German right wing extremist Ernst Zuendel is seen at ... MANNHEIM, Germany - A German court on Thursday convicted far-right activist Ernst Zundel and sentenced him to five years in prison for Holocaust denial in a case that underlined Germany's determination to prosecute people who claim the Nazis didn't murder six million Jews. The 67-year-old Zundel, who was deported from Canada in 2005, was convicted on 14 counts of inciting hatred for years of anti-Semitic activities, including contributing to a Web site devoted to denying the Holocaust _ a crime in Germany. Zundel showed no emotion when Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen read the verdict, only nodding occasionally. Zundel, who has also lived in Tennessee, and his supporters argued that he was a peaceful campaigner being denied his right to free speech. His attorney, Ludwig Bock, said he would appeal. "What is notable is the iron-hard refusal of the court to allow consideration of new scientific findings or expert opinions," Bock said. Prosecutors in Germany were able to bring charges because the Web site is accessible there. The German prosecution won praise from Bnai Brith Canada, a Jewish human rights group. "The case of Ernst Zundel demonstrates clearly the strength, determination and resolve of Germany's hate crimes legislation, in stark contrast to our own," executive vice president Frank Dimant said in a statement. Dimant said Canadian hate crimes laws did not specifically recognize Holocaust denial as a crime. Zundel faced 14 counts of incitement for disseminating anti-Semitic propaganda through a series of pamphlets and the Web site. Denying the Holocaust can bring three months to five years in prison. His trial began in November in this southwestern city after an initial attempt to try him collapsed in March 2006 over a dispute with one of his attorneys, Sylvia Stolz. At one stage, she was carried from the courtroom, screaming "Resistance! The German people are rising up," after she defied an order banning her from the trial on grounds she tried to sabotage the proceedings by denouncing the court as a "tool of foreign domination." During the current trial, Bock quoted from Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and from Nazi race laws in his closing statements last week as argued for Zundel's acquittal. Bock accused the Mannheim state court of not wanting to face a "scientific analysis" of the Holocaust and charged that prosecutors _ one of whom has termed Zundel a "rat catcher" _ had defamed his client. Another of Zundel's five attorneys, Herbert Schaller, told the court that all of its evidence that the Holocaust took place was based only on witness reports, instead of hard facts. In his own closing arguments, prosecutor Andreas Grossmann called Zundel a "political con man" from whom the German people must be protected, widely quoting from his writings, which argue that millions of Jews did not die at the hands of the Nazis. "You might as well argue that the sun rises in the west," Grossmann said when asking that Zundel be given the maximum sentence. "But you cannot change that the Holocaust has been proven." Born in Germany in 1939, Zundel emigrated to Canada in 1958 and lived in Toronto and Montreal until 2001. Canadian officials twice rejected his attempts to obtain Canadian citizenship, and he moved to Pigeon Forge, Tenn., until he was deported to Canada in 2003 for alleged immigration violations. Mannheim prosecutors were able to open a case against Zundel because his Holocaust-denying Web site is available in Germany. In February 2005, a Canadian judge ruled that Zundel's activities were not only a threat to national security, but "the international community of nations" as well. A Canadian law, passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States, allows the government to hold terrorism suspects without charge, based on secret evidence that does not have to be disclosed to a suspect or his defense. Zundel was deported a few days later. Since the late 1970s, he had operated Samisdat Publishing, one of the leading distributors of Nazi propaganda and, since 1995, had been a key content provider for a Web site dedicated to Holocaust denial. Zundel has claimed he is a peaceful man with no criminal record against him in Canada. Link
I'm not sure how I feel about this: One one hand I really dislike the idea of nutcases going around pissing people off and getting other stupid people to be racist, but on the other I hold my right to free speech in very high regard. Luckily I've only ever seen these laws being brought into action when the denier's a high profile nut-job, I'd be worried if they started arresting your average ignorant moron...
So many things wrong here. First that this nutter believes that the Holocaust never happened. Second that he believes in the Nazi ideals. But what is more wrong is that Canada extradited him on trumped up Terrorist charges and that Germany was able to prosecute him for his beliefs. He should be free to believe what he wishes, whether it's true or false.
Right. Of course I think that guy is a dangerous idiot, but I somehow think it is wrong to prosecute someone for his believe, good or bad. Freedom of speach and believe is a core part of a modern democracy and there should be no exeptions even if someone has as offensive and dumb believes as mr. Zuendel.
Jesus H. Christ Germany is ****ed up with it's anti-Nazism laws. Words can't describe just how moronic that really is.
But should anyone be free to publish something widely (and provably) known to be false as a fact? Where do you draw the line between kooks with a "Flat Earth" belief and someone claiming a historical fact like slavery or the holocaust never actually happened? We're not talking faith systems here, not scientifically provable either way, but the second case is an attempt to present a fake reality to promote hate against a group. That's why it's criminal. You bring in "Freedom of Speech". I counter with "Freedom of Information". The public have a right to know (and you have a right to publish) the truth, they have no duty to hear (and you have no right to publish) your opinion under any constitution.
Yes. Free speech is dangerous, it's excessive, and it's problematic. I refuse to concede any bit of it though just because we find what the person is saying distastefull. It is the states duty to produce a well educated society that knows rubbish from truth. It is the individuals duty to protect free speech though - the state shouldn't touch it. Free speech > all.
I say let him publicly deny the holocaust, his argument can't stand up anyway. If I want to publish that I witnessed a troop of pink elephants flying past my bedroom window, then I should be free to do so, and be ridiculed for doing so as should our German friend. We may not like what he has to say, but he should be free to do so, so long as he is not inciting hatred or violence. Now obviously this is where it becomes tricky as we are unaware of exactly what was published.
Agree with Spec and Yoda. People should be allowed to freely express their ideas, no matter how deranged or hateful they may be. It is the duty of the society to judge the worth of those ideas, not the duty of the government to prevent their being heard. Keep in mind that every idea which has changed history becan as a revolutionary and unpopular one. It is the process of consideration by the society as a whole that sorts out the valuable ones from the crap.
Inciting rebellion will get you to Guantanamo so fast your feet won't leave the floor. Shouting "Fire!" in a theatre will land you in jail in the freeest of countries. You can't have blanket free speech. But this case is not about ideas or opinions, it's about telling lies. You would allow a firm to blatantly lie about their product?
Anybody who seeks to destroy another race/religion needs to be stopped before it happens. Germany is doing what it can to prevent escalation. Imagine if they would have stopped Hitler before he gained power. Better to curtail that kind of hatred before it costs millions of lives.
by imprisoning him you give weight to his argument. Aswell as erode the ability to say what you want without fear of official persecution. Morons. on the subject of lying lots of firms do it, for example crative make a box that they claim can make a music file have higher fidelity than a higher bit rate source even though they started with a lower bit-rate file.
Why not, we allow politicians to do it and we still elect them. Like Kipman says, companies lie every day, we still buy from them. Granted it's not ideal, but I think lying (aka marketing) is here to stay and that the alternative, restricting speech outside of the socially excepted norms, is worse.
You and Kipman are confusing lies and opinions. Any number of honest people may say "A" sounds better than "B" in their opinion, but for the advertiser to falsify the data in the technical specification as proof is wrong - as it would be for a reviewer to say "A" was better than "B" because he'd been bribed. We have laws to limit marketing hype. Saying "Let society be the judge" is a cop-out. By the time 'society' reacts the harm's been done. A lie is running round the world before truth has got its boots on. Lies kill people - if you don't know that, you've not been paying attention.
So you're in support of people coming here and SHOUTING: "all black people are inferior" or "we should kill all the gays" or "computer geeks are all losers that should be killed because you're a bunch of useless wastes of skin that will never contribute anything worthwhile to the world" or [insert hateful idiot talk here]? Are you saying that you would NOT want the moderators to lock those idiots out of the forums - ever? Quoted For Truth.
As a regulated forum, no. We do have rules and norms here and while I sometimes feel the moderators err on the heavy handed side, they do a good job of maintaining order. In larger society, absolutly I feel someone should be allows to shout their hateful ideas on the street corner (or their own website). Let the populace judge those views and reject them en masse.
Surely refusing people their right to free speech is very similar to what the nazi's themselves were preventing when they were in power in Germany
