Holocaust Denier Z?ndel's 15 Minutes of Fame
Holocaust Denier Z?ndel's 15 Minutes of Fame
(COMMENT BY HAIRY: Mr. Z?ndel's crime? For publishing the material on the Web WHILE HE WAS IN CANADA. Argument used by the German Government: Web is available in Germany; ergo, he can be prosecuted and, obviously, found guilty. Is this persecution or prosecution?)
Historical revisionist Ernst Z?ndel has been convicted for denying the Holocaust and sent to jail for five years. But many in Germany suspect such trials may do more harm than good. Ernst Z?ndel was sent to prison for five years for denying the Holocaust.
The "martyr of the German Reich" -- as his right-wing supporters call him -- is heading to jail. On Thursday, a court in Mannheim sentenced 67-year-old historical revisionist Ernst Z?ndel to five years in prison for denying the Holocaust. The two years he has already spent behind bars since being extradited to Germany from Canada in 2005 will be counted against his sentence.
"You're an inflammatory, racist agitator," the visibly upset presiding judge, Ulrich Meinerzhagen, told Z?ndel as he handed down his verdict. To illustrate his point, Meinerzhagen read passages from Z?ndel's racist and anti-Semitic writings, including one that called Israel "a place of refuge for world gangsterism."
The trial was a highly grotesque affair, with the defense calling a number of neo-Nazis as witnesses -- "long live the German Reich," shouted one as she was led from the stand -- and people leaving the courtroom on some days with bouts of nausea.
Z?ndel's lawyer J?rgen Rieger spent much of his speaking time elaborating on the details of the gas chambers and ovens in German concentration camps, arguing that "millions of people could never have died in concentration camps -- at most it couldn't have been more than a few thousand."
Rieger was not present for the sentencing, but he had previously promised he would demand a re-trial should Z?ndel be convicted. German commentators on Friday are not impressed with the handling of the trial and wonder whether neo-Nazis have learned to instrumentalize the courts to their advantage.
Center-left daily S?ddeutsche Zeitung ponders whether characters like Z?ndel really deserve the public attention such trials generate.
"Freedom of opinion is a fundamentally far-reaching basic right," the paper writes. "It's not concerned with the validity of the thoughts expressed; it applies to any old nonsense, covering witlessness and idiocy no less than extraordinary stupidity. It is legitimate to wonder whether one should leave garden-variety right-wing blabber unpunished.
Holocaust denial, though, is not the same as an unsavory opinion, the commentator concludes: "Ernst Z?ndel, a fanatic anti-Semite, is not a martyr for freedom of opinion. He's more than an everyday right-winger, more than a global Nazi propagandist: He's a harbinger of violence. Even were Holocaust denial not punishable by law -- as it is in Germany -- he would be guilty of inciting the public to violence."
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is even less convinced the trial and the sentence were justified. The piece, printed on the conservative daily's front page, begins by stressing that this and previous trials -- including one in Canada which Z?ndel won -- have helped create a platform for Holocaust deniers.
"Ernst Z?ndel has become world-famous. He's become well-known not just via his publications but also thanks to court proceedings.... He was granted the same freedom of speech as every other Canadian, albeit reluctantly. But Z?ndel also succeeded in instrumentalizing the trials in a way never seen before ... Z?ndel gave 'revisionism' ... a tremendous boost."
The legal basis for Z?ndel's conviction in a German court is questionable, the paper argues: "Guilt has now been extended to include a person's views.... In 2005, it became possible to convict and punish a person for endorsing Nazi crimes 'by way of conclusion' -- in other words, by simply successfully showing they agree with such crimes... Expanding the notion of guilt leads to a statistical increase in number of crimes in question. In addition, it likely fosters the very thing it wants to fight."
The left-wing daily Die Tageszeitung is especially disturbed by how the trial was conducted. "The trial was intolerable for all those who don't belong to the extreme right. The right-wingers associated with J?rgen Rieger -- the lawyer who is also an activist for the far-right National Democratic Party (NPD) -- used the trial as a platform for their revanchism and in order to publicize their claimed scientific 'discoveries' on 'the Auschwitz lie.' The lawyers also repeatedly tried to provoke the presiding judge ... and turn the court proceedings into chaos.
"Perhaps it would be better not to give Holocaust deniers and their supporters the satisfaction of taking them to court," the commentator concludes. "After all, the laws currently in place have yet to stop a single revanchist from circulating hate speech in written and spoken form. In any case, Z?ndel wouldn't be a right-wing martyr now if it hadn't been for this trial."
"Maximum Penalty -- What Else?" is the headline in conservative daily Die Welt. But the commentator is more concerned about the trial and its possible consequences than the title suggests.
"The circumstances of the trial were often intolerable, at least for the non-confused among us. The fact that one of Z?ndel's lawyers signed a document with the words 'Heil Hitler' is just one of the more grotesque lapses."
The commentator goes on to ponder a proposal currently being debated within the European Union -- that of making "racism and xenophobia" a punishable crime in all of the EU's member countries. He takes a critical view of the proposal.
"Should all Polish glorifiers of Stalinism and all French deniers of the murder of Armenians be taken to court in the EU, regardless of which country they are active in? That, from the German point of view, doesn't seem like a good idea. We should take care of our own past ourselves. What is more, it is unacceptable to in any way equate other crimes with the industrial mass murder of the Jews and other Nazi-era crimes."
(COMMENT BY HAIRY: Mr. Z?ndel's crime? For publishing the material on the Web WHILE HE WAS IN CANADA. Argument used by the German Government: Web is available in Germany; ergo, he can be prosecuted and, obviously, found guilty. Is this persecution or prosecution?)
Historical revisionist Ernst Z?ndel has been convicted for denying the Holocaust and sent to jail for five years. But many in Germany suspect such trials may do more harm than good. Ernst Z?ndel was sent to prison for five years for denying the Holocaust.
The "martyr of the German Reich" -- as his right-wing supporters call him -- is heading to jail. On Thursday, a court in Mannheim sentenced 67-year-old historical revisionist Ernst Z?ndel to five years in prison for denying the Holocaust. The two years he has already spent behind bars since being extradited to Germany from Canada in 2005 will be counted against his sentence.
"You're an inflammatory, racist agitator," the visibly upset presiding judge, Ulrich Meinerzhagen, told Z?ndel as he handed down his verdict. To illustrate his point, Meinerzhagen read passages from Z?ndel's racist and anti-Semitic writings, including one that called Israel "a place of refuge for world gangsterism."
The trial was a highly grotesque affair, with the defense calling a number of neo-Nazis as witnesses -- "long live the German Reich," shouted one as she was led from the stand -- and people leaving the courtroom on some days with bouts of nausea.
Z?ndel's lawyer J?rgen Rieger spent much of his speaking time elaborating on the details of the gas chambers and ovens in German concentration camps, arguing that "millions of people could never have died in concentration camps -- at most it couldn't have been more than a few thousand."
Rieger was not present for the sentencing, but he had previously promised he would demand a re-trial should Z?ndel be convicted. German commentators on Friday are not impressed with the handling of the trial and wonder whether neo-Nazis have learned to instrumentalize the courts to their advantage.
Center-left daily S?ddeutsche Zeitung ponders whether characters like Z?ndel really deserve the public attention such trials generate.
"Freedom of opinion is a fundamentally far-reaching basic right," the paper writes. "It's not concerned with the validity of the thoughts expressed; it applies to any old nonsense, covering witlessness and idiocy no less than extraordinary stupidity. It is legitimate to wonder whether one should leave garden-variety right-wing blabber unpunished.
Holocaust denial, though, is not the same as an unsavory opinion, the commentator concludes: "Ernst Z?ndel, a fanatic anti-Semite, is not a martyr for freedom of opinion. He's more than an everyday right-winger, more than a global Nazi propagandist: He's a harbinger of violence. Even were Holocaust denial not punishable by law -- as it is in Germany -- he would be guilty of inciting the public to violence."
The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is even less convinced the trial and the sentence were justified. The piece, printed on the conservative daily's front page, begins by stressing that this and previous trials -- including one in Canada which Z?ndel won -- have helped create a platform for Holocaust deniers.
"Ernst Z?ndel has become world-famous. He's become well-known not just via his publications but also thanks to court proceedings.... He was granted the same freedom of speech as every other Canadian, albeit reluctantly. But Z?ndel also succeeded in instrumentalizing the trials in a way never seen before ... Z?ndel gave 'revisionism' ... a tremendous boost."
The legal basis for Z?ndel's conviction in a German court is questionable, the paper argues: "Guilt has now been extended to include a person's views.... In 2005, it became possible to convict and punish a person for endorsing Nazi crimes 'by way of conclusion' -- in other words, by simply successfully showing they agree with such crimes... Expanding the notion of guilt leads to a statistical increase in number of crimes in question. In addition, it likely fosters the very thing it wants to fight."
The left-wing daily Die Tageszeitung is especially disturbed by how the trial was conducted. "The trial was intolerable for all those who don't belong to the extreme right. The right-wingers associated with J?rgen Rieger -- the lawyer who is also an activist for the far-right National Democratic Party (NPD) -- used the trial as a platform for their revanchism and in order to publicize their claimed scientific 'discoveries' on 'the Auschwitz lie.' The lawyers also repeatedly tried to provoke the presiding judge ... and turn the court proceedings into chaos.
"Perhaps it would be better not to give Holocaust deniers and their supporters the satisfaction of taking them to court," the commentator concludes. "After all, the laws currently in place have yet to stop a single revanchist from circulating hate speech in written and spoken form. In any case, Z?ndel wouldn't be a right-wing martyr now if it hadn't been for this trial."
"Maximum Penalty -- What Else?" is the headline in conservative daily Die Welt. But the commentator is more concerned about the trial and its possible consequences than the title suggests.
"The circumstances of the trial were often intolerable, at least for the non-confused among us. The fact that one of Z?ndel's lawyers signed a document with the words 'Heil Hitler' is just one of the more grotesque lapses."
The commentator goes on to ponder a proposal currently being debated within the European Union -- that of making "racism and xenophobia" a punishable crime in all of the EU's member countries. He takes a critical view of the proposal.
"Should all Polish glorifiers of Stalinism and all French deniers of the murder of Armenians be taken to court in the EU, regardless of which country they are active in? That, from the German point of view, doesn't seem like a good idea. We should take care of our own past ourselves. What is more, it is unacceptable to in any way equate other crimes with the industrial mass murder of the Jews and other Nazi-era crimes."
0
-
silly to resrict his freedom of speech.
I don't know or care anything about german law, we are already neck deep in our own crap.
do you argree with him, though, Hairy?0 -
hes not going to jail for denying the holocaust, hes going because racism is a crime.[;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsavo303
silly to restrict his freedom of speech.
I don't know or care anything about German law, we are already neck deep in our own crap.
do you agree with him, though, Hairy?
No, I don't agree with him (I believe the Holocaust took place but I also question the numbers put forth since they have been revised a few times). I find it outrageous that a person's stated views subject one to a prison term.
Thought control is live and well.
Now, if comments against Islam or Christianity were made punishable to the same degree, would you support that as well?0 -
quote:Originally posted by bobski
hes not going to jail for denying the holocaust, hes going because racism is a crime.[;)]
If only that were true; German (and European)laws make it unlawful to question or deny the Holocaust. Doing so will put a person, even if a scholar, into jail.0 -
Hairy, we have not had a chance to have a beer and understand each other.
I am as much as against the gov't labeling and prosecuting someone for "hate speech or thought" as much as you I take it.
That is a dangerous precipice that we are on , also0 -
quote:Originally posted by tsavo303
Hairy, we have not had a chance to have a beer and understand each other.
I am as much as against the gov't labeling and prosecuting someone for "hate speech or thought" as much as you I take it.
That is a dangerous precipice that we are on , also
Agreed; it is PC to the max, IMHO.0 -
Denying that there was a massive wholesale murder of Jews by the Nazis is both hateful and hurtful, but IMO it shouldn't be a crime. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah
Denying that there was a massive wholesale murder of Jews by the Nazis is both hateful and hurtful, but IMO it shouldn't be a crime.
some people dont deny it but rather question the math. most jews will say 6 million jews were killed. many credable historians and researches say the number is closer to 2-3 million. unfortunately in some european countries freedom of speech and the right to question and debate is criminal. i know how people in those countries must feel since i have been subjected to it myself.0 -
yes, RunF your level of oppression is quite similar to histories downtrodden.
(is that you playing a game Hairy?)
[8)]
Surely you cannot be that big a whinner in real life0 -
German law forbids mentioning Nazis, displaying their symbols, or denying the Holocaust. This was likely an attempt to appease world outrage following WW II when the horrors of the Jewish plight came to the world's attention.
Most of us would see it as suppression of free speech. They see it as necessary to move on. It's their country and their law. This man knew the consequences and felt strongly enough to speak up, anyway. I admire his courage even though I disagree with his position.
I agree that the number of people killed in the Holocaust are likely inflated. Nobody will ever know for sure and I suspect it is in the millions, but I've heard 3,000,000 to 20,000,000 and I sort of think it's closer to the former than the latter. Some say it's in the thousands but near entire Jewish populations in some Baltic countries were wiped out. Had to be in the millions.0 -
I wonder what people would think of a law in America to prevent people from questioning how many slaves were brought to America or questioning some of the conditions that some of the slaves lived in. 0 -
We would call it an infringement of free speech. Not all countries guarantee such protections to the citizens.
In Japan 98% of all crimes are solved via confession because cops torture suspects until they talk. That would be un-Constitutional here but Japan has no such governing document.
I can't worry too much about the laws in other countries. I assume most of them suck and I'm too busy trying to maintain American liberties to get worked up over what Germany does.0 -
so was it you saxon that just deleted my post ? 0 -
Yes.
I replied with an explanation although I am not obligated to give one.
Complaining about posts being deleted is contrary to the posting guidelines. If something is deleted it's done for a reason and we don't need any griping about it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by SaxonPig
Yes.
I replied with an explanation although I am not obligated to give one.
Complaining about posts being deleted is contrary to the posting guidelines. If something is deleted it's done for a reason and we don't need any griping about it.
I wasnt complaining, I just found it curious that it came right after you made a post about trying to defend American liberties. Thats all.0 -
you have no liberties here, Forest. You are allowed to post for free until you violate a rule or piss off the mods.
And acting like (my apoligies if you are a bratty 5 year old girl) a bratty 5 year old girl, only hurts your ability to interact here0 -
Whether Zundel is right or wrong he should be allowed to voice his opinion without state imposed sanctions. Simple as that. Remember Salman Rushdie, the author who wrote The Satanic Verses? This book disturbed the Islamic powers so much they put a holy "hit" order out on him. I see similarities here. Some practice a selective brand of freedom of speech, if they don't agree with it you can't speak it. The never ending rabid vigilantism against those who question the "official" version of the Holocaust probably serves to perpetuate and expand the efforts, and numbers, of the doubters. 0 -
"You're an inflammatory, racist agitator,"
Will he have access to a computer in prison? With those qualities there should be plenty of room for him here on GB.0 -
A disturbing example of how much power the Jews have worldwide. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
19 comments