affected by court decisions, civil law (Roman law) as used in most European countries is based on a written law. The problem of fascism and communism taking over (and replacing) civil law jurisdictions seems to me a problem of location not law principles.

9. tommy on April 23rd, 2007 6:37 pm

   I strongly oppose all such laws. As crazy as Holocaust denial is, this further extension of thoughtcrime is crazy also.

10. tommy on April 23rd, 2007 6:39 pm

    First they came for the Holocaust deniers, but I said nothing because I wasn’t a kooky Holocaust denier, then they came for the deniers of the Armenian genocide, but I said nothing because I was not a……then they came for me because I dared draw blasphemous cartoons of the prophet Muhammad and offended European Muslims and multicultural standards…..

11. Andrew Brehm on April 23rd, 2007 7:10 pm

    Tommy, if you are not able to explain why lying should have a special status under the law similar or equal to an opinion, you will have to abuse famous people’s quotes instead.

    I’m afraid Niemoeller was referring not to liars but to honest people who were targeted by the state. If you don’t understand the difference, I have very little respect for you.

    I grew up one mile from Niemoeller’s church in Berlin-Dahlem. He was/is a local celebrity for me.

    The problem with quoting famous people is that one has to understand them first before one misuses their words. Niemoeller was upset that the Nazis came after honest people. That’s what his words meant.

    Using your interpretation you could even abuse his words to mean that one shouldn’t go after thieves and murderers. You can start the poem with any group. But the point is that the statement only makes sense if one starts it with a group that didn’t do anything wrong and was still persecuted. Niemoeller was pointing out how people who were not, say, communists didn’t speak up when communists were the target. He was NOT trying to say, as you do apparently this he was, that a Jew and a liar are morally the same and that persecution of the one (for his deeds) will lead to persecution of the other (for what he is).

12. tommy on April 25th, 2007 11:41 pm

    Tommy, if you are not able to explain why lying should have a special status under the law similar or equal to an opinion, you will have to abuse famous people’s quotes instead.

    I don’t believe in thought crimes. Sorry. I’m a staunch supporter of freedom of speech. If you begin to erode freedom of speech on relatively uncontroversial matters now, you’ve set a precedent for eroding it on more controversial matters later.

    On what grounds are we destroying freedom of speech? To protect history? Well, history isn’t a legal entity. We are doing it to protect a certain group of people–the Jews –from having a terribly part of their history distorted on the grounds that it could eventually lead to worse things. After all, if it were about “truth” we could pass all sorts of laws against denying all sorts of less controversial history. Clearly, it is more than about protecting truth. It goes beyond that and I think you know that. How long will it be before Muslims step up and start demanding their own protections? What parts of Islam will be off-limits to public discussion in the name of “keeping the peace?”

    It also doesn’t help that Holocaust denial doesn’t take exactly the same form all the time, so any legislation against it is necessarily fuzzy. Some Holocaust deniers assert that only a half-million Jews died and mostly from malnutrition, not from the intentional efforts of Nazi officials. Therefore, they are not completing denying that Jews were killed, but seriously low-balling the estimated deaths and disputing the way they occurred. If someone asserts that they believe four-and-a-half million Jews, rather than six million, were killed during the Holocaust is that “Holocaust denial?” How about if they assert only one million died? Or 500,000? Who defines the limit between reasonable estimate and Holocaust denial? What if a researcher argues that many more died from cause X rather than cause Y as conventional history had it? When does it become Holocaust denial?

    What if someone disputes the existence of gas chambers at a particular camp–rightly or wrongly? Is that Holocaust denial? Is it Holocaust denial if they guess wrong? Even if the hypothesis is reasonable and worthy of more scholarly attention? At the close of World War II it was widely asserted that several concentration camps in Germany had gas chambers. We now know, with the possible exception of some limited facilities at Dachau, that none of the camps in Germany proper did. Only those in the eastern territories, like Auschwitz, possessed gas chambers. If this matter had not been resolved previously, would the EU today imprison someone who argued that a certain camp X in Germany proper had no such gas chambers? How about disputes over the relative responsibility of Nazi official X versus Nazi official Y in carrying out the Holocaust? What aspects of the Holocaust may someone rightfully argue about? I suspect the law is so vague that it is anyone’s guess what is reasonable, if controversial, scholarship and what is Holocaust denial.

    There are better ways of combating Holocaust denial than using the law to silence people.

Leave a Reply