Re: Holocaust - - what if
- From: Nigel Worm <mel.rowing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 01:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
On Oct 2, 10:24 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@xxxxxxxxx>
Nigel Worm wrote:
On Oct 2, 7:28 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...@xxxxxxxxx>
On 2 Oct, 16:14, jake <j...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:If he broke it while in Germany then the warrant is valid.
What if Somme deniers started popping up, or Dunkirk deniers. WouldI was not aware that genocide was carried
they be arrested?
See, that's the trouble with suppressing free speech - it quickly
becomes very selective.
So it should not be a question of making it illegal beacause if that
happened the thought police will soon be after YOU. Education of the
people to a degree where they can work it out for themselves is the
only way. At the moment of course that is the opposite direction to
the one we are traveling in Europe.
out either in the Somme or in Dunkirk.
I am still not aware of living in Germany.
In fact I don't.
Toben broke German law and a German
court issued the arrest warrant for him.
If not it is not justified.
What do you want next - extraditing UK citizens for breaking North
North Korea is not a part of the EU neither is there any extradition
treaty in existence between the North Korea and the UK. Regardless of
what we might think about it, there is an arrangement under which EU
countries each have extradition treaties with each other. The purpose
of this is to prevent law breakers escaping justice by crossing open
As the law stands at this moment Toben does not escape German justice
by virtue of his presence in the UK or indeed anywhere else in the EU
and that's the end of it.
Toben uses the internet in order to distribute his bile. There are
very few places on the planet where the internet cannot be accessed.
Increasingly states are taking this stark fact into account when
deciding jurisdiction. Indeed, bearing in mind that, in places, he
uses German on his site might be taken as evidence that he targets
Germany from the safety of Australia.
Historical revisionism in the sense that these people use it is simply
bogus. There is no such historical controversy except of the
proponents own making. I would be surprised to find that the topic was
studied in any reputable educational institution in the Western World.
Despite this there is no reason why anyone taking a PhD degree should
not focus his research on the holocaust.
I have been unsuccessfully trying to get hold of details of Toben's
PhD. I would bet that his research project had nothing to do with the
holocaust. I wonder why? He obviously holds a keen and "genuine"
interest in the topic.
Could it be that he is not as sceptical has he maintains and sees HD
as a tool with which to attack and defame others?
The free speech question is equally bogus. As far as I am aware, no
society has ever allowed any unfettered right of free speech. Taking
our own society,the right to free speech/expression has never been a
defence against incitement, defamation, deception, revelation of state
secrets, breach of duty of confidentiality, contempt of court, abusive/
insulting behaviour.behaviour likely to cause breach of the peace, the
performance of lewd or obscene acts in public to mention but a few
restrictions that come to mind. The sate or society has always drawn
lines even if such lines can on occasion be vague or ill defined.
There seem therefore no reason why the state should not draw a line to
prevent individuals from using pseudo academic inquiry (which on the
most superficial examination turns out to be no such thing) to achieve
a more sinister objective which is to cause incitement towards, hatred
against, offence to a particular racial/religious group.
That's what it's all about!
Then any EU nation which passes any anti-freedom law can extradite
anyone from any EU nation if it's broken anywhere within the EU.
So would you be happy to see UK proselytising Christians extradited to
Greece to stand trial if they write on the Net in Greek?
Normally extradition law rest on the notion of dual criminality. The
offence in question must be a criminal offence in both countries.
However, the EU extradition law abolished 32 categories of law where
this dual criminality principle applies.
It would appear that Toben's case is not covered by these exclusions
since, I understand, he is to appear before a court here. The court
will therefore decide the case at a prima facie level on the basis of
dual criminality whether the extradition warrant is valid.
- Re: Holocaust - - what if
- From: parris_k
- Re: Holocaust - - what if
- Prev by Date: Re: Extend HMIC Powers (police inspectorate)
- Next by Date: Re: Holocaust - - what if
- Previous by thread: Re: Holocaust - - what if
- Next by thread: Re: Holocaust - - what if