European free speech
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
was talking evil rubbish. I don't see the point in such laws. Austria
has quite a 'vibrant' neo-nazi following despite them.
--
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
http://homepage.mac.com/davidhornecomposer http://soundjunction.org
Erick T. Barkhuis
prestwich tesco 24h offy:
> I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
> he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
> not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
> for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
> was talking evil rubbish.
Sure. But he _was_ taken to court. Do you, in that case, still think that
the court should have waved the case?
I'm sill on the fence about whether or not he should have been
prosecuted. I don't consider denying the gas chambers a criminal offense,
although I agree that it's offensive to millions of people.
So is drawing a prophet's image.
--
Holländisch lernen - http://hollaendisch-lernen.ardane.com
Peugeot Elystar - http://elystar.ardane.com
Low Countries By Bike - http://lowcountriesbybike.ardane.com
WebWax Webdesign - http://webwax.ardane.com
Des Small
> David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy:
> > I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or
> > prosecuted. What he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt
> > already. He would probably not have 'revised' his opinion on
> > Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been for a court case, true, but
> > I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he was talking evil
> > rubbish.
>
> Sure. But he _was_ taken to court. Do you, in that case, still think that
> the court should have waved the case?
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm especially not an Austrian lawyer, but it is
generally the business of courts to implement laws whether they like
them or not. If there's a constitutional court that can take a view
on the law, fair enough, but otherwise the court's discretion
presumably exists in setting the penalty. If Austria's judges really
want to give this the Big Whatever, they can issue a suspended
sentence (which is what Irving was said to be hoping for in news
reports I've seen).
> I'm sill on the fence about whether or not he should have been
> prosecuted. I don't consider denying the gas chambers a criminal
> offense,
Presumably you mean you don't think it _should_ be a criminal offense.
I can assure you, in the unlikely event that it would help, that it is
in some jurisdictions. Le Pen's been done for it too.
> although I agree that it's offensive to millions of people. So is
> drawing a prophet's image.
And I'm sure we'd agree that laws aren't the only possible reason for
not doing something.
Des
Erick T. Barkhuis
> Erick T. Barkhuis <erick....@ardane.c-o-m> writes:
> > I don't consider denying the gas chambers a criminal
> > offense,
>
> Presumably you mean you don't think it _should_ be a criminal
> offense.
You presume correctly. English is not my native tongue.
> > although I agree that it's offensive to millions of people. So is
> > drawing a prophet's image.
>
> And I'm sure we'd agree that laws aren't the only possible reason for
> not doing something.
That's right. We agree.
DDT Filled Mormons
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
>he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
>not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
>for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
>was talking evil rubbish.
Evil? It's just rubbish, and I don't see why people have to reduce
themselves to the level of his bollocks to make their own, stale
point.
Nazism isn't coming back any time soon, and I can't believe people
still think it could.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:13:44 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
> >I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
> >he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
> >not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
> >for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
> >was talking evil rubbish.
>
> Evil? It's just rubbish,
No, I think there are distinct levels of crap.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy:
> > I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
> > he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
> > not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
> > for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
> > was talking evil rubbish.
>
> Sure. But he _was_ taken to court. Do you, in that case, still think that
> the court should have waved the case?
I'm not in a position to judge that. I think that the laws which allowed
for his prosecution are wrong.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:13:44 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
> >I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
> >he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
> >not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
> >for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
> >was talking evil rubbish. I don't see the point in such laws. Austria
> >has quite a 'vibrant' neo-nazi following despite them.
>
> The laws were made immediately after the war to prevent people like
> David Irving spouting rubbish and stirring up neo-nazis. AFAIR UK,
> France, Russia and USA had a hand in making the laws.
> The Austrian government really can't win. If they don't prosecute they
> are seen as Nazis in the UK, if they do they are still in the wrong.
> David Irving got what he deserved. It's a pity it has taken so long.
I don't have any pity for David Irving, but I still don't think he
should have been prosecuted. I think that the laws are outmoded,
regardless who initiated them. If Austria needs such a law to prevent
trouble, then it won't prevent trouble.
Des Small
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:31:33 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
> >Erick T. Barkhuis <erick....@ardane.c-o-m> wrote:
> >
> >> David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> >> prestwich tesco 24h offy:
> >> > I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or
> >> > prosecuted. What he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt
> >> > already. He would probably not have 'revised' his opinion on
> >> > Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been for a court case, true,
> >> > but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he was talking evil
> >> > rubbish.
> >>
> >> Sure. But he _was_ taken to court. Do you, in that case, still
> >> think that the court should have waved the case?
> >
> >I'm not in a position to judge that. I think that the laws which
> >allowed for his prosecution are wrong.
>
> They were made around 1946. There is probably a clause that says
> they can't be repealed.
I'd be very interested to know for sure, as I'm doing a course in
which constitutions (albeit 19th-century ones) loom other than with
smallness, and I know the (uncodified) British constitution lacks (as
explicitly as possible given that it is an unwritten convention) any
scope for such entrenchment (which is the technical term for trying to
make it hard to undo laws).
Parliamentary sovereignty means it can, for better or worse, do as it
pleases, but that so can the Parliament of the future.
Des
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:31:43 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
[]
> >I don't have any pity for David Irving, but I still don't think he
> >should have been prosecuted. I think that the laws are outmoded,
> >regardless who initiated them. If Austria needs such a law to prevent
> >trouble, then it won't prevent trouble.
>
> I doubt if Austria had any say in what was in the laws or in their
> constitution.
I'm not arguing that point. (I don't know the history of the law.)
> The situation when the laws were made was a bit like
> Iraq now. He wilfully broke the law. What would have been the world
> reaction if Austria hadn't prosecuted him?
In his case? I'm not sure if people would have noticed. People deny the
holocaust all the time. I'm sure plenty of them have been to Austria...
> It's bad enough that people think that "Austria has quite a 'vibrant'
> neo-nazi following".
Well, I don't know about you, but I don't feel any 'safer' now that he's
in jail.
Runge
"David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
prestwich tesco 24h offy" <this_address...@yahoo.com> a écrit dans
le message de news:
1hb2nxg.1ie7amm4q3yugN%this_address...@yahoo.com...
Jim Ley
<erick....@ardane.c-o-m> wrote:
>David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>prestwich tesco 24h offy:
>> I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
>> he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
>> not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
>> for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
>> was talking evil rubbish.
>
>Sure. But he _was_ taken to court. Do you, in that case, still think that
>the court should have waved the case?
They should've gone, you're a poor deluded fool and sent him for
psychiatric reports... then given him some sort of community order
whilst at the same time criticising the law for being a bad one.
>I'm sill on the fence about whether or not he should have been
>prosecuted. I don't consider denying the gas chambers a criminal offense,
>although I agree that it's offensive to millions of people.
>So is drawing a prophet's image.
Yet they are treated so differently... depressing isn't it.
Jim.
Jim Ley
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:31:43 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> He wilfully broke the law. What would have been the world
>reaction if Austria hadn't prosecuted him?
The exact same reaction as Austria has had in failing to prosecute him
for the last 17 years. none at all. They'd be impressed about the
grown up attitudes to free speech they now had.
Rather than seeing them as a bunch of idiots with a desire to
criminalise the stupid.
Jim.
Padraig Breathnach
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:13:44 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
>>I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
>>he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
>>not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
>>for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
>>was talking evil rubbish.
>
>Evil? It's just rubbish, and I don't see why people have to reduce
>themselves to the level of his bollocks to make their own, stale
>point.
>
I dislike the word 'evil' because it is so often bandied about
recklessly. David's use is more defensible than many other instances,
but it's still a debased word.
Can we agree on 'malicious'?
>Nazism isn't coming back any time soon, and I can't believe people
>still think it could.
>
Simple-minded extreme nationalism, with a considerable racist or
xenophobic component, seems to exist throughout Europe. While it is
not the dominant political sentiment in many places, it colours
political discourse in many states.
To me, Irving's position is reprehensible, and his selective use and
abuse of historical sources are shameful. But he should not be jailed;
he should be ridiculed.
--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
Padraig Breathnach
>travel ??
>
Irving travelled to Austria. It's a useful caution to all holocaust
deniers who wish to plan their holidays.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> DDT Filled Mormons <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:13:44 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> >(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> >prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
> >
> >>I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
> >>he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
> >>not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
> >>for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
> >>was talking evil rubbish.
> >
> >Evil? It's just rubbish, and I don't see why people have to reduce
> >themselves to the level of his bollocks to make their own, stale
> >point.
> >
> I dislike the word 'evil' because it is so often bandied about
> recklessly. David's use is more defensible than many other instances,
> but it's still a debased word.
>
> Can we agree on 'malicious'?
I would, on reflection, agree that 'evil' has a particular meaning that
may not apply here. I'm not comfortable with 'malicious' either. Maybe
something in between, not that anything immediatlely springs to mind...
>
> >Nazism isn't coming back any time soon, and I can't believe people
> >still think it could.
> >
> Simple-minded extreme nationalism, with a considerable racist or
> xenophobic component, seems to exist throughout Europe. While it is
> not the dominant political sentiment in many places, it colours
> political discourse in many states.
>
> To me, Irving's position is reprehensible, and his selective use and
> abuse of historical sources are shameful. But he should not be jailed;
> he should be ridiculed.
Absolutely. Frankly, you could argue he was, if not ridiculed, certainly
a pathetic character. Still, nothing like beating someone when they're
down, even if they are ridiculous...
Jim Ley
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:06:52 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
>
>>Well, I don't know about you, but I don't feel any 'safer' now that he's
>>in jail.
>
>but you aren't Austrian or living in Austria.
Yes, but he might want to visit one day, and now we have to live with
the idea that giving ideas can get you locked up for a very long time,
that's quite a scary thought.
Or maybe it's the thought of visiting a country where you're locked up
for being stupid, stupidity shouldn't be a crime.
Jim.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:06:52 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
>
> >Well, I don't know about you, but I don't feel any 'safer' now that he's
> >in jail.
>
> but you aren't Austrian or living in Austria.
Schwarzenegger is Austrian, and he signs Californian death warrants.
To try and address your point, I don't think that means that Austrians
feel any safer. Any Austrians here who feel safer?
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:31:27 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
>
> >Absolutely. Frankly, you could argue he was, if not ridiculed, certainly
> >a pathetic character. Still, nothing like beating someone when they're
> >down, even if they are ridiculous...
>
> He has a following amongst neo nazis in Germany and Austria.
> He's only down because he was prosecuted.
You might be overestimating his following.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:43:22 +0100, Martin <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:06:52 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> >(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> >prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Well, I don't know about you, but I don't feel any 'safer' now that he's
> >>in jail.
> >
> >but you aren't Austrian or living in Austria.
>
> Yes, but he might want to visit one day,
I was there for the first time last July, in Vienna. I'll be in Salzburg
this August. I don't feel threatened personally by this in any immediate
sense. I just think that freedom of speech means freedom of speech.
Padraig Breathnach
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:31:27 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
>
>>Absolutely. Frankly, you could argue he was, if not ridiculed, certainly
>>a pathetic character. Still, nothing like beating someone when they're
>>down, even if they are ridiculous...
>
>He has a following amongst neo nazis in Germany and Austria.
>He's only down because he was prosecuted.
Radio reports here in Ireland (and I suppose elsewhere) say that he
claims to have changed his mind about denying that the holocaust
happened. Does this mean that he will lose his following?
Padraig Breathnach
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:51:59 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
>>Schwarzenegger is Austrian, and he signs Californian death warrants.
>
>What the fuck has that got to do with anything?
>
>He has dual nationality.
>
Didn't he renounce his Austrian nationality last year as a protest
against something or other? (I don't think it was their decision to
prosecute Irving.)
Keith W
"Erick T. Barkhuis" <erick....@ardane.c-o-m> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e64364ec...@news.individual.net...
> David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>> I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
>> he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
>> not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
>> for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
>> was talking evil rubbish.
>
> the court should have waved the case?
>
> prosecuted. I don't consider denying the gas chambers a criminal offense,
Austrian law does however , a fact brought to his
attention before he went there to address a right
wing meeting.
Essentially he dared the authorities to act and lost.
Keith
Jim Ley
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:04:12 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
>>Radio reports here in Ireland (and I suppose elsewhere) say that he
>>claims to have changed his mind about denying that the holocaust
>>happened. Does this mean that he will lose his following?
>
>By doing so he was hoping to avoid a prison sentence. I'm interested
>to see what he will do next.
That was some foresight on his part as his change of heart was on
record back in 2000 at least - I have no idea about his 1991 claims,
but it's completely irrelevant what the idiot thought or believed, he
should be laughed at not put on trial.
Jim.
Jim Ley
<keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Essentially he dared the authorities to act and lost.
So we should applaud his stance on the right to free speech?
do we really have to...
Jim.
Des Small
> On 20 Feb 2006 21:59:31 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Martin <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> >
> >> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:31:33 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
> >> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
> >> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm not in a position to judge that. I think that the laws which
> >> >allowed for his prosecution are wrong.
> >>
> >> They were made around 1946. There is probably a clause that says
> >> they can't be repealed.
> >
> >I'd be very interested to know for sure, as I'm doing a course in
> >which constitutions (albeit 19th-century ones) loom other than with
> >smallness, and I know the (uncodified) British constitution lacks
> >(as explicitly as possible given that it is an unwritten
> >convention) any scope for such entrenchment (which is the technical
> >term for trying to make it hard to undo laws).
> >
> >Parliamentary sovereignty means it can, for better or worse, do as
> >it pleases, but that so can the Parliament of the future.
>
> AFAIR Germany and Austria were "given" constitutions.
This would certainly suggest the donors would have been up for some
major entrenchments.
> What the US did recently in Iraq was modeled from the way the four
> powers handled the end of WWII.
Maybe they should 've modelled it on the Rooshians: rape, pillage,
_then_ burn.
Des
Padraig Breathnach
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:04:12 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
><padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote:
>
>>Radio reports here in Ireland (and I suppose elsewhere) say that he
>>claims to have changed his mind about denying that the holocaust
>>happened. Does this mean that he will lose his following?
>
>By doing so he was hoping to avoid a prison sentence. I'm interested
>to see what he will do next.
He is appealing. I consider him unappealing.
Des Small
Whirled's gone mad. How can you appeal if you plead (as he did)
guilty?
"Sorry, m'lud, I didn't mean I was three (3) years' worth of
guilty as such, more a sort of 'Silly boy, don't do it again!'
guilty. It's a rubbish law anyway, isn't it?"
Is anyone so moved by his plight and the foolishness of the law under
which he's been porridged that they'd consider contribution cold hard
cash to his appeal fund? Not me, that's for sure.
Des
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach <padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> writes:
>
>> Martin <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:04:12 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
>> ><padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Radio reports here in Ireland (and I suppose elsewhere) say that he
>> >>claims to have changed his mind about denying that the holocaust
>> >>happened. Does this mean that he will lose his following?
>> >
>> >By doing so he was hoping to avoid a prison sentence. I'm interested
>> >to see what he will do next.
>>
>> He is appealing. I consider him unappealing.
>
>Whirled's gone mad. How can you appeal if you plead (as he did)
>guilty?
>
I don't know about Austrian law, but in many jurisdictions it is
possible to appeal against severity of sentence.
>"Sorry, m'lud, I didn't mean I was three (3) years' worth of
>guilty as such, more a sort of 'Silly boy, don't do it again!'
>guilty. It's a rubbish law anyway, isn't it?"
>
That's one way to summarise an appeal against severity of sentence.
>Is anyone so moved by his plight and the foolishness of the law under
>which he's been porridged that they'd consider contribution cold hard
>cash to his appeal fund? Not me, that's for sure.
>
Good question. I feel that I should be willing to, but am so repelled
by his politics that I couldn't bring myself to.
Joseph Coulter
news:kamkv1d33rp39d4dn...@4ax.com:
> Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Is anyone so moved by his plight and the foolishness of the law under
>>which he's been porridged that they'd consider contribution cold hard
>>cash to his appeal fund? Not me, that's for sure.
>>
> Good question. I feel that I should be willing to, but am so repelled
> by his politics that I couldn't bring myself to.
>
How very true. The very essence of free speech says that this guy should
be able to say what he thinks, true or not. In this case he has even
retracted a bit, 3 years seems severe and anti democratic, but then
Austria has the last word.
--
Joseph Coulter
Cruises and Vacations
http://www.josephcoulter.com/
Runge
"Padraig Breathnach" <padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> a écrit dans le message de
news: thfkv19adqmufchls...@4ax.com...
Keith W
"Jim Ley" <j...@jibbering.com> wrote in message
news:43fa50e9...@news.individual.net...
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:24:37 -0000, "Keith W"
> <keith...@kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Essentially he dared the authorities to act and lost.
>
> So we should applaud his stance on the right to free speech?
>
He was free to speak and he lied, now he has take the consequences
> do we really have to...
>
I think its very noble of him to spend 3 years in an Austrian
jail, its just a shame it wasnt 30 years.
Keith
Tim C.
>. I don't consider denying the gas chambers a criminal offense,
But the Austrian law books do. And that's what counts really. It's not as
if they arrested him for doing something in another country.
It's only my opinion but I think that the court is making a small example
out of him, sending signals that Austria is not as ambivalent to the
holocaust as people think. (Which may or may not be true).
What many see as neo-nazism exists, and is particularly widespread in
Corinthia, where they're still involved in childish bickering about
dual-language town signs, despite orders from the constitutional court -
the anti-Slovenian vanguard is being led by Jörgi - no surprises there. The
rest of Austria as a whole doesn't share the same views.
Traditionally, the farmers have tended towards "ultra-conservatism", and
it's in areas where there is little industry and high agriculture (also
generally the less well-off regions) that these feelings run strong.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
> If Austria's judges really
>want to give this the Big Whatever, they can issue a suspended
>sentence (which is what Irving was said to be hoping for in news
>reports I've seen).
If the court decided to give him 3 years, they cannot suspend it. Sentences
over a certain time cannot be suspended. He'll probably get off for good
behaviour etc on parole though after a year or so.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 21:31:33 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
>>Erick T. Barkhuis <erick....@ardane.c-o-m> wrote:
>>
>>> David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>>> prestwich tesco 24h offy:
>>> > I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
>>> > he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
>>> > not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
>>> > for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
>>> > was talking evil rubbish.
>>>
>>> Sure. But he _was_ taken to court. Do you, in that case, still think that
>>> the court should have waved the case?
>>
>>I'm not in a position to judge that. I think that the laws which allowed
>>for his prosecution are wrong.
>
>They were made around 1946. There is probably a clause that says they
>can't be repealed.
It is written into the Austrian constitution. I'm not sure but I think it
was also one of the conditions that led to the formation of the republic
after the war, such as neutrality.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:26:22 +0100, Erick T. Barkhuis
><erick....@ardane.c-o-m> wrote:
>
>>David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>>prestwich tesco 24h offy:
>>> I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
>>> he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
>>> not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
>>> for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
>>> was talking evil rubbish.
>>
>>Sure. But he _was_ taken to court. Do you, in that case, still think that
>>the court should have waved the case?
>
>They should've gone, you're a poor deluded fool and sent him for
>psychiatric reports... then given him some sort of community order
>whilst at the same time criticising the law for being a bad one.
>
>>I'm sill on the fence about whether or not he should have been
>>prosecuted. I don't consider denying the gas chambers a criminal offense,
>>although I agree that it's offensive to millions of people.
>>So is drawing a prophet's image.
>
>Yet they are treated so differently... depressing isn't it.
Because making a cartoon about mohammed isn't a crime in Denmark.
*If* the cartoonist(s) had gone to Iran, then drawn the cartoons they would
be well right to lock them up.
Irvine was arrested for something he did in Austria, not what he did in the
UK or elsewhere.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy)
:
>Martin <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:13:44 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>>
>> >I don't think that Irving should have been jailed, or prosecuted. What
>> >he said was reprehensible- but, he's bankrupt already. He would probably
>> >not have 'revised' his opinion on Auschwitz gas chambers had it not been
>> >for a court case, true, but I didn't need a prosecution to tell me he
>> >was talking evil rubbish. I don't see the point in such laws. Austria
>> >has quite a 'vibrant' neo-nazi following despite them.
>>
>> The laws were made immediately after the war to prevent people like
>> David Irving spouting rubbish and stirring up neo-nazis. AFAIR UK,
>> France, Russia and USA had a hand in making the laws.
>> The Austrian government really can't win. If they don't prosecute they
>> are seen as Nazis in the UK, if they do they are still in the wrong.
>> David Irving got what he deserved. It's a pity it has taken so long.
>
>I don't have any pity for David Irving, but I still don't think he
>should have been prosecuted. I think that the laws are outmoded,
>regardless who initiated them. If Austria needs such a law to prevent
>trouble, then it won't prevent trouble.
Again, it was GIVEN the constitution. (to a great extent). The conditions
were basically accept this, or be occupied and split-up like Germany.
For the most part, however the constitution is accepted and honoured by
most Austrian. Except the neo-nazi ones.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:55:58 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
>>Jim Ley <j...@jibbering.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:43:22 +0100, Martin <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:06:52 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>>> >(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>>> >prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>Well, I don't know about you, but I don't feel any 'safer' now that he's
>>> >>in jail.
>>> >
>>> >but you aren't Austrian or living in Austria.
>>>
>>> Yes, but he might want to visit one day,
>>
>>I was there for the first time last July, in Vienna. I'll be in Salzburg
>>this August. I don't feel threatened personally by this in any immediate
>>sense. I just think that freedom of speech means freedom of speech.
>
>Holland also has holocaust denial laws.
And Germany.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy)
>Martin <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:06:52 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Well, I don't know about you, but I don't feel any 'safer' now that he's
>> >in jail.
>>
>> but you aren't Austrian or living in Austria.
>
>Schwarzenegger is Austrian, and he signs Californian death warrants.
Well, he was Austrian. He doesn't have Austrian citizenship any more.
Austrians generally (and to some extent officially) spurn him for that very
fact. The stadium named after him has been renamed and he was asked to
return the seal of the city of Graz (in a well-timed political move, he
actually sent the ring so quickly that it was actually returned before the
full official machinery could be set in motion.)
>To try and address your point, I don't think that means that Austrians
>feel any safer. Any Austrians here who feel safer?
It's not about feeling safe. Are you saying that it all happened so long
ago that we should all just forget about it?
I do feel that Austria doesn't do as much as it could to come to terms with
the holocaust. German television, for example, shows frequent documentaries
and discussions on the subject, especially when new film footage or
documents come to light. Sadly, this rarely happens in Austria.
Somewhat off-topic: I saw a really good docu about the "dambusters" raid.
They had original film of the bombers attacking and the aftermath of the
dam bursts. Many hundreds of concentration-camp workers were killed by the
floods.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>Perhaps. There were people in Austria who wanted to take away his
>Austrian nationality. If the Austrian constitution is the same as the
>German constitution, the constitution forbids the taking away of a
>persons nationality.
I'm not sure about that, but I think you' re right. But there's a law that
forbids Austrians having dual nationality. Exceptions have been made,
however, and I don't know how even-handedly it's applied.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>The exact same reaction as Austria has had in failing to prosecute him
>for the last 17 years.
They had to catch him first. But you're right. it'll change nothing.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>Simple-minded extreme nationalism, with a considerable racist or
>xenophobic component,
That's how I'd describe Jörg Haider and his cronies down south. There are a
lot who think like him down there, I'm afraid.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and prestwich tesco 24h offy)
> Still, nothing like beating someone when they're
>down, even if they are ridiculous...
You believe a criminal should be treated more leniently because he has a
headache?
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:52:05 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>
>>Martin <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:31:27 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>>> (David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>>> prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> >Absolutely. Frankly, you could argue he was, if not ridiculed, certainly
>>> >a pathetic character. Still, nothing like beating someone when they're
>>> >down, even if they are ridiculous...
>>>
>>> He has a following amongst neo nazis in Germany and Austria.
>>> He's only down because he was prosecuted.
>>
>>You might be overestimating his following.
>
>I didn't estimate his following. The Weimar republic underestimated
>Hitler's following.
>
>Incidentally I just read the whole German constitution.
And you're still awake?
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>Martin <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:31:27 +0000, this_address...@yahoo.com
>>(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
>>prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Absolutely. Frankly, you could argue he was, if not ridiculed, certainly
>>>a pathetic character. Still, nothing like beating someone when they're
>>>down, even if they are ridiculous...
>>
>>He has a following amongst neo nazis in Germany and Austria.
>>He's only down because he was prosecuted.
>
>Radio reports here in Ireland (and I suppose elsewhere) say that he
>claims to have changed his mind about denying that the holocaust
>happened. Does this mean that he will lose his following?
The courts were not convinced of his change in attitude and believed it to
be just lip-service to the courts. The sentence is generally seen as a bit
on the severe side. He might get it reduced in the appeal court. I see that
as likely and that it'll be reduced to the limit under which it can be
converted and he'll get a shorter suspended sentence in the end.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>>Whirled's gone mad. How can you appeal if you plead (as he did)
>>guilty?
>>
>I don't know about Austrian law, but in many jurisdictions it is
>possible to appeal against severity of sentence
Exactly.
I believe the sentence is generally regarded as being a bit on the severe
side.
--
Tim C.
B Vaughan
(David Horne, _the_ chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn and
prestwich tesco 24h offy) wrote:
>Schwarzenegger is Austrian, and he signs Californian death warrants.
There was a big clamor in Italy recently when word got out that
Schwarzenegger had been invited to the Sam Remo music festival,
precisely over that point.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
B Vaughan
<padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote:
>Didn't he renounce his Austrian nationality last year as a protest
>against something or other? (I don't think it was their decision to
>prosecute Irving.)
I seem to remember that his home town removed his monument or
something; maybe that was what prompted him.
B Vaughan
<padr...@MUNGEDiol.ie> wrote:
>Simple-minded extreme nationalism, with a considerable racist or
>xenophobic component, seems to exist throughout Europe. While it is
>not the dominant political sentiment in many places, it colours
>political discourse in many states.
Caldoroli, the Italian minister who was forced to step down this week
for wearing a t-shirt with a Muhammed cartoon on a national television
broadcast, is a good example. It's only the most recent of his many
provocations, and by no means the worst. Other things he's said in
public are purely racist. Now he says he had no intention of offending
anyone. He also claims to have done nothing wrong and says he stepped
down only to avoid having his little racist political party suffer the
undeserved consequences of his behavior.
Tim C.
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:14:21 +0100, Tim C. <tim.cha...@aon.at>
>wrote:
>I thought it was written into the German constitution, until I read it
>last night. It isn't, despite journalists frequently saying it is.
In that case I'd better check too. I was under the impression it was.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>I never understood what made the Russians move out. Maybe one of your
>colleagues knows?
There was a thing on the radio about this recently -in the car on the way
home so I didn't get the whole thing.
The Russians felt that the bits of Russia they had (north and east) were
not viable as an entity without the rest of Austria. And they were keen at
the time to keep national identity and to have each occupied region
economically viable. So they compromised and drew up the constitution with
the UK and USA. Not before stripping the land of it's machinery, any
removable buildings and livestock, of course.
That's the gist.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>>Didn't he renounce his Austrian nationality last year as a protest
>>against something or other? (I don't think it was their decision to
>>prosecute Irving.)
>
>I seem to remember that his home town removed his monument or
>something; maybe that was what prompted him.
Due to his support of the death-penalty.
The Schwarzenegger football stadium has been renamed to it's original
pre-Arnie one.
All Austrians I know are somewhat embarrassed by the association with
Arnie.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>>And you're still awake?
>
>It's an easy read. The European Constitution should have used an
>edited version of it.
The EU one was a big yawn.
>I can't find the Austrian constitution on the web in English.
Do you have a link to it in German? Save me the bother...
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:13:22 +0100, Tim C. <tim.cha...@aon.at>
>wrote:
>
>I'd have thought being associated with the Uncle Adolph was more to be
>embarrassed about.
That too, they are a bit. That's why they changed the name of the steel
works here. It used to be the "Herman Göring Stahlwerk". But that' history
for most people.
Arnie is the real world. It can affect tourism.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:08:34 +0100, Tim C. <tim.cha...@aon.at>
>wrote:
>
>>Following up to Martin <m...@privacy.net> :
>>
>>>I never understood what made the Russians move out. Maybe one of your
>>>colleagues knows?
>>
>>There was a thing on the radio about this recently -in the car on the way
>>home so I didn't get the whole thing.
>>
>>The Russians felt that the bits of Russia they had (north and east) were
>>not viable as an entity without the rest of Austria. And they were keen at
>>the time to keep national identity and to have each occupied region
>>economically viable. So they compromised and drew up the constitution with
>>the UK and USA.
>
>and France!
Oops! Sorry.
--
Tim C.
B Vaughan
wrote:
>Following up to Martin <m...@privacy.net> :
>>I thought it was written into the German constitution, until I read it
>>last night. It isn't, despite journalists frequently saying it is.
>
>In that case I'd better check too. I was under the impression it was.
According to today's New York Times, he was charged under a fairly
recent law; I don't remember the exact date, but it was sometime in
the early 1990s.
Des Small
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:22:25 +0100, Tim C. <tim.cha...@aon.at>
> wrote:
>
> >Following up to Martin <m...@privacy.net> :
> >
> >>>And you're still awake?
> >>
> >>It's an easy read. The European Constitution should have used an
> >>edited version of it.
> >
> >The EU one was a big yawn.
>
> Probably why few read it.
>
> Being readable by somebody only half interested says something for
> whoever wrote the German Constitution. I'd guess an American was the
> main author. There's no sign of European civil service speak in it.
>
> >
> >>I can't find the Austrian constitution on the web in English.
> >
> >Do you have a link to it in German?
Persons! Do they have the 'Pedia on your many home planets?
<http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz_der_Republik_%C3%96sterreich>
A description (but not translation) is given in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Austria> (from which I
went to the Deutsch and then its querelle QED). We will observe
in particular that the "Basic law on the general rights of citizens"
of 1867 was left in place and designated constitutional law, so this
isn't tabula rasa edition.
Des
Des Small
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:29:35 +0100, B Vaughan<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >According to today's New York Times, he was charged under a fairly
> >recent law; I don't remember the exact date, but it was sometime in
> >the early 1990s.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/austria/article/0,,1648608,00.html
> "Austria's "Auschwitz lie" legislation is said to be the harshest
> anywhere, and criticised by some as an assault on free speech. The
> prosecutors filed charges under the 1947 law banning Nazi revivalism,
> specifically a paragraph criminalising the "public denial, belittling
> or justification of National Socialist crimes". "
The NYT said what Barbara said it said:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/international/europe/21austria.html>
"""
He was denied bail by a Vienna court, which said there was a risk he
would flee the country. He was convicted under a 1992 law, which
applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to
excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist
crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other
media."
"""
The first part of the NYT looks mostly like a rival translation of
what the Graun says, with all the action in a refinement of what
"public" means. All the odder, then, that Irving was charged AFAIUI
on the basis of _lectures_ which are not "a print publication, in
broadcast or other media."
Des
has some mud he would also like clarified
Des Small
> On 21 Feb 2006 10:51:25 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Martin <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> >
> >> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:29:35 +0100, B Vaughan<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >According to today's New York Times, he was charged under a fairly
> >> >recent law; I don't remember the exact date, but it was sometime in
> >> >the early 1990s.
> >>
> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/austria/article/0,,1648608,00.html
> >> "Austria's "Auschwitz lie" legislation is said to be the harshest
> >> anywhere, and criticised by some as an assault on free speech. The
> >> prosecutors filed charges under the 1947 law banning Nazi revivalism,
> >> specifically a paragraph criminalising the "public denial, belittling
> >> or justification of National Socialist crimes". "
> >
> >The NYT said what Barbara said it said:
>
> I didn't doubt that. I doubted the NYT.
[...]
> >The first part of the NYT looks mostly like a rival translation of
> >what the Graun says, with all the action in a refinement of what
> >"public" means.
>
> Except the NYT got the date wrong and added the crap about a print
> publication?
Boing boing! It is a mighty leapning to conclusions!
The NYT isn't a Murdoch trashbladet, and when it gets caught making
stuff up there tends to be a fuss, and it is the nature of laws to be
slightly published. Exactly as everyone except you will have guessed,
the 1947 law was tweaked in 1992:
"""
La loi autrichienne, de 1947, sur la "réactivation de la politique
nazie", loi qui comprend un paragraphe sur la négation de
l'Holocauste, mais aussi le révisionnisme et la formation de groupes
se réclamant du nazisme a été toilettée en 1992. Depuis, elle est
devenue l'une des plus strictes. Cette loi vise à empêcher tout
renouveau nazi dans ce pays qui a été annexé au Troisième Reich de
1938 à 1945.
"""
<http://www.rtbf.be/rtbf_2000/bin/view_something.cgi?type=article&id=0185638_article&menu=default&pub=RTBF.PORTAIL%2FPORTAIL.FR.la_taille.SP.SOCI>
(That they could be in on the NYT's conspiracy I will concede in
advance, so feel free not to point it out.)
Des
Des Small
> On 21 Feb 2006 11:07:21 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Exactly as everyone except you will have guessed, the 1947 law was
> >tweaked in 1992:
>
> I knew that both Austrian and German laws had been tweaked.
You were just being unhelpful for the pure joy of it?
> He was charged under what was in the 1947 law not the tweakings that
> were added in 1992. Please tell me that you aren't studying law.
I haven't expressed an opinion on which edition of the law he was
charged under; you're the self-proclaimed expert.
He was arrested last year (after the amendment) on a warrant issued in
1989 (before it) and tried this year (after, of course).
Please to state your source, if you have one, for the claim that he
was or would have been tried under the terms of a law obsolete at the
time of the trial.
Des
Des Small
> He was charged under a 1992 law, which was passed three years after
> the arrest warrant was issued. Doesn't that sound improbable to say
> the least?
Not really. The law wasn't a new one, it was just slightly adjusted
between the warrant and the arrest. I don't claim to know which
flavour of the law takes precedence in such cases. You do, but you
will need more than claims that one possibility is "improbable" to
convince persons who aren't you.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/20/wirving20.xml
> "Irving, a darling of the far Right and an international pariah, was
> told he faced prosecution if he returned to Austria. Ignoring the
> warning, he entered the country in November and was arrested by
> traffic police on a warrant issued in 1989 while on his way to address
> a Right-wing student fraternity."
Law passed 1947, warrant issued 1989, law amended 1992, arrest 2005,
trial 2006.
We agree on that timeframe, I take it. The question is which law
applied in the trial, and I genuinely don't know the answer.
Des
Des Small
> On 21 Feb 2006 11:37:02 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Martin <m...@privacy.net> writes:
> >
> >> He was charged under what was in the 1947 law not the tweakings that
> >> were added in 1992. Please tell me that you aren't studying law.
> >
> >I haven't expressed an opinion on which edition of the law he was
> >charged under; you're the self-proclaimed expert.
>
> No so, what was your point?
My point is that you said, as you quote above:
> >> He was charged under what was in the 1947 law not the tweakings that
> >> were added in 1992. Please tell me that you aren't studying law.
But you haven't shown any evidence for that claim. A warrant was
issued for his arrest under that law but the law changed before he was
charged.
> I'm not an self proclaimed expert I read the newspaper reports
> completely, unlike you.
I am in awe of your elite reading skills, for sure, but newspaper
reports differ.
> >He was arrested last year (after the amendment) on a warrant issued in
> >1989 (before it) and tried this year (after, of course).
> >
> >Please to state your source, if you have one, for the claim that he
> >was or would have been tried under the terms of a law obsolete at the
> >time of the trial.
>
> Go and do your own research.
Many sources give the 1992 law as the one applied. I was hoping
someone - possibly even you - knew enough about Austrian law to say
for sure, but it turns out you rely on Guardian Infallibility.
Des
Des Small
> On 21 Feb 2006 11:44:59 +0000, Des Small <vonb...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Law passed 1947, warrant issued 1989, law amended 1992, arrest 2005,
> >trial 2006.
> >
> >We agree on that timeframe, I take it. The question is which law
> >applied in the trial, and I genuinely don't know the answer.
>
> Nobody can be prosecuted under a law that didn't exist at the time a
> crime was committed. If he had been, his lawyers would have been
> straight to the European Court of Human Rights.
If you're right and this applies in the necessary generality, I will
have learned a very useful something. Not least that journalistes
covering trials don't seem to know much about the law.
I'm suspending my gratitude until I find independent confirmation (of
the generality question in particular).
Des
Des Small
OK, the magic words are "Ex post facto law", and the 'Pedia says
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law>:
"""
Most European nations, and all European Union nations, are bound by
the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 7 of the convention
prohibits ex post facto criminal laws subject to two exceptions. It
also prohibits a heavier penalty being imposed than was applicable at
the time when an act was committed. The exceptions are:
* Acts illegal under international law at the time of their commission.
* Acts criminal according to "the general principles of law recognised
by civilised nations".
"""
So Martin is completely right in his interpretation of the law, and I
am certainly grateful to him for bringing this to my attention.
Des
Tim C.
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:58:47 +0100, Tim C. <tim.cha...@aon.at>
>wrote:
>
>>Following up to Martin <m...@privacy.net> :
>>>I thought it was written into the German constitution, until I read it
>>>last night. It isn't, despite journalists frequently saying it is.
>>
>>In that case I'd better check too. I was under the impression it was.
>
>According to today's New York Times, he was charged under a fairly
>recent law; I don't remember the exact date, but it was sometime in
>the early 1990s.
I've done a little bit of googling over coffee and I've come up with this:
There is a "Verbotsgesetz" from 1947 which basically criminalizes all forms
of conspiracy and organisations "in a national socialistic form". This is
interpreted to include denial of the holocaust and playing-down of Nazi
crimes.
Irvine's "crimes" would have fallen under that in 1989. The maximal
punishments were more or less the same as now, but the minimum penalties
were quite high.
In 1990 there was a motion to reduce the minimum penalties (due partly to
the Auschwitz denial of Irvine and others - to enable the "lesser" crimes
of denial to be dealt with in a more reasonable manner), and this came into
force in 1992 - known as "§3h". These basically re-set the penalties, at a
generally lower level, and introduced a clause that set the net a bit
wider.
So, technically afaict he was charged under the current version of the law,
§3h, which allows for lower punishments.
He is being charged under a clause that didn't exist at the time he
committed his crime, so technically he should be acquitted. However, he
*should* have been charged under the previously valid clauses, which would
then probably lead to a higher sentence.
This hasn't gone unnoticed by the courts and is not uncommon of the
Austrian legal system where despite being given ample time they rush into a
badly thought out charge.
Whether the law states "publicly" or "published" I haven't been able to
find out.
I found a bit here:
http://www.diepresse.com/Artikel.aspx?channel=e&ressort=r&id=530705
it's in German and a bit involved, but if anyone would like to read it and
shed more light or correct me, please do.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>>The NYT isn't a Murdoch trashbladet, and when it gets caught making
>>stuff up there tends to be a fuss, and it is the nature of laws to be
>>slightly published. Exactly as everyone except you will have guessed,
>>the 1947 law was tweaked in 1992:
>
>I knew that both Austrian and German laws had been tweaked.
>
>He was charged under what was in the 1947 law not the tweakings that
>were added in 1992. Please tell me that you aren't studying law.
See my other long post about the law that I found...
I was under the impression that he was charged under the relevant law $3h
which was introduced in 1992, whereas I see some reports stating §3g which
is 1947 or so. This is a small letter but very important. if "h" then he
should go free on a technicality" if "g" then he's guilty as hell.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>
>But you haven't shown any evidence for that claim. A warrant was
>issued for his arrest under that law but the law changed before he was
>charged.
The law changed in that it basically reduced the minimum sentences to be
applied.
--
Tim C.
Tim C.
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:27:55 +0100, Tim C. <tim.cha...@aon.at>
>I've never given a toss about Arnie. Are California politics the real
>world?
To the Austrians that think other people see them as they see Arnie, then
yes. Whether they like it or not, Arnie is still the only Austrian a lot of
USAians ever hear about, and they don't want to be tarred with the same
brush.
--
Tim C.