German Pastor Sentenced to a Year in Jail for Comparing Abortion to the Nazi Holocaus

[seer]

Secularist Europe Silences Pro-Lifers and Creationists

By Paul Belien
Created 2007-06-23 18:53
Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist (http://www.creationism.org/) opinions, such as young earth (http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html) and intelligent design (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/) theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.”
Without legalized abortion the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000 – which is the number of legal abortions in birth dearth Germany. Pastor Johannes Lerle compared the killing of the unborn to the killing of the Jews in Auschwitz during the Second World War. On 14 June, a court in Erlangen ruled (http://kath.net/detail.php?id=17064) that, in doing so, the pastor had “incited the people” because his statement was a denial of the holocaust (http://kirchenlehre.com/abtrei13.htm) of the Jews in Nazi-Germany. Hence, Herr Lerle was sentenced to one year in jail (http://www.kreuz.net/article.5395.html). Earlier, he had already spent eight months in jail for calling abortionists “professional killers” – an allegation which the court ruled to be slanderous because, according to the court, the unborn are not humans.
Other German courts convicted pro-lifers for saying that “in abortion clinics, life unworthy of living is being killed,” because this terminology evoked Hitler’s euthanasia program, which used the same language. In 2005, a German pro-lifer, Günter Annen, was sentenced to 50 days in jail (http://www.kreuz.net/article.1521.html) for saying “Stop unjust [rechtswidrige] abortions in [medical] practice,” because, according to the court, the expression “unjust” is understood by laymen as meaning illegal, which abortions are not.

Volksverhetzung is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies and which contemporary Germany also uses to intimidate homeschoolers (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2211/node/139). Soon, the German authorities will be able to use the same charge against people who question Darwin’s evolution theory.

Indeed, next Tuesday, the Council of Europe (http://www.coe.int/) (CoE), Europe’s main human-rights body, will vote on a proposal which advocates the fight against creationism, “young earth” and “intelligent design” in its 47 member states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_europe).
According to a report of the CoE’s Parliamentary Assembly (http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link=/Documents/WorkingDocs/Doc07/EDOC11297.htm), creationists are dangerous “religious fundamentalists” who propagate “forms of religious extremism” and “could become a threat to human rights.” The report adds that the acceptance of the science of evolutionism “is crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.”

“Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon,” the report says.
“Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states. […] [T]his is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights. […] The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy. [...] If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists.”

According to the CoE report, America and Australia are already on their way towards becoming such undemocratic theocracies where human and civic rights are endangered. Creationism is “well-developed in the English-speaking countries, especially the United States and Australia,” the report states.
“While most curricula in Europe today unashamedly teach evolution as a recognised scientific theory, the same does not apply to the United States. In July 2005, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll that showed that 64% of Americans favoured the teaching of intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution and that 38% would support the total abandonment of the teaching of evolution in publicly owned schools. The American President George W. Bush supports the principle of teaching both intelligent design and the theory of evolution. At the moment, 20 of the 50 American states are facing potential adjustments of their school curricula in favour of intelligent design. Many people think that this phenomenon only affects the United States and that, even if it is not possible to be indifferent to what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, it is not the Council of Europe’s role to deal with this issue. That, however, is not the case. On the contrary, it would seem crucial for us to take the appropriate precautions in our 47 member states.”

Though one may disagree with people who take the Book of Genesis (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/genesis.html) literally (believing that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh), surely secularist political organizations telling people what they may or may not believe, constitute a far greater threat to human rights than religious institutions telling their faithful how to vote. In the voting booth people are free to do what they like, whilst in contemporary Europe people are no longer free to publicly voice their own, deeply felt opinions in public.
In Germany, believing abortion to be as murderous as the holocaust is a crime, and educating your own children is a crime too (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2211/node/2075). In France, saying that “homo****** behaviour endangers the survival of humanity” is a crime (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2211/node/1868), and so is the distribution of pork soup (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2211/node/1819) to the poor. In Belgium, speaking out against immigration is a crime (http://www.vdare.com/misc/belien_041109_belgium.htm).

In the latest issue of the Dutch conservative magazine Bitter Lemon the Dutch author Erik van Goor writes that (http://openorthodoxie.literatesolutions.org/folder.2006-04-17.9220423988/document.2007-06-19.4578690499/view) European courts are silencing conservative and orthodox citizens. Freedom of speech no longer exist, says van Goor.
“While many in the West still idolize the second-hand fighters for free speech, such as [Ayaan] Hirsi Ali (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2211/node/634) and Theo van Gogh (http://secessie.nu/?tekst=toonhtml&artikel=900-27), the true victims of curtailment (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2211/node/2144) are deliberately kept under wraps. Hirsi Ali, [Pim] Fortuyn (http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2007/05/dutch_martyrs.php) and Theo van Gogh were not curtailed by the state or by court, Johannes Lerle is. The former voiced mere opinions – expressions of a public opinion which one may or may not value or believe. The latter – Dr Lerle – shows that what is at stake is not merely opinions, but a moral order which is being questioned (http://secessie.nu/?tekst=toonhtml&artikel=900-27); a reality of life and death which is at risk.”
Hirsi Ali, Fortuyn and van Gogh did not defend Europe’s traditional Christian moral order. People such as Johannes Lerle and Christian Vanneste, the French parliamentarian who was convicted for “homophobia,” do. The latter are being persecuted by Western Europe’s political regimes – a phenomenon which is ignored completely by the Western mainstream media, who participate in the persecution.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2211



Is this happening in todays Europe? What is going on here? Paranoia? Stupidity? or what?

[Invisigoth]

Pah, as a German I am completely content with the rulings and I believe "creationism" should not be taught to our children. Glad to see that a move is being made on a European level to control it. While other countries might have differing views, I believe that the secularity of our educational institutions should be protected; and if you really need to teach about creationism, put it into religious education, since that's where it belongs.

[GromGrad]

Good for Germany! Good to see they aren't letting the rabid bible thumping nonsense that we have in the US spread over common sense. They made a good example out of this guy.

[little icebear]

And by the way: That is what I call an independent and non-biased source. :roll:

Do yourself a favour: Make a little quick-search about the author and his connections.

This site is anti-european and leaning torwards the far right. :roll:



Hirsi Ali, Fortuyn and van Gogh did not defend Europe’s traditional Christian moral order.


They defend(ed) some other European core-values: Humanism and the ratio of the Enlightenment. This guy should not dare to insult them... well at least that goes for Hirsi Ali and van Gogh. Don´t know much about Mr. Fortuyn.

[Thor]

Pah, as a German I am completely content with the rulings and I believe "creationism" should not be taught to our children.
This is about a priest speaking out against the murdering of unborn children and comparing it to another similar mass murder. This man is a hero.

I have said it before and I'll say it again; Germany is the most undemocratic nation within the European Union. Not even in Belarus would someone be thrown in jail for this.

[ArmedPacifist]

That has got to be one of the most biased articles I've ever read.

Well, I can say this about Germany, they've got it right when it comes to scientology at least.

Creationism should not be taught in schools, it's not science.

[Thor]

"Intelligent design" is man-made and ridiculous and should not be thaught in schools. Though freedom of speech and childrens right to life are universal values of good.

[ArmedPacifist]

Though freedom of speech and childrens right to life are universal values of good.

What children are at risk of being killed?

[Thor]

Millions of unborn children are killed every year.

[Hollis]

It does not matter if he believes in the great pumpkin. He was silence for what, saying Abortion................. (the question is when does human life begin?)

is equal to murdering innocent humans.


if human life begins in the birth canal, what about C-sections?

If human life begins at 9 mos, what about babies being born under that 9 mos, what about Pre-Mature babies?

Ok some of you hate religions, BFD.... ask yourself, if you were aborted, would you have agreed to it, or were you are one time just, not a human? If you were aborted, I guess this discussion would not have happened.


BTW. I am not anti Abortion........ under certains circumstances, I think abortion is piss poor birth control.

[ArmedPacifist]

Millions of unborn children are killed every year.

You mean fetus' right? Fetus' are not children, they are an appendage of a woman and if they were removed from their host they would die. Many places that have legalized abortion have a law AGAINSt late term abortion exactly because the fetus can now survive without the mother.

Is miscarriage involuntary manslaughter too?



if you were aborted, would you have agreed to it, or were you are one time just, not a human? If you were aborted, I guess this discussion would not have happened

Hollis if you were aborted then I don't think you would have been able to agree or disagree with the decision, hence the abortion.

I mean in the movie Aliens were you pissed off when Ripley was blowing away the impregnanted colonists? I mean, Ripley is killing innocent life afterall.

Shouldn't the woman have the right to choose what she wants to grow in her and what she doesn't want?

Contraceptives fail, birth control fails, the pull out method can also fail.

I know I wouldn't want to be growing up in an orphanage like the one in Baghdad, I would have rather been aborted.

[little icebear]

Little update:

Mr. Lerle is not a pastor. I know, in the USA everybody can call himself a pastor, but in Germany, you consider a pastor to be either an employee of the Protestant or the Catholic church.

Than, you´re usually not charged with "Volksverhetzung" for criticizing abortion. He was charged for denial of the holocaust, which is a crime in Germany (for obvious reasons).
Apparantly there is (or was) some content on his website, which could be interpreted this way.

http://www.johannes-lerle.de/

By the way: On his website he explains why christians can´t be democrats. :roll:

Edit: The content why he was charged is still on his homepage. Obviously he is guilty as hell.

[Thor]

You mean fetus' right? Fetus' are not children
I disagree with the notion that a child have to pass through a ****** to become a human being. Did you know that in a late abortion the doctor will inject the child with a substance so that the mother doesn't have to hear the child scream when it exits?

I'm not saying that there aren't cases were pregnancies should be terminated, but let's call it for what it really is.


they are an appendage of a woman and if they were removed from their host they would die
This is not an argument. It's like suggesting that someone that is in need of life-support is an appendix of a machine and not worthy of living.

Secondly, premature children are saved earlier on for each year. It is suggested that in a not so far away future there will even be artificial woumbs that are able to handle the whole process.

[toki]

I disagree with the notion that a child have to pass through a ****** to become a human being. Did you know that in a late abortion the doctor will inject the child with a substance so that the mother doesn't have to hear it scream when it exits?

Late abortion is illegal in Germany unlike in the US.

[Thor]

I'm not talking about US but about how it is in my country.

[toki]

I'm not talking about US but about how it is in my country.

Ok, just saying, because this article is american and about Germany. Just on this board i learned that late abortion is acceptable in some countries. And some might not be aware of this difference.

[Thor]

I don't know what constitute a late abortion.

[little icebear]

Ok, just saying, because this article is american and about Germany.

Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Belien

[onefast93z28]

Wow, guess I'm a little to used to our 1st Amendment...

[toki]

Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Belien

My mistake. But it's not that important.

[little icebear]

Wow, guess I'm a little to used to our 1st Amendment...


There is no such thing as freedom in Germany. p-)

[caridon]

Did you know that in a late abortion the doctor will inject the child with a substance so that the mother doesn't have to hear the child scream when it exits?



Link and proof please. english or swedish is ok.

/C

[Calanen]

There is no such thing as freedom in Germany.


Nor anywhere truth be known. It's just that most of the time, you or what you are doing is not important enough for the powers that be to bother taking your freedom away.

[mas-36]

Perhaps someone could clarify for me - As I read it, I thought the man was comparing abortion to the holocaust, not denying the holocaust, yet the article states he was jailed for holocaust denial. Was it something he said before? Did the article writer deliberately skew the facts to make it appear as such? I don't understand.

[martinexsquaddie]

bloke knew the laws in Germany understandably there still a bit worried about using words like Nazi and holocaust so sucks to be him.
Darwinism is not an ideology but creationism almost certainly is its right wing protestant Christianity trying to disguise itself as science.
abortion well for Christians its a red flag but news flash most of europe does'nt go to church so sucks to you if you think a bible based morality going to apply

[Kitsune]

Well, the problem is basically that if in Germany every prohibition to deny the Holocaust would be dropped, some people would do this and anyone would have to live with it. They might distribute leaflets, spray their opinion on walls and what not and it would be legal. As a result, there would be an outcry in Poland, Israel and God-knows-where-else that the Germans would becoming Nazis again. But if the complete opposite is done and the voicing of these opinions are forbidden, some people will still call us Nazis because their freedom of speech is limited. (There may be even some idiots who claim that Germany would be the least democratic state in Europe and that even Belarus would be better, incredible as it sounds...)
In the end, all you can do is walk the line somehow. And hope that not too many feel offended. But of course, somebody always does.

[wilhelm]

Well, the problem is basically that if in Germany every prohibition to deny the Holocaust would be dropped, some people would do this and anyone would have to live with it. They might distribute leaflets, spray their opinion on walls and what not and it would be legal. As a result, there would be an outcry in Poland, Israel and God-knows-where-else that the Germans would becoming Nazis again. But if the complete opposite is done and the voicing of these opinions are forbidden, some people will still call us Nazis because their freedom of speech is limited. (There may be even some idiots who claim that Germany would be the least democratic state in Europe and that even Belarus would be better, incredible as it sounds...)
In the end, all you can do is walk the line somehow. And hope that not too many feel offended. But of course, somebody always does.

You know, that is all very fine....but Germany has just jailed somebody for comparing abortion to the holocaust. That is draconian. You do not have freedom of speech. It is as simple as that. If you are OK with that.....

[Kitsune]

@wilhelm:

Well, if a country forbids people to state some of their opinions however odd or offensive they may be, it does not have complete freedom of speech. I cannot dispute this.
As far as this case is concerned, it may not be as a draconian as it looks. This specific guy has been charged with offenses of these kinds again and again and again and again. He was tried six times before (starting with fines and then progressing to short term sentences) but in a classic martyr like way (that may be how he sees himself) he does it again and again. That is why he now received the harsh punishment of one year in prison. But by and large German sentences are rather mild and not draconian, especially if one compares the situation with the US. In Texas for example, if you steal around 100 dollars three times in a row and are caught each time and are tried you could end with lifetime imprisonment the last time. Having stolen less than 500 bucks in absolute terms. That can't happen in Germany. Of course, in Texas you can deny the Holocaust all you want and compare it with abortion all day without facing any charges at all. For whatever that is worth.

[dunkin]

You mean fetus' right? Fetus' are not children, they are an appendage of a woman and if they were removed from their host they would die. Many places that have legalized abortion have a law AGAINSt late term abortion exactly because the fetus can now survive without the mother.

IMHO: I don't think your rational is water tight.

1. When does a "fetus" become a baby?

2. When does a "later term" abortion occur? 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 week/month point?

3. How do you know a baby, say aborted at 3 months, could not have survived without the mother?

4. Also you are saying that if a woman didn't like her leg she could have it cut off. I don't know a doctor in the world that would do this type of surgery without some medical reason.

[Herrmannek]

THat would be all for freedom of speech...

[little icebear]

Was it something he said before? Did the article writer deliberately skew the facts to make it appear as such? I don't understand.

The funny thing is, he pretty much explained, that abortion could be compared to the holocaust - if the holocaust had happened. :bash:


If it´s really necessary and nobody else shows some mercy, I´ll try to do a rough summary later on.

For those with some German skills, once again the HP: http://www.johannes-lerle.de/

[Macs.]

Time to shed some light into this BS article:

1. He was not sentenced for comparing abortions to the Holocaust. This case has nothing to do with abortions.

2. He got sentenced because he wrote on his homepage: "vermeintliches Unrecht in Auschwitz" which is translated as "Alleged injustice in Auschwitz" which is clearly a belittlement/denegation of the Holocaust.

Thread title and article should be changed/deleted because they are faulty and completely (On purpose.) misleading.

[little icebear]

By the way - this guy´s homepage is full of antisemitic-crap.

For example: Did you know that the Jews declared war on Germany in 1933?

[Moledet]

You know, that is all very fine....but Germany has just jailed somebody for comparing abortion to the holocaust. That is draconian. You do not have freedom of speech. It is as simple as that. If you are OK with that.....
Freedom of speech is not unlimited. Like most rights many times it collides with other rights of the public and there should be a choice whether we accept hurting the public in the name of freedom of speech or we prefer another right over it. Germany (and most European countries) prefer other rights like public safety, equality (not suffering from racism), state security over freedom of speech.
In the US you don't have full freedom of speech either, for example: you can't threat someone without getting in trouble. Why is that? Because the right to live in security overrides the right for freedom of speech.

Everyone is entitled for an opinion about someone or something but the moment they open their mouth to convince others to follow their belief they should take into account that they might be breaking the law.

[muck]

This is about a Priest of the undistorted true faith speaking out against the murdering of unborn children and comparing it to another similar mass murder. This man is a hero.

I have said it before and I'll say it again; Germany is the most undemocratic nation within the European Union.

Hell yeah, we had that before.
And I said it before and I'll say it again why I entirely disagree. In that certain case with the priest, the elements of a crime indeed aren't satisfied since that guy only made a hapless comparison, but to play down Holocaust with a malicious intention (that's the most important point) is and should be punished with might and main of law. I highly welcome this. Be happy if you live in a country were the protection of feelings and healthfulness of minorities and ethnic groups is not necessary, although I doubt that such a country exists. In fact, that is even very democratic since democracy with all of it freedoms and basic rights does not imply you can do what you want. You have a responsibility towards your society, and your rights should end where they start to violate those of other persons.

That law shouldn't become valid for the whole Union as intended since some countries obviously reject it, but as we learned from other threads here: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. Our laws are our affairs....



Germany is the most undemocratic nation within the European Union. Not even in Belarus would someone be thrown in jail for this.

...and apart from Belarus fortunately not being in the Union, I must express wonder what a crappy analogy you made here. Surely, they won't throw you in jail in Minsk for denial of Holocaust, but only because they sermonize national unity with violence and put opponents and dissenters in jail for no reason, because state of constitutional rights is a foreign word to them.

Additionally, I wonder why don't you call for example France or Austria the most undemocratic nation within the EU? They have laws that strictly forbid denial of Holocaust and playing-down of Nazi crimes as well...

:cantbeli:

@Macs
Ah, thank you for mentioning this. That makes the whole case even more different.

[wilhelm]

Additionally, I wonder why don't you call for example France or Austria the most undemocratic nation within the EU? They have laws that strictly forbid denial of Holocaust and playing-down of Nazi crimes as well...


Why would you possibly need to legislate that it is a crime to doubt the veracity of a Historical event? And on a side note, how is it possible to research this historical event and dare to come up with a slightly different conclusion of the facts other than the official version. Who wrote the official version and when was it enshrined as untouchable? I'm no holocaust denier, but I do know that anything in history should be researchable. There are no untouchables. I mean this for all things historical, not just this case. For arguments sake, if I find and publish that for example, I find that 5,7 million died, not 6 million, will I go to jail? Does it make the holocaust less evil? I don't live in Germany.... just trying to understand.

[GromGrad]

We really need these kind of laws in the united states.

[muck]

Why would you possibly need to legislate that it is a crime to doubt the veracity of a Historical event?
I explained it above.


And on a side note, how is it possible to research this historical event and dare to come up with a slightly different conclusion of the facts other than the official version. Who wrote the official version and when was it enshrined as untouchable? I'm no holocaust denier, but I do know that anything in history should be researchable. There are no untouchables. I mean this for all things historical, not just this case. For arguments sake, if I find and publish that for example, I find that 5,7 million died, not 6 million, will I go to jail? Does it make the holocaust less evil? I don't live in Germany.... just trying to understand.

The German law does not include honest historical research of the Holocaust, in fact it never did. If you can prove with a real line of reasoning that 5.7 mln people died and not 6 mln as estimated as in your example, there is no punishment you would have to fear. But if you behave like David Irving and use eye-witness reports of persons who have never lived or fake scientific proven facts to present 'evidence' that gas chambers never existed in Auschwitz, if you deny the Holocaust in general or if you make comments harsh enough to play Holocaust down and therewith insult it's victims, even if it only be a statement like "the whole thing probably wasn't as bad as stated" or so, you will face fine or imprisonment. It depends on your attitude, your intention. If you already made no secret of hating the jews, the judges legitimately will assume you are a anti-semite and had a malicious motivation to spread lies to do harm to the jewish people, you'll probably end up in prison.

[Guilelmus]

The German law does not include honest historical research of the Holocaust, in fact it never did. If you can prove with a real line of reasoning that 5.7 mln people died and not 6 mln as estimated as in your example, there is no punishment you would have to fear.

Here no open debate and no open research is allowed. It simply is impossible to found out the exact number of holocaust victims. Any independent research is considered as "holocaust denying", that's the problem, and exactly this behaviour fuels conspiracy theorists.


But if you behave like David Irving and use eye-witness reports of persons who have never lived or fake scientific proven facts to present 'evidence' that gas chambers never existed in Auschwitz, if you deny the Holocaust in general or if you make comments harsh enough to play Holocaust down and therewith insult it's victims, even if it only be a statement like "the whole thing probably wasn't as bad as stated" or so, you will face fine or imprisonment. It depends on your attitude, your intention. If you already made no secret of hating the jews, the judges legitimately will assume you are a anti-semite and had a malicious motivation to spread lies to do harm to the jewish people, you'll probably end up in prison.
Why is the insulting of Germans and German victims not punishable?

http://tinypic.com/63szz7s.jpg

Germany perish, a slogal officially allowed and widely used by anti-Germans.
http://63szz7s.jpg

[little icebear]

Why is the insulting of Germans and German victims not punishable?

http://tinypic.com/63szz7s.jpg





Cause we don´t give a damn. Just like flag burning isn´t illegal in the USA. Laws which prohibit the insulting of a nation are bogus. Personally I think everybody or every country which needs such laws lacks of self-esteem. But that´s just my opinion.

I think insulting Jews by the way isn´t illegal either. This law is specifically about the denial of the holocaust. By the way: If "German victims" means German victims of the holocaust, that of course is a crime, too.

[muck]

Cause we don´t give a damn. Just like flag burning isn´t illegal in the USA. Laws which prohibit the insulting of a nation are bogus. Personally I think everybody or every country which needs such laws lacks of self-esteem. But that´s just my opinion.

Decreal or damage caused against symbols of the federation or it's officials, as well as damaging or reviling national symbols and officials of other states is punishable according to §90 a, b and §102, §103 and §104 federal penalty code. It's only not often persecuted, sometimes even restricted from persecuting if for example an insulted statesman does not request criminal proceeding.



I think insulting Jews by the way isn´t illegal either. This law is specifically about the denial of the holocaust. By the way: If "German victims" means German victims of the holocaust, that of course is a crime, too.

You have to separate here:
Sedition is punishable according to §130 pc. The worst and most obvious cases are persecuted by the persecutors on their own, for example recently a far-right parliamentarian has given a hate speech in a state parliament. He said something about the 'unworthy life of blacks' and if we would not resist, he feared none in Germany would soon know about Goethe anymore but only about 'Bushmen dances'. A trial is considered at the moment.

If a person feels racist insulted by a comment or statement of another one, he can file charges against that person. In a prenegotation is decided then whether the elements of a crime according to §130 pc were satisfied or not. When approved, a trial will start against the causer of the statement, with the obvious result: Either found guilty or found not-guilty if the judge think the statement wasn't punishable per law. That's the general case.

Additionally, according to §130 (3) it is punisheable to glorify, trivialize or deny the crimes committed during the time of the Nazis, it doesn't matter which one. That law is an important sabre in the fight against Neonazi-organizations.

[Laworkerbee]

Time to shed some light into this BS article:

1. He was not sentenced for comparing abortions to the Holocaust. This case has nothing to do with abortions.

2. He got sentenced because he wrote on his homepage: "vermeintliches Unrecht in Auschwitz" which is translated as "Alleged injustice in Auschwitz" which is clearly a belittlement/denegation of the Holocaust.

Thread title and article should be changed/deleted because they are faulty and completely (On purpose.) misleading.

Thank You Macs for once again clearing up a misconception.

[Rictor]

Ah, the EU. Never has censorship and shrieking nanny-statism been so tastefully presented. It's about human rights, see. If we allowed the bad men to say what they wanted, society would crumble. Wars would break out. It's one small step from allowing legitimate disagreement on historical events, or even, God forbid, personal opinion, to genocide and continent-wide chaos.

[martinexsquaddie]

well the neo nazi's need stamping on there not in favor of anyobdy else having rights so fcuk them.
my personal feeling feel free to wear a swastika I'll fee feel to do my best to kill
you nazi scum and that includes reeanctors as well

[Invisigoth]

You know, that is all very fine....but Germany has just jailed somebody for comparing abortion to the holocaust. That is draconian. You do not have freedom of speech. It is as simple as that. If you are OK with that.....

Its called the law. U.S. courts just jailed a 17-year old for 10 years over a blow-job. I think our pastor got off pretty well...

[Invisigoth]

You know, that is all very fine....but Germany has just jailed somebody for comparing abortion to the holocaust. That is draconian. You do not have freedom of speech. It is as simple as that. If you are OK with that.....

Its called the law, everyone knows about it and if he choses to break it with his anti-semitic hate speech, he can suffer the consequences.

What country are you from, that you lecture us about freedom of speech? I love my country and I think our governments are doing a great job.

[pascalywood]

Millions of unborn children are killed every year.
so jacking off would be mass murder? :bash::cantbeli:

[GromGrad]

Its called the law. U.S. courts just jailed a 17-year old for 10 years over a blow-job. I think our pastor got off pretty well...

X10


Seriously which one is more of a crime?

I can see why so many Russians live in Germany these days. You guys seem like good level headed people. I want to relocate to a new country for my kids, don't think America is the best place for them, never thought about Germany till today.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

We really need these kind of laws in the united states.

Yes, what America really needs is to begin restrictions on political speech that we don't like...

I've said it before on these boards, first you criminalize holocaust denial, then other ethnic groups start demanding you criminalize denial of other genocides (Armenian, Soviet Gulag, etc) and then eventually you're going to hit upon and end up criminalizing a genocide or massacre that really didn't actually happen.

Academic freedom is the best weapon against holocaust denial and other extremist views. You fight that sort of thing by MORE speech, not less. Convincing people through reason changes their minds and hearts, forbidding them by law just makes them resentful and takes their beliefs underground.

For example, in Germany right-wing successors to the Nazis sometimes win seats to state parliaments. In America, neo-Nazi groups can't even get enough support to get listed on the ballot.

[toki]

Megaraptor;2598959']Yes, what America really needs is to begin restrictions on political speech that we don't like...

I've said it before on these boards, first you criminalize holocaust denial, then other ethnic groups start demanding you criminalize denial of other genocides (Armenian, Soviet Gulag, etc) and then eventually you're going to hit upon and end up criminalizing a genocide or massacre that really didn't actually happen.

Academic freedom is the best weapon against holocaust denial and other extremist views. You fight that sort of thing by MORE speech, not less. Convincing people through reason changes their minds and hearts, forbidding them by law just makes them resentful and takes their beliefs underground.

For example, in Germany right-wing successors to the Nazis sometimes win seats to state parliaments. In America, neo-Nazi groups can't even get enough support to get listed on the ballot.

The point of the law isn't political education, but to stop inciting hate and violence. Do you book it as freedom of speech, when you hold a public speech in america where you claim to better hang all n***ers now? Freedom of speech? I wanna see that. What would happen? No legal steps?
And in Germany Holocaust Denial is seen as an equal incitement.

It's not politics, but hatespeech and incitement what's the core of these laws. And the founding of the FRG is closely tied to the end of the holocaust and WW2. The roots of the second republic are not to forget. Every country has different sets of values, the way this country was founded is important. The 'never again' part is not an old catch phrase, but it was absolutely vital in the beginning. It just had to leave its imprint.

It has to be said, if anybody has real problems with it. He should just not choose to live in Germany. As simple as that.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

The point of the law isn't political education, but to stop inciting hate and violence. Do you book it as freedom of speech, when you hold a public speech in america where you claim to better hang all n***ers now? Freedom of speech? I wanna see that. What would happen? No legal steps?
And in Germany Holocaust Denial is seen as an equal incitement.

Holocaust denial doesn't directly threaten anyone.

And yes what you mentioned would qualify as protected speech...if he threatened to "hang Jesse Jackson now" that would be a direct threat on someone's life and therefore be illegal.

[toki]

Megaraptor;2599012']Holocaust denial doesn't directly threaten anyone.

And yes what you mentioned would qualify as protected speech...if he threatened to "hang Jesse Jackson now" that would be a direct threat on someone's life and therefore be illegal.

That's your interpretation or the american interpretation. It is different here, it's promotion of racial hate (and the example i brought would be promotion of racial hate and violence = hate speech). We can discuss as long as we want. The laws are obviously different with incitement. From the perspective those laws were written down, Holocaust Denial is a direct threat to society, to minorities etc.

[pascalywood]

i dont think any country can criticize german laws about the whole holocaust thing imo. heck, wed problly do the same if such tragedy occured in our country

[muck]

@[WDW]Megaraptor
To be honest, I wouldn't want to live in a country where someone is allowed to make statements like this and simply gets away with it.

I disagree with the assumption that letting them say what they want would be the best way to fight demagogues. The situation in the States is quite different as it was the classic immigration country for over two centuries while we had to learn the principles of pluralism at first. I can only repeat, be happy folks if you live in a country where that protection to the several ethnic groups isn't necessary.

And by the way, if that kind of sedition really is protected as freedom of speech in the States, I wonder what triggered the outcry among the blacks when that Armed Forces instructor made his racist joke and they demanded punishment for him? Only a short interjection.

I can understand concerns about our laws, only I'll become irritable if someone calls that undemocratic. Few countries offer so many democratic possibilities and so much legal protection to it's citizens like ours does.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

That's your interpretation or the american interpretation. It is different here, it's promotion of racial hate (and the example i brought would be promotion of racial hate and violence = hate speech). We can discuss as long as we want. The laws are obviously different with incitement. From the perspective those laws were written down, Holocaust Denial is a direct threat to society, to minorities etc.

One could also argue that calling for the abolishment of social programs, supporting drug legalization or supporting open immigration policies are "direct threats to society." Should they be banned? Threatening the established social order is not a crime...

Personally, I'm glad I live in a country where I can say whatever I want without fear of breaking the law.

[muck]

Megaraptor;2599066']One could also argue that calling for the abolishment of social programs, supporting drug legalization or supporting open immigration policies

Poor comparison. It only shows that foreigners hardly can understand the mentality behind this laws and the "fortified" democracy in general.

You cannot compare simply someone saying "Hell, what is all that fuss about, what was so wrong about Holocaust" with a statement like "I feel, we should cut social welfare payings for singles over 40 years". That is a totally different situation.

[Durandal]

You guys can argue all right to life and holocaust denial all you want, but this dude got stuck in jail for saying something.

Sounds like the Germany in the good old days.

I guess we should be happy he got a trial.

[toki]

Megaraptor;2599066']One could also argue that calling for the abolishment of social programs, supporting drug legalization or supporting open immigration policies are "direct threats to society." Should they be banned? Threatening the established social order is not a crime...

Personally, I'm glad I live in a country where I can say whatever I want without fear of breaking the law.

Personally i'm glad i live in this country.

And i don't think you can comprehend what this republic was built on. And personally i think it's always a bit ignorant to only see it from one perspective. It's not that i don't understand your point.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Poor comparison. It only shows that foreigners hardly can understand the mentality behind this laws and the "fortified" democracy in general.

I'll admit I don't understand it. And I don't understand why you don't think freedom of speech, academic freedom and the competition of ideas are the foundations of a democratic society...

[muck]

You guys can argue all right to life and holocaust denial all you want, but this dude got stuck in jail for saying something.

Sounds like the Germany in the good old days.

I guess we should be happy he got a trial.

Idiotic comment.

I must agree with toki. I mean, I respect your point of view. You feel, those laws would cut your freedom of speech. But you don't even try to see it from our side.

Additionally, I wonder how often that has to be emphasized today, not only holocaust denial, but in general the denial, glorifying or trivializing of Nazi-related crimes is punisheable as well as sedition in general. And: Not only here, but in many other European nations too, like France, Austria, Switzerland and so on.

[muck]

Megaraptor;2599109']I'll admit I don't understand it. And I don't understand why you don't think freedom of speech, academic freedom and the competition of ideas are the foundations of a democratic society...

I do understand it and I think if you would live here you would see that they are respected as those and be an essential part of our society and living-together. Only our law-makers thought the personal rights a human being has should end where they start to violate those of another human being. I can hardly imagine how living-together works well without that protection of the individual. Well, one of these rights is to live without fear. And you become feared if people in public agitate against your ethnic our religious group.

[Durandal]

Poor comparison. It only shows that foreigners hardly can understand the mentality behind this laws and the "fortified" democracy in general.

You cannot compare simply someone saying "Hell, what is all that fuss about, what was so wrong about Holocaust" with a statement like "I feel, we should cut social welfare payings for singles over 40 years". That is a totally different situation.

You are correct. What we have here though is NOT that situation so keep it on topic.

This guy got thrown in jail for disagreeing with ABORTION.

In his mind when someone aborts a fetus or even a sack of cells before it reaches that state, its the death of a soul, and thus a human being. He compares the 125K legal abortions every year as comparable to the holocaust, another bad thing where LOTS of people died under state control.

He has neither belittled nor denied the Holocaust. He has compared it to something he feels is EQUALLY as horrible.

Do I agree with him...no.

That is irrelevant.

You either have free speech or yo do not. In Germany, it is obvious that you do not.

[Durandal]

Idiotic comment.

I must agree with toki. I mean, I respect your point of view. You feel, those laws would cut your freedom of speech. But you don't even try to see it from our side.

Additionally, I wonder how often that has to be emphasized today, not only holocaust denial, but in general the denial, glorifying or trivializing of Nazi-related crimes is punisheable as well as sedition in general. And: Not only here, but in many other European nations too, like France, Austria, Switzerland and so on.

Maybe I think we should punish real crimes instead of clamping down on faith based groups simply because you do not agree with their stance on abortion.

This guy went to jail because he said abortion was murder.

Nothing more and nothing less.

I have yet to see where there is actual proof he denied the holocaust...we have a judge proclaiming it, but that does not make it so.

[toki]

You are correct. What we have here though is NOT that situation so keep it on topic.

This guy got thrown in jail for disagreeing with ABORTION.

In his mind when someone aborts a fetus or even a sack of cells before it reaches that state, its the death of a soul, and thus a human being. He compares the 125K legal abortions every year as comparable to the holocaust, another bad thing where LOTS of people died under state control.

He has neither belittled nor denied the Holocaust. He has compared it to something he feels is EQUALLY as horrible.

Do I agree with him...no.

That is irrelevant.

You either have free speech or yo do not. In Germany, it is obvious that you do not.

WRONG!!!!!

Time to shed some light into this BS article:

1. He was not sentenced for comparing abortions to the Holocaust. This case has nothing to do with abortions.

2. He got sentenced because he wrote on his homepage: "vermeintliches Unrecht in Auschwitz" which is translated as "Alleged injustice in Auschwitz" which is clearly a belittlement/denegation of the Holocaust.

Thread title and article should be changed/deleted because they are faulty and completely (On purpose.) misleading.

And Macs has it right. You're referring to the article, but the article is manipulative itself. It mixes different issues to back the opinions of the author. Factual errors.

[haze99]

As I have stated before, if Darwins Theory of Evolution is fact. Then why in the hell do you people go berserk, if someone chooses to teach Intelligent Design? (how will it harm the children?)
If evolution is reality, why do care what someones says or does? (Because in the end, it does not matter anyway! Right?) If there is no after-life or creator to be accountable to upon death. Why all the hostile post's to those with Christian world-views? (you don't have to worry about a Baptist Bombers Brigade?) For no such group exist. No one is going to cut your head off, if you deny Jesus being the Son of God. Again, why all the fuss?
To those with distain for the USA, if you have never lived in America, I would not expect any of you to want to move here. For you cannot comprehend what it takes to live in such a society. It is foreign to you.
I have lived in Germany (and West Germany, when there was one!) There was much to enjoy there, however, I cannot say I would prefer to live, work or raise a family there.

[muck]

This guy got thrown in jail for disagreeing with ABORTION.


He has neither belittled nor denied the Holocaust. He has compared it to something he feels is EQUALLY as horrible.

A big fat NO. You should have went through this thread more carefully.
He got a sentence because his website, where he compared abortion to the holocaust, was full of antisemtism and racist crap and statements which were seen as a try to trivialize the Holocaust:


Time to shed some light into this BS article:

1. He was not sentenced for comparing abortions to the Holocaust. This case has nothing to do with abortions.

2. He got sentenced because he wrote on his homepage: "vermeintliches Unrecht in Auschwitz" which is translated as "Alleged injustice in Auschwitz" which is clearly a belittlement/denegation of the Holocaust.

Thread title and article should be changed/deleted because they are faulty and completely (On purpose.) misleading.

By the way - this guy´s homepage is full of antisemitic-crap.

For example: Did you know that the Jews declared war on Germany in 1933?

^^^ So...?


You either have free speech or yo do not. In Germany, it is obvious that you do not.

:roll: Yeah, that's why we arrested ten of thousands of dutchmen during the last years soccer championchip because we did not agree with their ambitions to win or why we secretly build up new concentration camps for people who don't like German beer...

Blablabla.

[Macs.]

You guys can argue all right to life and holocaust denial all you want, but this dude got stuck in jail for saying something.

Sounds like the Germany in the good old days.

I guess we should be happy he got a trial.

As a matter of fact people can get into jail just for saying something all over the world. (Including the US.)



You either have free speech or yo do not. In Germany, it is obvious that you do not.

There is no such thing as complete "Freedom of Speech"/"Free Speech" in any western country. Every country has limits of it's "Freedom of Speech", even the US.


Just because some countries have (So-called.) "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean that every country has to follow this doctrine, and that this is the right way.

[muck]

There is no such thing as complete "Freedom of Speech"/"Free Speech" in any western country. Every country has limits of it's "Freedom of Speech", even the US.
Just because some countries have (So-called.) "Freedom of Speech" doesn't mean that every country has to follow this doctrine, and that this is the right way.

Absolutely, since it would be arnarchy but not democracy if everyone can do whatever he wants.

[Macs.]

What's funny is that dozens of Sites (Lots of religious ones.) have blindly copied this story without even doing a simple background check.

Here is atleast one correction:


CORRECTION: ARTICLE ON GERMAN PASTOR LERLE RETRACTED

The LifeSiteNews.com story published Tuesday on the jailing of Pastor Lerle in Germany has been retracted after LifeSiteNews.com was informed that we were working with false information from trusted news sources. While Pastor Lerle has in the past been jailed for anti-abortion activities his current one year imprisonment stemmed solely from charges of holocaust denial and not from comparing abortion to the Nazi Holocaust as we erroneously reported Tuesday.

My sincere apologies for this serious error.

John-Henry Westen
Editor
LifeSiteNews.com

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07062801.html

[Switek]

What's funny is that dozens of Sites (Lots of religious ones.) have blindly copied this story without even doing a simple background check.

It's called christian PC... p-)

[Durandal]

What's funny is that dozens of Sites (Lots of religious ones.) have blindly copied this story without even doing a simple background check.

Here is atleast one correction:



http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07062801.html

That's cool by me. I retract my statement.

I still think its silly that there are laws in regards to Holocaust denial.

I mean, I have a museum that teaches children Moses chilled with dinosaurs and the Earth is like 6K years old. Intellectually its just as harmful as denying the holocaust ever happened, but you don;t hear me crying out for their arrest and imprisonment.

[toki]

The thing is when americans claim to have the moral highground in regards of 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom' in general. How come it is a typical american saying: Freedom isn't free? Because you owe it to the ones who protect it, right? Now we see it this way: The least you can give up is respecting the horror this republic was born into. The freedoms we have were born out of the ANTI-CONCEPT of the Third Reich. And respecting and protecting the vicitms of it is a small price for our freedom. Definitely the german way. But not lesser IMHO. Freedom of speech is relative.

Good night.

[muck]

The thing is when americans claim to have the moral highground in regards of 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom' in general. How come it is a typical american saying: Freedom isn't free? Because you owe it to the ones who protect it, right? Now we see it this way: The least you can give up is respecting the horror this republic was born into. The freedoms we have were born out of the ANTI-CONCEPT of the Third Reich. And respecting and protecting the vicitms of it is a small price for our freedom. Definitely the german way. But not lesser IMHO. Freedom of speech is relative.

Good night.

I second that totally.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

I do understand it and I think if you would live here you would see that they are respected as those and be an essential part of our society and living-together. Only our law-makers thought the personal rights a human being has should end where they start to violate those of another human being. I can hardly imagine how living-together works well without that protection of the individual. Well, one of these rights is to live without fear. And you become feared if people in public agitate against your ethnic our religious group.

You don't have the right to not be offended...


Only our law-makers thought the personal rights a human being has should end where they start to violate those of another human being.


So did America's lawmakers, which is why threatening someone's life is illegal. But that protection extends to individual only, not to whatever group they may associate themselves with. The group is not an individual. You have rights as an individual, not as a Jew or Christian or Muslim.

What's more, holocaust denial isn't exactly calling for the genocide of any ethnic group...

[Moledet]

Americans you won't get it, you find freedom of speech to be some absolute freedom that should be completely unlimited while the Europeans obviously don't. There are other rights that they find a lot more important (and rightfully so).
One can debate that in the US there's not even freedom of opinion, the lack of social rights let the rich control the poor.

[ArmedPacifist]

Megaraptor;2599250']
What's more, holocaust denial isn't exactly calling for the genocide of any ethnic group...

No, but lets face it, Germany will forever be known as the nazi country, if they started letting neo-nazi's say whatever they wanted, the entire world would be saying "oh here we go again".

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Americans you won't get it, you find freedom of speech to be some absolute freedom that should be completely unlimited while the Europeans obviously don't. There are other rights that they find a lot more important (and rightfully so).
One can debate that in the US there's not even freedom of opinion, the lack of social rights let the rich control the poor.

How can you have a free country without freedom of speech? How can you have any other type of freedom without the freedom to express your own opinions?



No, but lets face it, Germany will forever be known as the nazi country, if they started letting neo-nazi's say whatever they wanted, the entire world would be saying "oh here we go again".

Unfortunately that is true, the same way people say "here we go again" when some racist makes a comment in the American south...

However the fact that people are stupid and judgmental doesn't justify denying them basic human rights.

[Durandal]

The thing is when americans claim to have the moral highground in regards of 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom' in general. How come it is a typical american saying: Freedom isn't free? Because you owe it to the ones who protect it, right? Now we see it this way: The least you can give up is respecting the horror this republic was born into. The freedoms we have were born out of the ANTI-CONCEPT of the Third Reich. And respecting and protecting the vicitms of it is a small price for our freedom. Definitely the german way. But not lesser IMHO. Freedom of speech is relative.

Good night.

I am not speaking about American freedom of speech I am discussing the general concept of freedom of speech.

I'll agree to disagree and let it go at that.

[Kitsune]

The main reason for the prohibition of Holocaust denial was simply that the new Federal German government after WWII wanted to demonstrate that it accepts the responsibility for the Nazi crimes and tried to heal the German relations to our neghbouring states. I must admit that I am personally not overly fond of this law, while I don't admire everything about America one of the things I do envy is the US attitude regarding freedom of speech. So, if I would be King of Germany I would be tempted to drop this law. But as it so happens, I am not King of Germany and as far as our politicians are concerned, for everyone of them who would even make the proposal to drop the prohibition of Holocaust denial it would most probably be a career-wrecker. Therefore nobody even tries and it does not look as if this would change in the foreseeable future. That's how it is.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

But as it so happens, I am not King of Germany and as far as our politicians are concerned, for everyone of them who would even make the proposal to drop the prohibition of Holocaust denial it would most probably be a career-wrecker. Therefore nobody even tries and it does not look as if this would change in the foreseeable future. That's how it is.

Yeah, it doesn't look too good to be arguing against those things.

It's like flag-burning bans in the USA. It's a blatant free speech violation but most people don't want that on their voting record (fortunately none have passed so far).

[Rictor]

I have yet to hear a good arguement as to how denying/trivializing/questioning the Holocaust constitutes a THREAT and not an INSULT. I think we should be very careful to differentiate those two. "Kill the Jews" could reasonably be interpreted as jeopardizing the safety of Jews. "It was two million and not six" is, at most, an insult to Holocaust survivors, but not an actual threat to any living person. My basic position being that no one, ever, has a right not to be insulted.

What Germany and other European states are doing is legislating truth. What's the difference between this and legislating, on pain of imprisonment, the exact number of people who died in the Spanish Inquisition? Or what about the Napoleonic Wars? If I say that Napoleon was a great man, should I go to jail? Doesn't anyone find the concept of the government dictating truth to be very Orwellian? What about freedom of opinion?

The anti-Holocaust denial legislation speaks volumes about how fragile you take your society to be. Do you really think that German citizens are so savage and ignorant that if they were not legally forced to believe one thing, they would immediately turn into blood-thirty Nazi hordes? Do you really think that if people were not held on that leash, they would revert to barbarism and war? That's a pretty low opinion to have of your own character.

And let me just say that I argue this as someone who has lost family in the Holocaust.

[Hollis]

I have yet to hear a good arguement as to how denying/trivializing/questioning the Holocaust constitutes a THREAT and not an INSULT. I think we should be very careful to differentiate those two. "Kill the Jews" could reasonably be interpreted as jeopardizing the safety of Jews. "It was two million and not six" is, at most, an insult to Holocaust survivors, but not an actual threat to any living person. My basic position being that no one, ever, has a right not to be insulted.



Hate to burst your bubble, the Number goes up to 13 Million Jews, Christians, handicapped, Gypsies, Commies, Gays, etc that was slaughtered in the camps.

The Jews were the Largest group that was singled out.

Your two million is very weak. Some might go as low as 4 million Jews and contributing 1.5 Million slaughtered by the Soviets.

But generally:

"The haunting words of George Santayana reminds us that the lessons of history are invaluable in determining the course of the future: "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it."The Holocaust (http://www.oskarschindler.info/Holocaust/index.htm) was the systematic annihilation of six million Jews by the Nazis during World War 2. In 1933 nine million Jews lived in the 21 countries of Europe that would be military occupied by Germany during the war. By 1945 two out of every three European Jews had been killed. 1.5 million children (http://www.annefrank.dk/children/index.htm) were murdered. This figure includes more than 1.2 million Jewish children, tens of thousands of Gypsy children and thousands of handicapped children.

The Holocaust is a history of enduring horror and sorrow. It seems as though there is no spark of human concern, no act of humanity, to lighten that dark history. Read the story of Rivka Yosselevska (http://www.shoah.dk/Rivka/index.htm), the story of the children of Bullenhuser Damm (http://www.emilieschindler.com/Bullenhuser/index.htm) or the story the children of Izieu (http://www.izieu.com/index.htm)."

Site: http://www.auschwitz.dk/

The 6 million is originally derived from numbers from Eichman.

I think none of us here where alive when this law was passed. I would suggest going back and reading the arguments. Cultural Denial was one part. I remember my Parents, Aunts and Uncles and other adults discussing this. The law does not exist in the US for those reason's it was passed in Germany.

[Calanen]

I think it would be OK to fine this guy heavily for holocaust denial, like say $10,000, and jail for a repeat offence. But jail for a first offence, is I think unjust.

It looks also that he did not deny the holocaust per se, just said that abortions were comparable to the holocaust. Whether people agree or disagree with that statement - its going a bit too far to say he was denying the holocaust ever happened. It must be that this law includes liability for trivialising the holocaust, and that by comparing it to something that most people would regard as far less heinous than the holocaust itself - he was trivialising it.

Any law talkers in Germany, please chime in. Id happily look the statutes up but they would be in German.

[dimasorokine]

Wow, this is horrible - no matter how wrong or sick someone's opinion may be, they should NEVER be put to Jail for expressing their opinion.

-Dima

[Hollis]

Wow, this is horrible - no matter how wrong or sick someone's opinion may be, they should NEVER be put to Jail for expressing their opinion.

-Dima



Kind of like forced Political correctness. He spent 8 months in jail for calling abortionist, "Murderers".

[dimasorokine]

I think it would be OK to fine this guy heavily for holocaust denial, like say $10,000, and jail for a repeat offence. But jail for a first offence, is I think unjust.

It looks also that he did not deny the holocaust per se, just said that abortions were comparable to the holocaust. Whether people agree or disagree with that statement - its going a bit too far to say he was denying the holocaust ever happened. It must be that this law includes liability for trivialising the holocaust, and that by comparing it to something that most people would regard as far less heinous than the holocaust itself - he was trivialising it.

Any law talkers in Germany, please chime in. Id happily look the statutes up but they would be in German.

Why would it be ok to fine someone $10,000 for denying the Holocaust? People should be free to deny anything they like and tell others about it. It might be wrong, and certainly offensive to those that died in and survived the Holocaust but to enforce laws on what people can think and talk about publicly is insane.

You can’t put laws on what people can think or say.

-Dima

[dimasorokine]

Kind of like forced Political correctness. He spent 8 months in jail for calling abortionist, "Murderers".

Yeah, I just read up on that - also wrong. Political correcness is BS period, and creates double standards on racism and freedom of speach for people of different ethnic backgrounds.

-Dima

[toki]

Kind of like forced Political correctness. He spent 8 months in jail for calling abortionist, "Murderers".


Yeah, I just read up on that - also wrong. Political correcness is BS period, and creates double standards on racism and freedom of speach for people of different ethnic backgrounds.

-Dima

No he didn't, go back to page 5. The article is just BS.

[dimasorokine]

No he didn't, go back to page 5. The article is just BS.

Is there an example of some of the things he said on his website?

-Dima

[Hollis]

Thanks Toki, we have sensational tabloids in the US too, One today, had headlines, Bush is getting Devorced.

One once had, B17 Bomber found on the dark side of the Moon.

[wilhelm]

I have yet to hear a good arguement as to how denying/trivializing/questioning the Holocaust constitutes a THREAT and not an INSULT. I think we should be very careful to differentiate those two. "Kill the Jews" could reasonably be interpreted as jeopardizing the safety of Jews. "It was two million and not six" is, at most, an insult to Holocaust survivors, but not an actual threat to any living person. My basic position being that no one, ever, has a right not to be insulted.

What Germany and other European states are doing is legislating truth. What's the difference between this and legislating, on pain of imprisonment, the exact number of people who died in the Spanish Inquisition? Or what about the Napoleonic Wars? If I say that Napoleon was a great man, should I go to jail? Doesn't anyone find the concept of the government dictating truth to be very Orwellian? What about freedom of opinion?

The anti-Holocaust denial legislation speaks volumes about how fragile you take your society to be. Do you really think that German citizens are so savage and ignorant that if they were not legally forced to believe one thing, they would immediately turn into blood-thirty Nazi hordes? Do you really think that if people were not held on that leash, they would revert to barbarism and war? That's a pretty low opinion to have of your own character.

And let me just say that I argue this as someone who has lost family in the Holocaust.

Well said Rictor. This is the essence of my argument as well.

[muck]

Megaraptor;2599250']You don't have the right to not be offended...

Surprise! I have! And so have our jewish countrymen, at least according to our laws.
That's why I highly regard our constitution and our legislation as very democratic, progressive and liberal to everyone. It grants not only German citizens but everyone one German soil a plenty of freedoms and rights. The only price for that plenty is to also to point out it's borders.

The right to not have to feel feared, threatened or insulted is an essential part of the very first Articles 2 and 5 of our constitution, in fact the first three listed basic rights a human being has in this country; namely the right of free development of the individual's personality, the right to not be discriminated by someone, and - now for it p-) - the right to personal honor everyone shall have.



Constitution of the Federal Republik of Germany
Article 2
(1) Everyone shall have a right to free development of his personality, insofar he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order and the state of law and order.
(2) Everyone shall have the right to life and to intregrity. Freedom of the individual shall be unviolable. These righty may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.To compare why we have laws against racial hate, sedition and denial or glorifying or trivializing of Nazi-related crimes; The legislation even had no other choice as to introduce them:


Constitution of the Federal Republik of Germany
Article 3
(1) All persons shall be equal before the law.
(2) Men and Women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for men and women and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.
(3) No person shall be favored or discriminated because of ***, parentage, race, language, homeland and origin, faith or religious or political opinions. No person shall be disfavored because of disability.
Constitution of the Federal Republik of Germany
Article 5
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinion in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There is no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their borders in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of the youth and in the right to personal honor.
(3) Art and scholarship, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to this constitution.Everyone who likes to debate here, too, shall at first please carefully go through this thread and notice the pointed out mistakes in the very first article. Macs even found an avoidance disclaimer by the concerning information service where the made failure in reporting is explicitely pinned by the author. That clergyman was not sentenced for saying abortion was a massmurder like Holocaust.

[Calanen]

Why would it be ok to fine someone $10,000 for denying the Holocaust? People should be free to deny anything they like and tell others about it. It might be wrong, and certainly offensive to those that died in and survived the Holocaust but to enforce laws on what people can think and talk about publicly is insane.

You can’t put laws on what people can think or say.

-Dima

I'm putting to one side the constitutional free speech guaranteed in the US..which is just a particularly US institution. As far as holocaust denial goes, if you are going to deal with it at all - a fine is more appropriate. Jail time for it is going too far.

[Vandervahn]

Again a debate about the criminalization of Holocaust denial argueing from a naive focus on the "Freedom of speech". I think we can agree that "freedom of speech" doesnt exist given the numerous exemptions to it in every society (protection from insults and defamation are limits imposed on "freedom of speech", TOO!!). Thats why its actually freedom of "opinion", not speech.

Well, since we now accept that "speech" in a civil society cannot be free, we have to compare the validity and legality of the expressed opinion with other, existing laws. In the case of holocaust denial, the legal mechanism is as follows:


The reason [for illegality] is that in the german view a denial of the Holocaust carries an implicit accusation against the then-alledged "holocaust manufacturers" - which would include all those then-claiming to be victims, and the whole state of Israel which is based, in a way, on the holocaust. Even the "pacifist" german self-image is based rather on the guilt of the genocide than the war itself. Holocaust denial also includes, openly or implicit, an accusation that the accepted scholarly history was made up by a conspiracy set up in the interests of Jews and to the disadvantage of other nations.

Such a denial constitutes defamation and malicious maligning of these people´s human dignity which again are acts punishable by the laws against "Volksverhetzung" (hate speech). It is important for understanding that the german concept of "Volksverhetzung" has a somewhat broader extend than the english "hate speech".

That difference seems to be why most English-speaking people here don´t get the point why holocaust denial is not protected as freedom of opinion in the german legal culture. Basically, the law against holocaust denial only collects several applicable laws under one pseudonym. That doesnt mean that other crimes violating the same underlying laws wouldnt get punished with similar force. It also means that a holocaust revision that does NOT violate the legal undestructure -> that does not constitute holocaust denial, would necessarily be punished.

[from another post of mine]


It also has to be said that while the wording of personal freedoms may be similar or comparable across different countries, but that has also to be seen in a historical and society-focused context. For example the american personal freedoms were stated by a people that came from oppressed societies. The Third Reich society however was not only oppressive on society, it also oppressed the freedom of personality and character.

The American cherishes his freedom of opinion as a right to stand and preach on a soapbox anytime and anywhere. The German cherishes that same right because it gives him spiritual and moral freedom.

[little icebear]

That clergyman was not sentenced for saying abortion was a massmurder like Holocaust.

I aleady mentioned it, this guy is not a clergyman. At least not in the way a German would think of it.
He´s got a degree in thelogy, but he´s not in a recognized church´s service.
As far as I understand his writings, I think he is not a big fan of the Protestant or the Roman-Catholic Church.
He´s anti-democratic and a fundamentlist hardliner.



I'm putting to one side the constitutional free speech guaranteed in the US..which is just a particularly US institution. As far as holocaust denial goes, if you are going to deal with it at all - a fine is more appropriate. Jail time for it is going too far.


It was not the first time. If Germany had this "Three Strikes and You´re Out"-Law, than he´d already face a life-sentence. ;)

[Durandal]

Megaraptor;2599375']Yeah, it doesn't look too good to be arguing against those things.

It's like flag-burning bans in the USA. It's a blatant free speech violation but most people don't want that on their voting record (fortunately none have passed so far).

There are no bans on flag-burning.

Its completely legal.

[Moledet]

There are no bans on flag-burning.

Its completely legal.
Ohio thinks otherwise.

Chapter 29: Miscellaneous Offenses
Section 2927.11
General Assembly: 122.
Bill Number: Sub. House Bill 429
Effective Date: 09/30/98

(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall purposely deface, damage, pollute, or otherwise physically mistreat any of the following:

(1) The flag of the United States or of this state;
(2) Any public monument;
(3) Any historical or commemorative marker, or any structure, Indian mound or earthwork, cemetery, thing, or site of great historical or archaeological interest;
(4) A place of worship, its furnishings, or religious artifacts or sacred texts within the place of worship;
(5) A work of art or museum piece; (6) Any other object of reverence or sacred devotion.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of desecration. Violation of division (A)(1), (2), (3), (5), or (6) of this section is a misdemeanor of the second degree. Violation of division (A)(4) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree that is punishable by a fine of up to four thousand dollars in addition to the penalties specified for a misdemeanor of the first degree in section 2929.21 of the Revised Code.

(C) As used in this section, "cemetery" means any place of burial and includes burial sites that contain American Indian burial objects placed with or containing American Indian human remains.

You have so many idiotic laws there, laws that have no apparent reason that you really are in not in a position of the supreme ruler when it comes to democracy.

[Macs.]

. It might be wrong, and certainly offensive to those that died in and survived the Holocaust but to enforce laws on what people can think and talk about publicly is insane.

You can’t put laws on what people can think or say.


Again... Please show me a country that has a complete 100% "Freedom of Speech". There is no civilized country with that right. As simply as that.

It's all a matter of how much of "Freedom of Speech" is accepted.

[Durandal]

Actually, that defacing private or publicly OWNED property, I should know, I live in Ohio.

There is no law against purchasing a U.S. and then burning it. It is against the law to take a flag down that is not yours and burn it.

Most states have laws like that. This is a law to add additional time onto something else.

Thus you might also face trespassing, arson, and theft charges as well.


Ohio thinks otherwise.

Chapter 29: Miscellaneous Offenses
Section 2927.11
General Assembly: 122.
Bill Number: Sub. House Bill 429
Effective Date: 09/30/98

(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall purposely deface, damage, pollute, or otherwise physically mistreat any of the following:

(1) The flag of the United States or of this state;
(2) Any public monument;
(3) Any historical or commemorative marker, or any structure, Indian mound or earthwork, cemetery, thing, or site of great historical or archaeological interest;
(4) A place of worship, its furnishings, or religious artifacts or sacred texts within the place of worship;
(5) A work of art or museum piece; (6) Any other object of reverence or sacred devotion.

(B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of desecration. Violation of division (A)(1), (2), (3), (5), or (6) of this section is a misdemeanor of the second degree. Violation of division (A)(4) of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree that is punishable by a fine of up to four thousand dollars in addition to the penalties specified for a misdemeanor of the first degree in section 2929.21 of the Revised Code.

(C) As used in this section, "cemetery" means any place of burial and includes burial sites that contain American Indian burial objects placed with or containing American Indian human remains.

I am sure you would want to nail someone who defaced a Jewish cemetery with swastikas. I don;t believe in hate crimes, but damn if I do believe that freedom of speech does not include the destruction of private property.

You seem to think otherwise...or maybe you simply did not read the law (and the ones leading up to it not quoted...or historical uses of the law).


You have so many idiotic laws there, laws that have no apparent reason that you really are in not in a position of the supreme ruler when it comes to democracy.

Oh, I LOVE to gut the entire legal system and simplify it. Most nations that people want to live in, at least, are like this.

That said, this nation is held together by laws. Its soooo vast that its an entity in itself. Like it or not.

You take away the laws, the rule of law, and we'd be no different than Thunderdome.

[Rictor]

Again... Please show me a country that has a complete 100% "Freedom of Speech". There is no civilized country with that right. As simply as that.

It's all a matter of how much of "Freedom of Speech" is accepted.

The fact that no country has 100% perfect freedom of speech is not a justification for curtailing it. That's like saying that just because no person has a perfect singing voice, everyone should give up on trying to have any pitch at all.

As for the "right" to not be insulted, it's a very, very slippery slope. The scope of things you are allowed to say and think is bound to grow narrower over time, as this or that group tries to force through special cases. Is it a crime to deny the Nazi extermination of Slavs? If not, why not? As a Slav, I'm damn-well offended by that.

Anyone has yet to answer my question: if such laws are enacted for the Holocaust, why not WW1, the 30 Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and so on? If the government is allowed to legislate the absolute, sole, universal, sacred truth on one issue, why not on all issues?

[Durandal]

Anyone has yet to answer my question: if such laws are enacted for the Holocaust, why not WW1, the 30 Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and so on? If the government is allowed to legislate the absolute, sole, universal, sacred truth on one issue, why not on all issues?

You will keep quiet or go to jail. p-)

Edit: The answer you are looking for is: "guilt".

[wilhelm]

Does anybody know what year were these holocaust denial laws passed in Germany?

[Vandervahn]

Does anybody know what year were these holocaust denial laws passed in Germany?

The "institutionalized" recognition of it as a particular crime came in 1994. Before that, it was handled similar to grave insult. The actual paragraph now reads that unfactful denial, condonement or belittling of actions that happened under NS rule AND that constitue crimes against humanity according to International law - and which are presented in a way appropiate to incite hatred or disturb public peace - is punishable by fine or up to 5 years in jail.

[Vandervahn]

Kind of like forced Political correctness. He spent 8 months in jail for calling abortionist, "Murderers".

Does it not constitute an insult that he calls certain persons which act according to the laws of Germany "murderers"? The 8 months he got because he is a repeated violator of these laws.

"Murder" is the arbitrary killing of a human being. The german government defined that, for legal purposes, a fetus is considered human from ~14th week onwards. Thats why abortion is only possible until that time (with exception of rape victims and the mother being healthily endangered by the pregrancy) - and only following considerable counseling, one has to add. Its not as simple as walking to the clinic drive-thru and order the weekly special deal abortion with fries.

Gynecologists who abort cannot be murderers since they do not abort human beings according to current law. Hence such talk is insulting and defamation of a whole profession.


"Funnily" enough, even if the original article were correct (despite what Macs pointed out), this legal definition of human and pre-human could actually explain the sentence given a witty judge: Since early foeti are not considered human in Germany, comparing abortion to the genocide on the jews COULD be seen as drawing the jews as sub-humans - a clearly malicious antisemitic opinion p-)

[RS_Leo1A5]

1. When does a "fetus" become a baby?
By definition: When it is born. As long as it is still in the mother's womb it is called (a) embryo (until 8th/9th week) or (b) fetus (week 8/9 onwards).


2. When does a "later term" abortion occur? 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 week/month point?
By German legal definition: After week 12.
At this time the fetus already looks human but still has an undeveloped brain and most likely does not sense its environs.


3. How do you know a baby, say aborted at 3 months, could not have survived without the mother?
The medical consensus is that the point when an early-born child could possibly survive is week 24 - that's when the lungs have developed so far that breathing air is possible.

[RS_Leo1A5]

Megaraptor;2599109']And I don't understand why you don't think freedom of speech, academic freedom and the competition of ideas are the foundations of a democratic society...
Aren't there (religiously motivated) restrictions on stem-cell research in the US?

[Hollis]

Aren't there (religiously motivated) restrictions on stem-cell research in the US?


There is, but there are different sources for stem cells. Generally the arguement does not apply to all cases. "Harvesting" stem cells from aborted births is a big issue.

One might argue that the abortion was performed just to get the "body" parts. China has been accused of executing prisoners just for harvesting prisoner's body part.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

Surprise! I have! And so have our jewish countrymen, at least according to our laws.
That's why I highly regard our constitution and our legislation as very democratic, progressive and liberal to everyone. It grants not only German citizens but everyone one German soil a plenty of freedoms and rights. The only price for that plenty is to also to point out it's borders.

You don't have the freedom to offend someone, do you?

I'm afraid I must put this bluntly: Some people over the pond need to grow a thicker skin when it comes to the verbal barbs...

So you have the freedom not to be offended? Well, were do you draw the line? Saying bad things about your ethnic group? Your religion? What if I crack a "yo momma" joke...would you have me put in jail for that? Where do you draw the line at what's permissible offensiveness and what isn't?


The right to not have to feel feared, threatened or insulted is an essential part of the very first Articles 2 and 5 of our constitution, in fact the first three listed basic rights a human being has in this country; namely the right of free development of the individual's personality, the right to not be discriminated by someone, and - now for it p-) - the right to personal honor everyone shall have.

I think I prefer the rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...

[muck]

Megaraptor;2601223']You don't have the freedom to offend someone, do you?

Did I?


Megaraptor;2601223']So you have the freedom not to be offended? Well, were do you draw the line? Saying bad things about your ethnic group? Your religion? What if I crack a "yo momma" joke...would you have me put in jail for that? Where do you draw the line at what's permissible offensiveness and what isn't?

The line is drawn by a judge. You can report someone a judge evaluates then, if the elements of a crime were satisfied. Defamation, insult and slander are crimes in Germany. Of course the complaint can be rejected by the judge though.

[101_ScreamEagle]

Free speech is at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to the governing laws/ principles of the US. For example you can't go right up to the white house lawn and scream threats at the president because keeping him safe regarded higher than letting you say what you want. This can be looked at in the same way as the US detention facilities for Japanese Americans during WWII. Technically they had done nothing wrong and couldn't be held in the camps, but the was a much higher regard placed on security of the country during the war. Laws are all relative to the time and situation.

[PsychoMantis]

Bah,Germany should be one of the last countries to ban abortion. It has one of the lowest birthrates in the world today.

[muck]

Free speech is at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to the governing laws/ principles of the US. For example you can't go right up to the white house lawn and scream threats at the president because keeping him safe regarded higher than letting you say what you want. This can be looked at in the same way as the US detention facilities for Japanese Americans during WWII. Technically they had done nothing wrong and couldn't be held in the camps, but the was a much higher regard placed on security of the country during the war. Laws are all relative to the time and situation.

Exactly. Because the state where you can do whatever you want and say without any kind of limits isn't to be called democracy, it's arnarchy.

@PsychoMantis
To abolish the possibility of abortion is neither planned nor the topic here.

[Shadowstorm]

There is, but there are different sources for stem cells. Generally the arguement does not apply to all cases. "Harvesting" stem cells from aborted births is a big issue.

One might argue that the abortion was performed just to get the "body" parts. China has been accused of executing prisoners just for harvesting prisoner's body part.
Yeah I know.

[PsychoMantis]

@PsychoMantis
To abolish the possibility of abortion is neither planned nor the topic here.
Sorry,wanted to throw it out there.

[Pille1234]

what happened to that "church" that kept demonstrating at funerals of US soldiers? Weren't they punished recently because of a new law?

What about someone praising the 9/11 terrorists and inciting additonal attacks on the USA, shouldn't that be legal because of unrestricted free speech? After all, free speech is what the country was build on.

[[WDW]Megaraptor]

What about someone praising the 9/11 terrorists and inciting additonal attacks on the USA, shouldn't that be legal because of unrestricted free speech? After all, free speech is what the country was build on.

I haven't heard of anyone being arrested for praising 9/11, but i'm sure it's happened.


The line is drawn by a judge. You can report someone a judge evaluates then, if the elements of a crime were satisfied. Defamation, insult and slander are crimes in Germany. Of course the complaint can be rejected by the judge though.

So technically cracking a "yo momma" joke is illegal?

[Lt.Havoc]

Megaraptor;2601519']
So technically cracking a "yo momma" joke is illegal?

Well, only IF I feel offended and file a complain, butt most of the time, the judge will reject it while its not a hard verbal offense. The verbal offense need to be disreagarding, discriminating and threatening and wehn there are racsim slogans and slurs, then the complain will most likley be held at the court.

So, your "Yo momma" thing would most likley not be enough and even if it would be enough, you only would have to pay, you will only land in jail if you do the same thing over a period of time and wehn you start to threated the life of the others verbally.

Its ofcourse diffrent wehn you insult a Police Officer, then you will get a trail and have to pay up to 10.000 € depedning on what you said to the police men.

Also, these laws apply to anykind of verbal insult against religion, orginin, gender or political views. It dosent matter who you are, serb, jew, russia, wehn somone makes racial discrimination and ilsusts, you will get in trouble.

But that dosent mean you could insult germans as a russian or serb, you will also have to face the law if somone files a complain. The law is not one sided.

[Macs.]

Bah,Germany should be one of the last countries to ban abortion. It has one of the lowest birthrates in the world today.

Read the thread before commeting with such nonsense.

[i_heart_menthols]

what happened to that "church" that kept demonstrating at funerals of US soldiers? Weren't they punished recently because of a new law?

Not that I'm aware of. IIRC, the last time I saw them mentioned in the news was for agreeing not to protest the funeral for those Amish kids in exchange for several hours of air time on some TV network.


What about someone praising the 9/11 terrorists and inciting additonal attacks on the USA, shouldn't that be legal because of unrestricted free speech? After all, free speech is what the country was build on.

It is legal to praise the 9/11 attacks and it is legal to call for more attacks on the US. Sitting down alone or with your group of friends and planning out a terrorist attack is still, of course, illegal.

http://amysrobot.com/files/funeral_protest.JPG

[muck]

A German jurist has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison today for Holocaust denial. Furthermore, she is banned from officiating as a lawyer for the next five years.
She is the partner of convicted neonazi leader Horst Mahler, a former communist terrorist of the Red Army Faction, and had been the lawyer of convicted holocaust denier Ernst Zündel who was sentenced to five years in prison last year for sedition. During the trial, she had repeatedly shown the Hitler Salute, denied the Holocaust and attacked the judges. Court policemen had to carry her out of the courtroom after a fit of rage. Mahler has recently received a sentence of six month in prison for showing the Hitler Salute to a judge.

Germany is pretty feisty with its neonazis, huh?

[nemowork]

She is the partner of convicted neonazi leader Horst Mahler, a former communist terrorist of the Red Army Faction, Germany is pretty feisty with its neonazis, huh?
So he was a terroroist for the Red army faction to free the state from Nazi's then when they get defeated he joins the Nazi's? Feisty maybe but they dont seem to be getting any smarter thank god!

[Zyankali]

It is legal to praise the 9/11 attacks and it is legal to call for more attacks on the US. Sitting down alone or with your group of friends and planning out a terrorist attack is still, of course, illegal.

http://amysrobot.com/files/funeral_protest.JPG

Sorry, but that image looks faked...

[ren0312]

A German jurist has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison today for Holocaust denial. Furthermore, she is banned from officiating as a lawyer for the next five years.
She is the partner of convicted neonazi leader Horst Mahler, a former communist terrorist of the Red Army Faction, and had been the lawyer of convicted holocaust denier Ernst Zündel who was sentenced to five years in prison last year for sedition. During the trial, she had repeatedly shown the Hitler Salute, denied the Holocaust and attacked the judges. Court policemen had to carry her out of the courtroom after a fit of rage. Mahler has recently received a sentence of six month in prison for showing the Hitler Salute to a judge.

Germany is pretty feisty with its neonazis, huh?

Does that mean that you can be jailed in Germany for making a Hitler salute even though your intention is to imitate the Roman salute?

[Douros81]

Does that mean that you can be jailed in Germany for making a Hitler salute even though your intention is to imitate the Roman salute?


Thats funny. How would that play out in court?

Look on the brite side one day there will be no need for abortion cause there won't be any one to abort.
Also thats a load of **** to lock that pastor up.


European Birth Rate Declines

WASHINGTON, March 27, 2003 (AP) The natural increase in Europe's population is slowing and may start a steep decline within a few decades, researchers say.

Researchers writing in the journal Science said European population growth reached a turning point in the year 2000 when the number of children dropped to a level that statistically assured there will be fewer parents in the next generation than there are in the current generation.

In effect, the authors say, the momentum for population growth in the 15-nation European Union has flipped from positive to negative and the trend could strongly influence population numbers throughout the 21st century.

"If the current fertility rate of around 1.5 births per woman persists until 2020, negative momentum will result in 88 million fewer people in 2100, if one assumes constant mortality and no net migration," the researchers say. The EU population in 2000 was about 375 million.

Brian C. O'Neill, a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria and a co-author of the study, said the projection is based on the age structure of the current European population which now has more adults than children.

"Age structure affects population size because it determines how many adults there will be in the future," O'Neill said in an interview. "Currently there are fewer children than adults. That can produce a declining population in the future because the number of potential parents will be smaller than the number of parents there are today."

A population decline in Europe is not assured, said O'Neill, but the decline in the number of future parents is a fact that may set in motion a drop in population.

"That is going to push the population toward decline," he said. "Whether it actually ends up in a decline will depend on other factors, particularly migration. ... The European population may not decline if migration is high enough to offset this population momentum."

The change in the traditional role of women has been a major factor in the projected decline in population, the authors said. The demands of education and career encourage many women to put off having their first child.

In the 20th century, the average age at first birth of mothers shifted sharply from the low 20s to the late 20s. As the trend toward having the first child continues to advance toward an older age it locks in a decline in natural population growth, said O'Neill.

"The implications of negative momentum are small right now, but they are going to get bigger quickly," he said. "If you have another 10 years of low fertility, that decline (by 2100) would be 25 to 40 million. If we have two decades of low fertility, then it would be another 25 to 40 million."

Hans-Peter Kohler, a University of Pennsylvania researcher who has written extensively on population trends, said the paper by O'Neill and his co-authors is "a quite important study."

He said the research demonstrates that fertility in a population can be significantly affected by social trends that encourage women to delay starting a family. Although this has had a major effect on the European population, he said, it has not been a major factor in the United States.

"There is a delay in the U.S., but it is much less ****ounced when compared to the Europeans," said Kohler.

O'Neill's co-authors on the study in Science were Wolfgang Lutz and Sergei Scherbov of the Vienna Institute of Demography, a part of the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna.

[LaoSexMachine]

Sorry, but that image looks faked...

westborogh baptist church

[Zyankali]

westborogh baptist church

Omg - they're crazy...

edit: Oh and I believe what they do could be illegal in germany:

§189 Criminal Code
Whoever disparages the memory of a deceased person shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than two years or a fine.

Sorry for adding fuel into the fire of the Freedom of speech debate ;)

[Freedom-Fries]

so jacking off would be mass murder? its about somebody's faith

[Invisigoth]

Thats funny. How would that play out in court?

Look on the brite side one day there will be no need for abortion cause there won't be any one to abort.
Also thats a load of **** to lock that pastor up.


So we should change our values and beliefs because we have declining birth rates? thats a pile of sh**. Give incentives for people to have children, better support structures, better schools and what not.

[CYW]

i admire a lot of things about the modern day germans but one thing that i dont is the fact that they just cant let go of the past! I mean come on! Putting a pastor in jail because he compared something to an event that happened over 60 years ago? yes a tragic hellish event but nonetheless...its way too extreme...what is Germany trying to prove with such laws? That it hates Hitler? Point taken, move on. I read in the news last year that a 70 year old university professor at the university of Berlin was jailed for 2 years for saying that new documents have surfaced which MIGHT contradict CERTAIN aspects of the holocaust...come on now...all you achieve with these actions is international criticism for restricting freedom of speech

[MJC9678]

Modern Europe is killing itself off while the 3rd world population explodes in Europe. Another 20 years of this and we can rename that area of the world Eurostan, or Eurarbia. This is a result of the insane selfishness of modern liberals. They would rather have $$ and nice things than sustain their culture and people.

[RS_Leo1A5]

all you achieve with these actions is international criticism for restricting freedom of speech
What would be the reaction otherwise?
"Oh, look at those Germans, they learned nothing of the past! Only 60 years since the Holocaust and they let Nazis roam the streets again and tell their lies and preach hate!"

For 60 years we have tried to repent. For 60 years we have tried to crush extremism. For 60 years we have tried to show the world that Germany was reborn, that nobody has to fear us. For 60 years we have tried to prove we're not the warmongers of old anymore.

Yet still we get the Nazi card shoved into our faces...

[CYW]

i agree with you, its not fair on the new german generations and its not fair either that some countries still bring up the holocaust as if it was your (modern day germans) fault...but honestly, what can jailing an old priest possibly achieve?

[muck]

It makes people attentive. Admittely, the sedition laws have developed some perversions, but in general I fully agree with them. In times of extreme callousness and the rule of political correctness, our fortified democracy is the only measure which can protect our freedom.

[CYW]

how is it then that your fortified democracy arrests old priests but allows the NPD in parliament??? i think you got your priorities wrong....first start jailing the neo-nazis and THEN attend to anything else as minor as the priest incident...

[muck]

how is it then that your fortified democracy arrests old priests but allows the NPD in parliament??? i think you got your priorities wrong....first start jailing the neo-nazis and THEN attend to anything else as minor as the priest incident...
Unfortunately, the NPD is clever enough to not violate the law. It has been tried to ban before to ban the party due to its alleged links to neo nazi gangs and anti-democratic efforts, but a court has ruled that out.
A pretty big number of their members ends up with having their ass jailed though.

[CYW]

well i think the government should focus more on handling that which is a much bigger and more imminent threat to German democracy than an old priest preaching...

[muck]

I mean no harm, but you do not live in Germany, or do you? You probably cannot assess the risk spreading from the NPD as good as a German.

The NPD as a party is incapable of acting as such. The few feared parliamentary faction they have in German state diets are melting away, a large part of their members have ended up in jail. The NPD is bankcrupt and target of a inquiry which suggests a funding scandal. It has hardly 7000 members in Germany.
As long as they express their opinion on a democratic basis and as long as they don't break the law, they are much less dangerous than every usual citizen who commits a sedition crime.

Why should German courts make an exception for a priest who could have been very well aware of the punishability of his comparison?
It is that simple: Who denies or plays down the crimes of the Nazis or insults their victims will have his or her ass jailed in Germany.

As a German, I'm pretty much pissed off by this affection that is currently shown towards German reservation and anti-militarism by foreigners. The world has made sure once that three generations of Germans have been taught that we are not allowed to let Nazism arise again and that violence is only a measure for self defense, now the world should not be surprised if it encounters that this thinking is an essential part of the identity of modern Germany.

[CYW]

for the record: i've lived in germany (in berlin, wedding area, next to the virchow klinikum), i frequently go there due to friends and family and i know a lot of german people...and frankly, they see a more potential threat in an organised neo-nazi movement than in a senile priest

[muck]

...Imagineable, since Wedding is one of the most leftist districts of Berlin. My argumentation remains valid nonetheless.