Nazi-Stuff and Freedom of Speach in Europe

[Brigitte]

[quote="Bloomfield]
The German Criminal Code containes the following provision:

Anyone one who publicly or in an assembly condones, denies, trivializes a crime of [Genocide] that was commited under National-socialist rule in Germany, in such a manner that public peace is threatened, is punishable by imprisonment of up to five years or by fine. (Section 130 (1994))

You are right this is a prima facie unconstituional limitation of the right to express one's opinions.

When two constitionally-guaranteed rights or liberties are at odds, they must be balanced in such a manner that each is preserved to greatest extent possible. An example of this balancing between rights was a case in which a German politician sued to surpress a caricature of himself as a copulating pig with a human face. Such carricature was permissible, the Constituional Court ruled, because, even though the politician's (constitutionally guaranteed) personal dignity was affected, the freedom of political speech was so fundamental and so important to the democratic process that the opinion expressed in the carricature (strong disagreement with the politician's views) prevailed. Publishing such an insulting caricature of a private person would not be consitutionally protected (but would be libel or slander in the common law idiom).

In deciding whether the criminal statute prohibiting public denial of the holocaust was constitutional, the court balanced the right to express one's opinion with the personal dignity of German Jews (or more broadly, the victims of the holocaust). Denying the holocaust is viewed as violating the dignity of Jews. The German supreme court wrote:

The historical fact that people were segregated by the racial criteria of the so-called Nuremburg Laws, and were robbed of their individuality with the aim of extermination, grants the Jews living in the Federal Republic of Germany a special personal relationship to their fellow citizens; in this special relationship the past is still present today. It is part of their personal identity to be understood as members of a group of persons marked by their suffering [literally: fate], and vis-a-vis whom a special moral obligation exists that is part of their personal dignity. The respect for this identity is to each of them tantamount to one of the guarantees against the repetition of such discrimination, and it is a fundamental condition of life in Federal Republic of Germany. Anyone attempting to deny what happened is violating the dignity of each Jew living in Germany today, to which dignity the Jews are entitled. For those affected this means a continuation of the discrimination of the group to which he or she belongs, and of himself or herself.

This doesn't read very clearly in German, and worse in translation, I fear. The upshot of it though is that denying the holocaust is not something that happens in a vacuum: It means something very specific and horrible to the victims of the holocaust (and their descendants). It continues and perpetuates their de-humanization, the violation of the fundamental dignity as human beings. Human dignity is the very first thing mentioned in the German constitution and the most fundamental of all rights.

Balancing the right of revisionists to express their opinion that the holocaust never occured against the fundamental dignity of the victims of the holocaust, the court decided that the victims' dignity prevails and that the state is permitted to prohibit publication of the Auschwitz-lie.

Source of the quotes: http://lexikon.idgr.de/a/a_u/auschwitzl ... zluege.php (in German)

[/quote]

Jim,
I quoted Bloomfields message to make clear that I am ONLY talking about our law, which seems to have proven that it can work for many decades now. This law and its intention (I presume in a similar wording only changed to work for our European partner countries) was the petition to be taken on for the European Union which got dismissed.

I tried to find a resource splitting the victims of the Nazi regime into groups which give a more personal information but could not find any so quickly. I was very interested to find the numbers of killed allies soldiers who gave their lifes to stop this inhumane regime. This is the estimations of killings during WWII I could find in a rush

55 Millionen Dead
35 Millionen Injured
3 Millionen Missing

By the dignity of these people and their relatives as said in our law, I strongly believe the followers of this ideology shall not have the right of free speach to help them to promote their ideals by using their pseudo-mythological signs and rituals and rethoric to be able to recrute a new generation of the willing.

I most certainly know of the risks to limit free speech (we have it pretty well protected here which I am happy about). I can only point again to what Bloomfield tried to make clear what we in Germany are on about with our law trying to stop Nazi-tum. I obviously cannot make myself clear enough in English, sorry for that.

Brigitte

[Martin Milner]

I found wildly varying numbers on different sites, from 48 to 56 million.

The site below seems fairly comprehensive, and admits the difference between different sources.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

[Brigitte]

Finally found the numbers of victims from 37 to 45 in Wikipedia (which does not tell me, how many more died in the years before the war startedunder the Nazi regime)

killed allie's soldiers
Australien: 23.400
Brasilien: 493
China: 2.050.000
Frankreich: 210.000
Griechenland: 88.300
Jugoslawien: 300.000
Kanada: 37.500
Luxemburg: 4.000
Niederlande: 7.900
Neuseeland: 10.000
Polen: 123.000
Sowjetunion: mind. 15.000.000
Südafrika: 6.840
Tschechoslowakei: 46.000
USA: 292.000 (davon 174.000 in Europa)
Großbritannien und Nordirland: 264.000
Gesamtzahl gefallener alliierter Soldaten: mind. 18,4 Millionen

killed soldiers in their attacked countries
Äthiopien: 5.000
Albanien: 20.000
Belgien: 12.000
Bulgarien (ab 1944): 1.000
Dänemark: 1.800
Finnland: 82.000
Indien: 24.300
Italien (ab 1943): 17.500
Mongolei: 3.000
Philippinen: 27.000
Rumänien (ab 1944): 5.000
Gesamtzahl gefallener Soldaten in angegriffenen Ländern: ca. 200.000

killied soldiers of the axis powers
Bulgarien (bis 1944): 9.000
Deutschland: 5.300.000 (inklusive Österreichern und Sudetendeutschen)
Italien (bis 1943): 60.000
Japan: 1.300.000
Rumänien (bis 1944): 290.000
Ungarn: 200.000
Vichy-Regime: 1.200
Gesamtzahl gefallener Soldaten der Achsenmächte: ca. 7,2 Millionen

killed civilians
Äthiopien: 5.000
Albanien: 10.000
Belgien: 76.000
Bulgarien: 10.000
China: 7.750.000
Dänemark: 2.000
Deutschland: 2.760.000
Finnland: 2.000
Frankreich: 800.000
Griechenland: 160.000
Großbritannien und Nordirland: 60.000
Indien: 25.000
Italien: 450.000
Jugoslawien: 1.700.000 (die meisten davon starben durch den interethnische Kanpf zwischen Tschetniks und Tito-Partisanen)
Japan: 672.000
Niederlande: 200.000 (davon 105.000 Juden)
Norwegen: 7.000
Österreich: 125.000
Philippinen: 91.000
Polen: 5.680.000
Rumänien: 200.000
Sowjetunion: mind. 10.000.000
Tschechoslowakei: 294.000
Ungarn: 290.000
Gesamtzahl getöteter Zivilisten: mind. 31,4 Millionen

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tote_im_Zweiten_Weltkrieg Ger,an source
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second English source

The information is out there if one wants to know.

Brigitte

[I.D.10-t]

our law, which seems to have proven that it can work for many decades now. This law and its intention (I presume in a similar wording only changed to work for our European partner countries) was the petition to be taken on for the European Union which got dismissed.
Brigitte

Did East Germany have such laws? Did they have different laws to the same extent? Was there a difference in Nazi recruits? I would be interested in the answers to these questions. (Really From a sociology stand point this would be fascinating to compare).

I wouldn’t say that these laws have proven to "work" in your country just because the nazi party has not gained power again. You may like the laws, they may do minimal harm (if any), but the nazi party needed a certain set of conditions in order to gain power.

I apologize for nit picking, and I may have miss read your statement. Especially assuming what work meant.

[Brigitte]

Martin, I was not aware mayself about the total death numbers. Thanks for coming up with this as well.

Germany has 80 million people at the moment. America 240 million? England 60 million? France? I am not sure how many live in these countries now. When I put the dead and injured numbers together it is more than my whole country has citizens now. That many got immediately affected by the war.

There were millions who got deported, had to do slave work in German factories, leave their homes to flee etc. etc. all in the name of Hitler/Nazi-tum. Not enough reasons to deny free speach to the ideological followers of his and his companions regime?

Brigitte

[Brigitte]

our law, which seems to have proven that it can work for many decades now. This law and its intention (I presume in a similar wording only changed to work for our European partner countries) was the petition to be taken on for the European Union which got dismissed.
Brigitte

Did East Germany have such laws? Did they have different laws to the same extent? Was there a difference in Nazi recruits? I would be interested in the answers to these questions. (Really From a sociology stand point this would be fascinating to compare).

I wouldn’t say that these laws have proven to "work" in your country just because the nazi party has not gained power again. You may like the laws, they may do minimal harm (if any), but the nazi party needed a certain set of conditions in order to gain power.

I apologize for nit picking, and I may have miss read your statement. Especially assuming what work meant.

No apologies necessary, I do not feel nitpicked. I have to find a little time though to find you some English resources which may help here. I have no clue in details myself.

For now. East Germany did not have freedom of speech to begin with so you cannot compare the two Germanies at all. East Germany was not a democracy so again nothing to compare against. What is strange though is that in the old east German parts recruiting of Neonazis seems to be much more in numbers than in the old German parts. I only know that Nazitum was nothing they were proud of on the other side of the wall so I presume a repression of this has been there as well.

I am not sure what certain set of conditions you mean that the Nazis needed to get in power? 6 million unemployed people? Well we have five million officially at the moment in Germany, many young untrained ones amongst them especially in the new parts there are more unemployed than in the old parts. From what I learned the Nazis had in fact a certain setting to get in power. They were only the smaller coalition partner of a weak socialist party with a weak socialist leader who thought they can share power with the NSDAP, even though the socialists had more votes of the people he gave Hitler his post of being chancellor/governmental leader. As soon as Hitler was in power.... the rest is history.

I think it was a little bit of unfortunate luck involved to get Hitler in power. He had the luck of the circumstances of a weak partner and took it from there. And that is what is freaking. Even though not directly elected he got in power with a minority. There is much more behind that they could take over power fully but this is the most tragic one for the world I find "by accident"

I will see what I can find for you on a scientific research basis.
Brigitte

[jim stone]

I heard news today which I found VERY annoying.
Germany tried to bring in a new law (petition) into the EU to get it forbidden by law European wide that using Nazi-signs like the swastiker (Hackenkreuz?) etc., Hitler-greeting etc. (these are forbidden in Germany for decades now incl. the denying of the holocaust and that it has ever happened). I am fine with these things being forbidden by law and I was always wondering how other countries can have a go and still call Germany Nazi-Germany while they have no laws forbidding the use of this. Well, today this law got dismissed because of three countries of the EU voting against it: England, Denmark and Hungary. I find the English reason ridiculous "because of freedom of speech", I do not know the Danish or Hungarian reason but for the Danish saying yes would mean probably loosing a lot of money as Nazi-tum is a business there. This freedom of speech in other countries gives room for these elements, singing and publishing their hate music on records, pub
lishing websites with their "ideology" and having groups of dressed up guys and probably girls running through woods playing WW2 and celebrating their heros. Very disturbing! Brigitte

This is the sort of thing that concerned me
and made me nervous. I don't find the English reason 'ridiculous,'
and I do hope you will appreciate why.

[PhilO]

I suppose it's relevant to note the ACLU's infamous defense of the neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Ill. Skokie was a town noted for it's relatively large concentration of concentration camp survivors. As a young boy, I attended holiday meals where my grandfather would cry as he recalled the slaughter of most of his family by the Nazis; he also gave thanks for the hope of the future.

Although those who would deny the true past and foster the return of Nazism in any form are to be reviled and I would have no qualms at watching all of these morons with no purpose in life disintegrate before my eyes, I had a split reaction to the Skokie ordeal. My heart held no doubt that they should be prohibited from marching in Skokie; my brain had doubt.

Although, I wouldn't care if they were prohibited from marching, I realized the inherent danger of any such prohibitions, censorships, book burnings, etc. Yes, they were clearly evil and knowingly causing harm (psychological, emotional) to the Skokie residents. Although that particular one may be an easy call, how can we be sure that we'll properly draw the line in other cases?

That, in a nut shell is the basis for the ACLU - to ensure that such calls are dependent not upon ruling groups but on principle and law. That's the brain talking.

Brain and heart do however merge in a fervent dedication: Never again.

Philo

[Brigitte]

I heard news today which I found VERY annoying.
Germany tried to bring in a new law (petition) into the EU to get it forbidden by law European wide that using Nazi-signs like the swastiker (Hackenkreuz?) etc., Hitler-greeting etc. (these are forbidden in Germany for decades now incl. the denying of the holocaust and that it has ever happened). I am fine with these things being forbidden by law and I was always wondering how other countries can have a go and still call Germany Nazi-Germany while they have no laws forbidding the use of this. Well, today this law got dismissed because of three countries of the EU voting against it: England, Denmark and Hungary. I find the English reason ridiculous "because of freedom of speech", I do not know the Danish or Hungarian reason but for the Danish saying yes would mean probably loosing a lot of money as Nazi-tum is a business there. This freedom of speech in other countries gives room for these elements, singing and publishing their hate music on records, pub
lishing websites with their "ideology" and having groups of dressed up guys and probably girls running through woods playing WW2 and celebrating their heros. Very disturbing! Brigitte

This is the sort of thing that concerned me
and makes me nervous.I don't find the English reason 'ridiculous,'
and I do hope you will appreciate why.

Let me add that there are other relevant attitudes toward
the Holocaust, other than those of Germany, England,
the USA, and so on.

For instance: The Nazis would have killed me and my family if they
could have (I was born in 1942). I grew up in an apartment house full of
Jewish refugees from Hitler. People with numbers tattooed
on their forearms were hardly uncommon when I
was a boy. I've also visited Germany, where I have
relatives, and I've taught, and therefore lived, in Austria.
I guess that gives me a legitimate perspective
So here's my two cents--I appreciate why you feel as
you do, and I wouldn't play it your way.

Jim, I think I remember you saying this before that you were immediately affected by this all. I am happy you could escape and many others could, too but most could not escape and died. I do not want to undermine freedom of speech in general, I appreciate my constitution and trust Bloomfields skilled knowledge that it is pretty safe. There is plenty of freedom of speech here, I am sure you know this i.e. nipples can be shown even on billboards .

I cannot understand why "to protect general freedom of speech" means to give the nazis the right for a forum to spread their word. With your background I cannot follow you, I can accept your opinion but it goes completely over my head, sorry. If you feel that neo-nazis have a right for promoting their beliefs in public then I am sure I have no arguments to change your opinion so I shall bow out here.
Brigitte

[glauber]

I think at least part of what's behind the "good guys"' reluctance in restricting free speech, is the thought that they might be on the other side one day, meaning someone could try to restrict their speech. Other than the Nazis and the KKK, most cases are not clear-cut. Many of us have one time or another in our life expressed opinions that were not mainstream, and some of us have lived under repressive regimes.

[jim stone]

The discussion began with the expression of
bafflement that some nations in the EU had dissented
from a general ban on Nazi symbols, salutes, and so on.
I appreciate why Germany would want this spread
throughout the EU, but I was
concerned that the dissent from it on grounds of free speech
was dismissed as 'ridiculous.'

I've written in several posts, as have others, our
feeling that protecting obnoxious political speech,
while it has its risks, may well be less risky--on
multiple counts--and more conducive to real
and stable democracy than allowing the
government to decide what citizens hear
and say. That the ability to tolerate dissent, including
dissent that is widely perceived as vile, may be
the best safeguard a democracy has against
fascism. There MAY be times and places where this doesn't
apply, still this sort of thinking isn't silly.

(By the way, Martin, I quoted the federal judge who ruled
in favor of the Nazis in the Skokie case. Also reviewed
some of the details.)

I see how somebody might understand
what we've been saying but respond: 'Under our circumstances,
given our history, we judge for good reason that
suppressing this advocacy is the better path--though
we acknowledge that it also has its risks.'
But that people who live in a democracy
are unable to grasp these concerns
is...

[TomB]

I think at least part of what's behind the "good guys"' reluctance in restricting free speech, is the thought that they might be on the other side one day, meaning someone could try to restrict their speech. Other than the Nazis and the KKK, most cases are not clear-cut. Many of us have one time or another in our life expressed opinions that were not mainstream, and some of us have lived under repressive regimes.

Well said, and becoming a more valid worry each day.

Tom

[Sunnywindo]

The farther removed from the people such decisions are made, the more perilous it becomes I think. I get a little leary of big governmental organizations, such as the EU where one country has such an influence over what happens in another country or big government (more power in the hands of fewer people) in general. But that's just me.

Sara

I don't think this describes the EU accurately; stuff has to be agreed to by all countries, in some instances a majority of member countries, and then typically (but not always) there is room for each countries preferences in implementing the directives. It's not like France imposing it's will on Italy.

"But not always". That's the part that gets me... that the nations, while having a say of course, are not really independent, sovereign nations anymore in the true sense of it as they once were. The EU just seems a bit superfluous to me, with too much potential for corruption and problems down the road that would effect the whole of Europe in a direct, immediate way.

One of the reasons for the EU (as I understand it) was economical? Are there not other ways of accomplishing that sort of thing? I admit, I don't know enough details to really get into it well... (*makes mental note to learn more about the EU and how it is structured*) It's just the concept of such consolidation makes me wary.

However, being the sort that thinks the US government is too big, having taken too much power upon itself to the detriment of not only it's citizans but to others around the world... it should come as no surprise that I would be apprehensive of something like the EU.

Of course, I don't live there, and if that's what the folks over there want then....

Just hope it works out well for them.


Sara

[Wombat]

I haven't read all this thread but what I have read—the first couple of pages and the last couple—make me decidedly uneasy. I'm basically for freedom of speech, just like I'm for non-violent resolution of conflict and social justice. I don't think that any of these can always be obtained, however, and I think we should all realise that there can be exceptional circumstances.

To those who would lecture Germans about freedom of speech in connection with the suppression of neo-Nazis, I feel inclined to say: you haven't earned the right to talk like that until you've both experienced and come to terms with your own holocaust. This isn't because I'm ambivalent about the value of free speech. It's because I think that coming to terms with Nazi tendencies is more important sometimes than having unrestricted free speech.

I don't know how long it will be before Germany has come to terms with the Holocaust to the point where it can feel comfortable relaxing those laws. It is to the credit of the modern Germany that its citizens realise that this is not something that can or should happen quickly. Those events were staggering and I am much more alarmed that many people no longer seem to find them so than that Germany requires special laws to remind itself. I think many people here would be surprised if they knew just how many people inside and outside Germany find the Nazis glamorous and would like to take part in something like that themselves. If you think I'm kidding, just check out how many people have died in acts of genocide since then and how many different ethnic groups have indulged in it.

We still have no global strategy for dealing with genocide either before it happens or during. As a world, we have learnt almost nothing from the Holocaust, except that for all our shock we have done virtually nothing to prevent it happening on some scale or another again and again. I think non-Germans would do better to look for general strategies to divert and terminate ethnic violence than to arrogate to themselves the right to tell Germans when it is time to move on.

[Bloomfield]

"But not always". That's the part that gets me... that the nations, while having a say of course, are not really independent, sovereign nations anymore in the true sense of it as they once were. The EU just seems a bit superfluous to me, with too much potential for corruption and problems down the road that would effect the whole of Europe in a direct, immediate way.

One of the reasons for the EU (as I understand it) was economical? Are there not other ways of accomplishing that sort of thing? I admit, I don't know enough details to really get into it well... (*makes mental note to learn more about the EU and how it is structured*) It's just the concept of such consolidation makes me wary.

Not having truly independent, sovereign nations any more is the whole point. Economics was just the obvious place to start.

For the 300 years preceding 1950, France and Germany (and Germany's predecessors such as Prussia) went to war every 30 years or so, sometimes more often. Central Europe is drenched in blood. You act like its somehow a bad thing that Europeans are conforming their administrative rules, consumer laws, trade norms etc etc, creating "more state" in the process. It is wonderful! Absolutely delicious. To have French and Germans and Italians and Spaniards and the odd Englishman with offices on the same hallway in some boring and stuffy building in Brussels busily standardizing pajama sizes from Sicily to Poland is terrific. Let them be overly beaurocratic papershufflers! The first thing the younger generation in Germany thinks when they hear "France" is vacation, soccer, and raw milk cheese. It used to Sedan, Ypres, and Versaille.

The whole point, the whole principle of the EU is to turn what used to be external conflicts (fought by war) into internal squabbles (fought by paper and money).

However, being the sort that thinks the US government is too big, having taken too much power upon itself to the detriment of not only it's citizans but to others around the world... it should come as no surprise that I would be apprehensive of something like the EU.

You're spoiled by history. I often can't help regarding the fashionable complaints about Washington as a luxury. You didn't grow up on streets where you could still see where the bombs had fallen, thirty years earlier. The only war on US territory was the Civil War and you can see in this very thread how much that still festers. That was one war in over 200 years. Germany/Prussia and France fought at least five wars in the same period. But they have not fought a war since 1945. (The first Treaty to lay the foundation for the EU came in 1955 or so, the Steel Union between Germany and France).