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 words.
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). Peace, Arlene Johnson Publisher/Author http://www.truedemocracy.net -----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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Laws_against_Holocaust_denial
