JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:....
Although I believe that we ought to obey the laws, any person, whether they be a plumber or the prime minister, who hinders the work of a historian has broken the law of freedom of inquiry. Therefore, I don't believe that Section 130 Incitement to hatred (3), which forbids holocaust revisionism in Germany should be treated as though it is a valid law. If more people in Germany practiced civilly disobedient towards the law, I believe that more people would research us, and join out side.
Indeed, it should not be treated as valid law, or for that matter as legislation.
(3) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören, öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost.
Translation: Whoever publicly or in a meeting condones, denies or belittles an action under the rule of National Socialism described in Article 6, section 1 of the Code of Crimes against International Law in a way that is suitable to disturb public peace will be punished up to five years imprisonment or a fine.
It leaves open what they consider "an action under the rule of National Socialism described in Article 6, section 1 of the Code of Crimes against International Law" and what statement would be allowed to be "condoned, denied or belittled" to use their words. That also makes it a rubber paragraph that can be employed, whenever someone feels like it. But it still skews the playing field for any public debate around "Holocaust Matters". On the other hand making up accusations against institutions or members of forces of Germany under National Socialism are perfectly allowed. Now given that the playing field is skewed in that manner it is actually a certainty that the socially constructed image of history is grossly distorted. If it would be a rationally and empirically proven matter, that kind of legislation would be completely unnecessary. Hence disputing veracity of Holocaust claims becomes a kind of civil duty.
The actual vagueness of the object of that paragraph indeed gives reason to the Nulla poena sine lege / no penalty without a law argument.
Still all the "Human Rights" / "Civil Rights" advocates are silent on this.
Total Silence of Media and Human Rights Organizations
But how come that we do not hear about this in our media? Must one not expect that at least some human rights organization would speak out about it?
The reason for this total silence is simple: Would you dare to defend individuals who are called neo-Nazis by the German authorities and media?
The president if one human rights organization, the German Internationale Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte (IGFM, International Society for Human Rights), clearly spelled it out when approached to assist the victims of modern day German persecution. Though they know about the injustice done to many scholars and publishers, they decided not to assist:[71]
"I believe that the IGFM does not have the strength to get through such a proceeding without harming the entire society."
The background of this is that this society has already come under massive attack by the German media and left-wing organizations for their firm stance against communism and for assisting ethnic Germans who experience persecution due to their ethnic background in eastern European countries (mainly Poland and Czechoslovakia). Assisting individuals who are accused of being "politically incorrect" due to their (alleged) right-wing views would most likely unleash a wave of persecution against this society itself, which it thinks it could not deal with.
400 years ago, nobody would dare to defend those made out as witches by the authorities. In the Soviet Union, it could prove fatal to defend someone depicted as a capitalist. In Nazi Germany, you better would not dare to defend a Jew or a Communist. The labels change which dictatorial systems put on people to ostracize them. But neither do the methods of persecution change, nor the indifference or even active approval of the public.
What will you say if they call you a neo-Nazi tomorrow because you dared to sing your national anthem in public? So think twice, if somebody is called a neo-Nazi by the media. It is perhaps only a patriot.
http://www.vho.org/tr/2003/2/Rudolf203-219.html
Also see:
http://www.vho.org/VffG/1997/4/RudMen4.htmlI didn't find an English translation of this. But I'm now thinking that it may be worthwhile despite the age of the article. Or to reboot the article with new information. Some of the named organizations where contact details can be found:
https://www.amnesty.de/https://www.igfm.de/startseite/
