If there is anyone on this listserv who believes that 6 million Jews were 
gassed during WW II, see my 18th edition,
an edition in which I proved that it didn't happen using David Ben-Gurion's own 

Of course, everyone on this listserv can still send the Demand for the 
Government page to the current Israeli Prime Minister even if they know that no 
one was gassed to death during WW II because that is the feature of my work 
which gives power to decent people all over the world.

To access that edition and others, click on the icon that says Magazine (it's 
the 4th icon in the row of them on my site).


Arlene Johnson

-----Original Message-----
From: Milo 
Sent: Dec 22, 2006 2:57 AM
To: Emerson Review 
Subject: [cia-drugs] Laws against Holocaust denial

Laws against Holocaust denial

Holocaust denial is illegal in a number of Europeancountries: Austria(article 
3h Verbotsgesetz 1947), Belgium (Belgian Negationism Law), the CzechRepublic 
under section 261, France (Loi Gayssot), Germany (§ 130 (3) of the penalcode) 
also the Auschwitzlüge law section 185, Lithuania, TheNetherlands under 
articles 137c and 137e, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and 
Switzerland(article 261bis of the Penal Code). In addition, under Law 5710-1950 
it is alsoillegal in Israel.

The following punishments are used with regards to HolocaustDenial Laws: 
Austria (min: six months, max: twenty years (violent), ten years(non-violent)), 
Belgium (min: fine, max: one year), Czech Republic (min: sixmonths, max: two 
years), France (min: fine/one month, max: two years), Germany(min: fine/six 
months max: five years), Israel (min: one year, max: fiveyears), Lithuania 
(min: fine/two years, max: ten years (violent)), Poland (min:fine/three months, 
max: three years), Romania (min: six months, max: threeyears (public offender), 
five years (public servant offender)), Slovakia (min:fine/one month, max: three 
years) and Switzerland (min: fine/one year, max:fifteen months).

Many of these countries also have broader laws againstlibel or inciting racial 
hatred, as do a number of countries that do notspecifically have laws against 
Holocaust denial, such as Canada and the UnitedKingdom. The Council of Europe's 
2003 AdditionalProtocol to the Convention on Cyber Crime, concerning the 
criminalisationof acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through 
computer systemsincludes an article 6 titled Denial, grossminimisation, 
approval or justification of genocide or crimes against humanity,though this 
does not have the status of law.

Of the countries that ban Holocaust denial, a number(Austria, Germany, Romania 
and Slovakia) were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust,and many of these 
also ban other elements associated with Nazism, such as Nazisymbols. 
Additionally, scholars have pointed out that countries thatspecifically ban 
Holocaust denial generally have legal systems that limit speechin other ways, 
such as banning hate speech. In the words of D. Guttenplan, thisis a split 
between the "common lawcountries of the US, Britain, and former British 
colonies from the civil law countries of continental Europe.In civil law 
countries the law is generallymore proscriptive. Also under the civil law 
regime the judge acts more as aninquisitor, gathering and presenting evidence 
as well as interpreting it"[51]

Many Holocaust deniers claim their work falls under a"universal right to free 
speech", and see these laws as aconfirmation of their own beliefs, arguing that 
the truth does not need to belegally enforced. Some people who do not deny that 
the Holocaust occurrednevertheless oppose such restrictions of free speech, 
including, despite herlegal battle with David Irving, Deborah Lipstadt. Another 
prominent opponent ofthe laws is Noam Chomsky. An uproar resulted when Serge 
Thionused one of Chomsky's essays without explicit permission as a foreword to 
abook of Holocaust denial essays (see Faurissonaffair). At times, Holocaust 
deniers seek to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human 
Rights,which guarantees freedom of expression, when faced with criminal 
sanctionsagainst their statements or publications. The European Court of Human 
Rightshowever consistently declares their complaints inadmissible. According 
toArticle 17 of the Convention, nothing in the Convention may be construed so 
asto justify acts that are aimed at destroying any of the very rights 
andfreedoms contained therein. Invoking free speech to propagate denial of 
crimesagainst humanity is, according to the Court's case-law, contrary to the 
spiritin which the Convention was adopted in the first place. Reliance on free 
speechin such cases would thus constitute an abuse of a fundamental right.



Reply via email to