But, Germany and Austria came out of WWII afraid of themselves, and that's where the laws come from. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
Holocaust critic can be tried Strasbourg - A far-right French leader and member of the EU was stripped of his immunity from court proceedings yesterday, allowing French authorities to prosecute him for casting doubt on the Holocaust. Bruno Gollnisch, a top official in the National Front party, had publicly questioned whether the Nazis used gas chambers and suggested the number of Jews killed might have been exaggerated.
Strasbourg - A far-right French leader and member of the EU was stripped of his immunity from court proceedings yesterday, allowing French authorities to prosecute him for casting doubt on the Holocaust. Bruno Gollnisch, a top official in the National Front party, had publicly questioned whether the Nazis used gas chambers and suggested the number of Jews killed might have been exaggerated.
A l'époque, il avait lancé : «Quant à l'existence des chambres à gaz, c'est aux historiens d'en discuter», ajoutant que les historiens avaient «le droit» de discuter «sur le nombre de morts, sur la façon dont les gens sont morts» dans les camps nazis. "As to the existence of gas chambers, it is up to historians to discuss it" adding that they had "the right" to discuss "the number of death, and the way people died" in nazi camps.
"As to the existence of gas chambers, it is up to historians to discuss it" adding that they had "the right" to discuss "the number of death, and the way people died" in nazi camps.
I have no doubt that he and Le Pen are pieces of garbage who say horrible things. (I know Le Pen is and has, but I'm not familiar with Gollnisch, honestly.) Freedom of Speech means freedom of speech for everyone -- including the freedom to say stupid and inaccurate things. We all hate what these little Nazis say, but we ought to defend their right to say it. History has already been written, and it is a terrible-enough history that it will not be cast aside by this moron. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
We all hate what these little Nazis say, but we ought to defend their right to say it.
I have a problem seeing the logic in the concept of defending someone's perceived rights to infringe upon other peoples basic Human Rights. It is not a right, but an abuse. These people are not engaged in a meaningful discussion but to utter abuse. This is however the classical and eternal dilemma of applying Human Rights in society. In my opinion, by defeating the Nazis in 1945, we drew a line for what was acceptable conduct and behaviour and this has to be applied even today, although carefully.
It is a misconception that the freedom of speech is an absolute. In theory it is, but not in practical terms. Peaceful interaction between human beings naturally excludes an absolute freedom of speech. This has been done naturally through social codex, but when this has failed laws have been applied. Laws in themselves are boundaries for absolute freedom. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
I have to disagree with you. Yes, freedom of speech is for everyone but not for everything. That's why we have laws that regulate excesses of freedom. National laws are also an expression to stop violent behaviour or hateful statements, which again can lead to violence or an infringement of other people's life. I reckon that such an excellent site as Eurotrib also has a standard for acceptable behaviour. :)
But there is a is a very bold line to avoid crossing here. Politics rests, in large part, on precedent, and, while I agree that there should be some limits to what you may say -- namely, that you should not be allowed to say things on par with (say) inciting violence -- I do not agree that this qualifies as falling under those limits. EuroTrib has standards, I'm sure, but EuroTrib is privately held.
I am, for example, allowed to tell people to leave my home if what they say offends me, because it is my home, whereas Gollnisch's comments do not interfere with the lives or property of others. Quite the contrary, the actions of the state, here, interfere with his rights. If you throw everyone in jail for saying something stupid and/or offensive, we're all going to spend our lives stamping license plates.
He's, of course, dishonest in his statements, but he is not harming anyone or directing others to harm anyone here. (He may have on other occasions. As I mentioned, I don't know his history.) There is a difference between saying, "This event never happened," and saying, "Hey, guys, go kill some Jews."
Your analysis in the first half of the paragraph is subjective and cannot be the basis for constitutional law. Whose rights has he infringed upon in that statement? He's not inciting violence. He's simply saying something that we know to be false.
What you consider an abuse, your neighbor may consider meaningful (or he may not). Either way, contributing to a serious discussion is not a requirement in speech. I can (say) tell people that the color of the sky is red. I would be wrong in saying so, and my statement would in no way contribute to a meaningful discussion, but being wrong in saying things of no meaning is not a criminal act.
There is only one line to draw: Freedom stops when your actions (or, on very rare occasions, words) harm others -- inciting violence, destruction of character (a civil-court issue), and so on.
I've given examples of areas where freedom of speech is not absolute, but I think the guiding principle in the previous paragraph is all that is needed when it comes to free speech. When your words carry no direct attack on the rights of others, I think freedom of speech is absolute. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Europe has decided that the "slippery slope" argument needed to be taken into account: let such talk get too frequent and banal, and slowly you get to the point where these things (killing Jews and other hated categories) actually takes place. It happened once, it might happen again.
Maybe it's too conservative, but it is hard to dismiss given our tragic history. And frankly, I cannot be bothered about the freedom to blather obvious lies, especially when coming form people whom we know to have a racist and antisemitic agenda. (How do we "know" - because they keep on repeating these borderline things and behaving accordingly) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
There is a difference between saying, "This event never happened," and saying, "Hey, guys, go kill some Jews."
Libération: Gollnisch perd son immunité de député européen Gollnisch loses his MEP immunity
Accusé de contestation de crime contre l'humanité, il comparaîtra à Lyon. Accused of contesting crimes against humanity, he will appear [before court] in Lyon
Les eurodéputés ont finalement conclu, selon le rapport de la Britannique Diana Wallis, que le délégué général du FN ne s'était pas exprimé «dans l'exercice de ses fonctions» de parlementaire. The MEPs finally concluded, accoding to the report by the British [MEP] Diana Wallis, that the general delegate of the National Front hadn't expressed himself "in the exercise of his functions" as MEP
Selon Diana Wallis, ces déclarations sont «directement liées aux activités professionnelles de M. Gollnisch en tant que professeur à l'université Lyon-III», dont il a, depuis, été exclu pour cinq ans. According to Diana Wallis, these remarks [quoted by Jerome above] are "directly tied to Mr. Gollnisch's professional activity as a professor at the University of Lyon-III", from which he, subsequently, has been excluded for five years
S'appuyant sur les propos de Jacques Chirac, qui a estimé la semaine dernière, au sujet de la polémique sur le «rôle positif» de la colonisation, que «ce n'est pas à la loi d'écrire l'histoire», le numéro 2 du FN a prévenu qu'il se présenterait devant le tribunal «non pas en accusé mais en accusateur». Car il ne considère pas «légitimes les lois scélérates et liberticides» qui répriment le négationnisme, telle la loi Gayssot de 1990. Drawing support from Jacques Chirac's position, who remarked last week, on the controversy over the "positive role" of colonisation, that "it is not for the law to write history", the National Front's no. 2 man warned that he would present himself before the court "not as accused but as accuser". [This is] because he does not consider "legitimate the villainous and illiberal laws" repressing Holocaust denial, such as the Gayssot act of 1990.
We might be better served if they were quietly ignored. On the other hand, in the case of Turkey it is the state that is denying crimes against humanity so it is good that the Pamuk case gets as much media attention as possible. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
EuroTrib has standards, I'm sure, but EuroTrib is privately held.
My point was that restrictions on freedom of speech are applied even in private forums as a mutually accepted social codex. This social codex is the basis for national laws. A State has a much greater responsibility towards its citizens and their basic Human Rights than each individual. (Even though it ideally shouldn't be so).
Gollnisch's comments do not interfere with the lives or property of others. (..) Freedom stops when your actions (or, on very rare occasions, words) harm others -- inciting violence, destruction of character (a civil-court issue), and so on.
If I understand you right, you seem to have a too narrow interpretation of the legal substance of the Human Rights when you only focus on lives and property in a physical sense. Human Rights also include social, cultural and psychological rights, such as respect for identity and integrity. Whether Gollnisch's comments constitutes an act of discrimination is to be seen, but in my opinion and it seems the French authorities too, they justifies an investigation since Gollnisch is a member of the European Parliament, thus a public figure and a French citizen. Still, I have to say that the case of Gollnisch seems to constitute a borderline case.
Article 20, The UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
(..) 2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Article 29, Of the UN Declaration of the Human Rights.
(..) (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
He's, of course, dishonest in his statements, but he is not harming anyone or directing others to harm anyone here.
No, not physically but he is degrading the collective Jewish history, their identity and their integrity by publicly questioning their suffering, which is by most of us accepted as a fact? The question is why? By knowing Gollnisch's background, being a member of the National Front party of Le Pen, it is pretty obvious what his intentions are. Now since I don't know exactly what the guy said it is hard to have a specific opinion of whether he has uttered a discriminatory statement or not, but by French standards it seems to be worth looking into, of which I agree. Whether he will be convicted or not remains to be seen.
Your analysis in the first half of the paragraph is subjective and cannot be the basis for constitutional law.
Well an analysis is always subjective, within reason of course, although you have to have a factual basis, but then again it was meant to be a subjective statement.
I agree that subjectivity can not be the basis for constitutional law, but most laws have to be interpreted to the best of someone's abilities and thus are subjected to the judicial expert's qualified opinions. I am not a judicial expert and haven't argued that I am in my comment. Still my opinions in this matter seems to coincide with what the French believe and many other people for that matter.
What you consider an abuse, your neighbour may consider meaningful (or he may not).
Well, when I used the word abuse I didn't mean normal obscenity I was discussing the Holocaust issue, which I presume we are. On that matter I do think most people will agree over what is an abuse or not. That is why statements from people like David Irving and Gollnisch causes such uproar in Europe and the rest of the world for that matter.
When your words carry no direct attack on the rights of others, I think freedom of speech is absolute.
Well, this is your opinion, but others seem to disagree and that is why David Irving is arrested and Gollnisch is stripped of his immunity and are now under investigation. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
They're mutually accepted, but, in the end, the person who owns (say) ET has the power. Either we, the members, abide by the rules, or we leave.
What the government does is not the same as what someone does with his or her possession. The same principle does not apply. The individual has control over himself and his property, whereas government has no such claim. It gains its powers from the citizens, and we are all equal owners in it. So Gollnisch has just as much right to voice his idiotic views as you and I (and, in all honesty, I voice my fair share of idiotic views, though none as hateful as Gollnisch).
Gollnisch's comments cannot be interpreted as an act of discrimination. Who is he discriminating against? Discrimination necessitates having the power to deny the actions of others. Unless other MEPs share his views, he has no such power. And, if other MEPs share his views, then the problem is much bigger than the views of one man.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
This is precisely my point. The UN has drawn the exact same line that I have. Gollnisch's comments in the piece do no such thing.
Degrading the history of a people violates no one's rights. You shouldn't throw people into jail for being obnoxious, or racist, or xenophobic, or whatever -- again, so long as they are not inciting violence.
Still my opinions in this matter seems to coincide with what the French believe and many other people for that matter.
Which is fine, but how is this not equivalent to the Sanity by Consensus we see among fundamentalist Christians who argue that they're right about literal interpretation of the Bible because other people agree? This is the sort of problem that constitutions are supposed to defend people like Gollnisch from.
That is why statements from people like David Irving and Gollnisch causes such uproar in Europe and the rest of the world for that matter.
And they should be punished in the political realm through ridicule and calls for their resignation, among other things. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Well, this is exactly my point. The owner of ET is the equivalent to the State in this case. In society we abide by mutually accepted principles too. The non-written one's (social conduct of accepted behaviour) which is the relation between individuals and the written one's (the laws) which is the relation between the citizen and the State.
If you don't abide you are socially ostracised or tried, sentenced and convicted. And yes, in a democratic society, the State gains its powers from the citizens. The citizens have chosen to rescind some of their freedoms in exchange for being protected by the State from infringement on their basic rights. In doing so they accept the power of the State and agree to abide by its laws and thus accepts the States control over parts of their lives and, in some cases, even their property (the States right to expropriate privately held land).
Human rights are incorporated into the laws of a democratic State to 1. Ensure that the State abide by them, and 2. Safeguard the citizen's rights against abuse or violence from other citizens or individuals. In short the same principles do apply with one major difference, and that is the States monopoly on using force.
.....So Gollnisch has just as much right to voice his idiotic views as you and I. Discrimination necessitates having the power to deny the actions of others. Unless other MEPs share his views, he has no such power.
No, not if he is advocating (see voicing), in this case, racial hatred and incites discrimination. The Human Rights Charter doesn't only cover the rights to physical attributes but also mental ones. The denial of Holocaust is perceived infringement on the victims of the Holocaust and their relatives and thus is punishable by Law:
United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963.
Article 1
Discrimination between human beings on the ground of race, colour or ethnic origin is an offence to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and as a fact capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples.
Article 2
1. No State, institution, group or individual shall make any discrimination whatsoever in matters of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the treatment of persons, groups of persons or institutions on the ground of race, colour or ethnic origin.
This is precisely my point. The UN has drawn the exact same line that I have.
No, not quite, since you seem to imply that racist views are OK as long as people do not incite to violence. You shouldn't throw people into jail for being obnoxious, or racist, or xenophobic, or whatever -- again, so long as they are not inciting violence.
.....but how is this not equivalent to the Sanity by Consensus we see among fundamentalist Christians who argue that they're right about literal interpretation of the Bible because other people agree? This is the sort of problem that constitutions are supposed to defend people like Gollnisch from.
Well, first of all this is not an equivalent for the fact that these fundamentalists are not empowered to judge in conflicts and to uphold the law as the State is. Second the views of fundamentalists be it Jewish, Christian or Muslim, are not of universal significance and thus not applicable. In fact their views are often as intolerant as the views of Irving and Gollnisch and thus in conflict with the accepted ethics of the society at large. It is a misconception that the laws are made to protect deviation, especially if this deviation is detrimental to other citizens or people. In fact it is in such cases the law are to protect the victims from the offender. As I have said and shown in my previous comment:
Yes, the constitution is supposed, amongst other things, to defend the citizen's basic rights against State infringements as well as infringements from other individuals or groups of individuals, in this case, the discrimination and Holocaust denials of people like Irving and Gollnisch against the Jews. Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.
No, not quite, since you seem to imply that racist views are OK as long as people do not incite to violence.
I'm not saying they're OK. I'm saying that there will always be racists, and that people should not be thrown in jail merely for being racists. Ignorance and hatred are not criminal acts in and of themselves.
But the owner of ET is not the same as the State. The State's actions are necessarily limited, to avoid infringement on our rights. You and I have no rights as ET members, because we have no share in ownership in ET. The owner of ET can (say) throw us out at any time and for any reason. The State cannot.
At what point is he inciting racial discrimination or hatred? Simply denying an event, no matter how hideous that event may have been (and this was among the most hideous), is not an infringment on the rights of the victims, their relatives, or the Jewish people as a whole. We don't have a natural right to be shielded from offensive comments.
In fact their views are often as intolerant as the views of Irving and Gollnisch and thus in conflict with the accepted ethics of the society at large. It is a misconception that the laws are made to protect deviation, especially if this deviation is detrimental to other citizens or people. In fact it is in such cases the law are to protect the victims from the offender. As I have said and shown in my previous comment
I may be bordering on echoing Crazy Maggie Thatcher in this paragraph, but how do we establish the accepted ethics of the "society" at large? (I use quotation marks, because I think the word is used to justify all sorts of things, when there is little or no way of establishing such ethics.) If we push this to extremes, you arrive at the slippery-slope discussed above by Jerome and I.
"Don't kill" and "Don't steal" are constitutional laws, not because of ethical considerations, but because of their direct relation to issues of privacy, freedom and economics -- namely, that these three things cannot exist without those two protections.
(By the way, I in no way mean this to be taken as my telling those of you from Europe how to run your own countries and the EU. Just wanted to make that clear.) WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
