NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4417298.stm

Ernst Zündel is on trial in Germany as of Tuesday, and there's already a "scandal". One of his defenders is barred from defending him (on the grounds that he's currently barred from professing as a lawyer). Another lawyer is barred for trying to get said lawyer as an assistant and for the racial hatred she portrayed in her 100+ page justification for cancelling the trial outright.

Why do they even bother to trial him? It's not like the judge(s) will not sentence him anyway.
The courts are objective and fair for pedophiles, criminals etc...but if someone is tried for anything relating to the 3rd reich or the ideoligy they will lock him away. So why bother with the whole dog and pony show?

Why do they even bother to trial him? It's not like the judge(s) will not sentence him anyway.

Well, you can't sentence someone without a trial, can you? Even if the outcome might be obvious.

Why do they even bother to trial him? It's not like the judge(s) will not sentence him anyway.I suppose you didn't notice the thing we call "Rule of Law". They're going to make sure no one screwed up. In fact, one could have said "Why do they even bother going on trial? They're going to ban the NPD anyway..."

Well, you can't sentence someone without a trial, can you? Even if the outcome might be obvious.
I still think it's a waste of money. They will find him guilty anyway.

I still think it's a waste of money. They will find him guilty anyway.
He pays for the trial if he's guilty (and he can afford it too). Don't you know that?

I suppose you didn't notice the thing we call "Rule of Law". They're going to make sure no one screwed up. In fact, one could have said "Why do they even bother going on trial? They're going to ban the NPD anyway..."
The NPD is an organisation. Ernst Zündel is an individual there is a difference.
And excuse me if I do not have a lot of faith in the courts. But ever since a judge last year let a couple of pedophiles off because "their victims where not harmed beyond their social class" my opnion of our courts took a turn for the worst.

The NPD is an organisation. Ernst Zündel is an individual there is a difference.
And excuse me if I do not have a lot of faith in the courts. But ever since a judge last year let a couple of pedophiles off because "their victims where not harmed beyond their social class" my opnion of our courts took a turn for the worst.

That's a bizarre statement - "not harmed beyond their social class". WTF?

He pays for the trial if he's guilty (and he can afford it too). Don't you know that?
Oh right. Forgot about that. Still, don't they have anything better to do with their time then to hold a hoax trial?

Reminds me of a Dutch SSer who currenlty lives in Germany. The judge refused to give him a trial because he was to old...

His crime: killing two resistance members and a family, including an 80 year old...

Oh right. Forgot about that. Still, don't they have anything better to do with their time then to hold a hoax trial?
Idle hands are the devil's playground. They have to keep busy somehow.

Oh right. Forgot about that. Still, don't they have anything better to do with their time then to hold a hoax trial?As I said before, you could have said the same thing for the NPD. In the end, they're both neo-nazi, so I guess the courts are capable of applying the rule of law in one case, they will in the other too.

Ummm, ok, is anyone else here made extremely uncomfortable by a man facing a criminal trial for saying something unpopular/offensive/clearly untrue? I mean, aside from the fact that the government is only creating a martyr and giving him a soapbox by trying him, doesn't it make you a bit scared that someone is being prosecuted for WORDS? Yes, I understand Germany's commitment to not repeating the past, but abridging free speech because someone defends an abomination. I think the prosecutor in this case needs to call Skokie, Illinois and ask about the Nazi march they had there. The Nazis had their march, the survivors had theirs, and at the end of the day only one group looked like fools.


93
93/93

Ummm, ok, is anyone else here made extremely uncomfortable by a man facing a criminal trial for saying something unpopular/offensive/clearly untrue? I mean, aside from the fact that the government is only creating a martyr and giving him a soapbox by trying him, doesn't it make you a bit scared that someone is being prosecuted for WORDS? Yes, I understand Germany's commitment to not repeating the past, but abridging free speech because someone defends an abomination. I think the prosecutor in this case needs to call Skokie, Illinois and ask about the Nazi march they had there. The Nazis had their march, the survivors had theirs, and at the end of the day only one group looked like fools.


Speaking as an American who spent three years in Germany, it's their system and they seem to have good results with it.

What works in America may not work in Germany.

I'm sure that if someday they want to change the laws, they will. But until then, let them do it their way.

Ummm, ok, is anyone else here made extremely uncomfortable by a man facing a criminal trial for saying something unpopular/offensive/clearly untrue? I mean, aside from the fact that the government is only creating a martyr and giving him a soapbox by trying him, doesn't it make you a bit scared that someone is being prosecuted for WORDS? Yes, I understand Germany's commitment to not repeating the past, but abridging free speech because someone defends an abomination. I think the prosecutor in this case needs to call Skokie, Illinois and ask about the Nazi march they had there. The Nazis had their march, the survivors had theirs, and at the end of the day only one group looked like fools.


93
93/93

Well, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (something like the German Supreme Court) has ruled that denying the Holocaust is to be classified as Volksverhetzung (don't know an English term for this - something not unlike hate speech), even though denying the Holocaust does not propagate violence.

I personally am against this ruling.

Ummm, ok, is anyone else here made extremely uncomfortable by a man facing a criminal trial for saying something unpopular/offensive/clearly untrue? I mean, aside from the fact that the government is only creating a martyr and giving him a soapbox by trying him, doesn't it make you a bit scared that someone is being prosecuted for WORDS?If his only crime is "unpopular/offensive/untrue? WORDS"...then my opinion is that the German Legal system is fucked up.

Its your country...Its your laws...do as you please...

but my opinion is still that your laws are fucked up.

Ummm, ok, is anyone else here made extremely uncomfortable by a man facing a criminal trial for saying something unpopular/offensive/clearly untrue? I mean, aside from the fact that the government is only creating a martyr and giving him a soapbox by trying him, doesn't it make you a bit scared that someone is being prosecuted for WORDS? Yes, I understand Germany's commitment to not repeating the past, but abridging free speech because someone defends an abomination. I think the prosecutor in this case needs to call Skokie, Illinois and ask about the Nazi march they had there. The Nazis had their march, the survivors had theirs, and at the end of the day only one group looked like fools.


93
93/93Ernst Zündel isn't the first person to go on trial for this nor will he likely be the last. He is in no way a "martyr".

And personally, I find it abhorrent to abolishing minority rights for the sake of an idiot's freedom of speech. The Nazis have their marches here too, but they don't get away with inciting racial hatred. Zündel has been doing worse than spreading "unpopular", "offensive", and "untrue" things. If upopular and offensive was the standard for trying someone, there'd be a lot more trials.

Speaking as an American who spent three years in Germany, it's their system and they seem to have good results with it.

What works in America may not work in Germany.

I'm sure that if someday they want to change the laws, they will. But until then, let them do it their way.

Tyranny usually works, doesn't mean its right. I'm sorry, theres no way I'm ever going to just shrug at a willful infringement on freedom of speech/conscience. Its not just because my constitution enshrines it, its because were talking about a basic human right.

Well, the Bundesverfassungsgericht (something like the German Supreme Court) has ruled that denying the Holocaust is to be classified as Volksverhetzung (don't know an English term for this - something not unlike hate speech), even though denying the Holocaust does not propagate violence.

I personally am against this ruling.

Thoughtcrime is generally highly unmutual. Still, I feel the law is double-plus ungood. ;)

Ernst Zündel isn't the first person to go on trial for this nor will he likely be the last. He is in no way a "martyr".

And personally, I find it abhorrent to abolishing minority rights for the sake of an idiot's freedom of speech. The Nazis have their marches here too, but they don't get away with inciting racial hatred. Zündel has been doing worse than spreading "unpopular", "offensive", and "untrue" things. If upopular and offensive was the standard for trying someone, there'd be a lot more trials.

Not a martyr? Do you mean to tell me that his esteem in neonazi circles has not risen since his trial began? He won't become a symbol for them? His words will not carry more weight amongst the troglodytes that already agree with him? Weather you like it or not, answering him grants him a legitimacy he would otherwise lack.

As for minority rights, pheh! Neither minorities nor majority deserve any "rights." Individuals have rights, governments exist to protect those rights. Ok, so some schmuck incites some racial hatred, answer him in a civilized way and he'll always come off looking like exactly what he is, some degenerate throwback. You have nothing to lose from allowing a free flow of ideas, even disgusting ones. You cannot stop people like him from speaking, from inciting, from preaching. Especially with the internet, you cannot stop an idea, all you can do is challenge and discredit it.

On a more pressing issue, however, do you not see the danger in limiting speech? Where exactly do you stop? More importantly, do you not fear someone using those same legal abilities against a minority? What happens when your party is out of power? Once you begin to carve off exemptions to freedoms, they quickly disappear. It becomes not a right, but a privilage your government allows you, one that can be limited or suspended as they see fit.

Denying the Holocaust is a crime in Germany.

*Dreamily imagines a world in which the USA passes a law against being a dipshit.*

I doubt the Holocaust is so flimsy a truth that it has to be supported by force.

I think the truth, whatever it is, is a greater moral obligation to the victims than a lie or an exaggeration. Allowing free inquiry and open debate on a historical matter conduces more to the arrival of truth than the silencing by force of opposing views and interpretations. This is self-evident.

And plus, if a bunch of people say the Holocaust never happened, and you ignore them, guess who looks like the idiots.

But ever since a judge last year let a couple of pedophiles off because "their victims where not harmed beyond their social class" my opnion of our courts took a turn for the worst.
I wasn't aware that germany still had orders of nobility. Why wasn't that decision overturned?