By Stefan Sasse
It is banned throughout the EU to deny the existence of the Holocaust. It are severe. Denying the Holocaust in particular, by one alleged that he had never taken place (yes, there are people who do that are so difficult to believe that even). It is also possible to crass relativism to the criminal justice system (à la "who had earned anyway). There are always advances, including the denial of Communist crimes make EU-wide to an offense, and now also want their share of emerging countries from the ban and call for cake sometimes prohibiting the denial of colonial crimes. And a lot of litigations between China and Japan turn today to the extremely poor work-up of Japanese war crimes during the Second World War, the Chinese leaders, however, are not just the fact that massacres its own regime, Mao prepare. What sense and nonsense have so formal, legally effective bans on denial or relativization certain historical events?
I say, not much. In the U.S., for example, can you deny the Holocaust, so much you will, if you want three times daily in the marketplace. However, we can then identify any particular anti-Semitism. Same time, while the EU is now discrimination against the Jews excluded by Holocaust denial, while one can still say without any problems, that there were no pogroms in the Middle Ages did. It should be forbidden to deny Stalin's crimes during the genocide in Rwanda may be denied without any problems. Sense does that not really. Sure, there are in Rwanda yes only Africans. One can therefore explain this focus with the self-centeredness of the Europeans. These prohibitions, however, three inherent problems.
The first problem is that they commit a view of history and create significant barriers to later revisions. Thus, the number of victims can only be determined approximately and difficult, but are in fact enshrined in law - just as if the Holocaust would be only half have been so bad if it had been "only" three million instead of six million dead. The crimes do not take their quality from the pure number of casualties, but from the scale and monstrosity with which they exercised were. Serious research in the field but are more difficult because you constantly have to be careful to hurt, not some paragraphs.
The second problem is that these prohibitions may degenerate into a political weapon. It reduces the memory and the responsibility to the Holocaust, when you can use it to eliminate unpopular opponents. Most particularly disgusting is the case in those conservatives who want to put through a similar ban on denial of communist crimes it on a par with the Holocaust. Thought that this project as a weapon against the enemies in the camp is located on the left hand, however, is purposeful it is not.
The third problem is that bans those who want to represent such denials actually also give more legitimacy, because they can handle themselves with the procedures which follow as a martyr. In this way it reinforces the image of the right-spinners in their respective scenes and deals with them on their own level. However, this is the wrong tactic, they should instead just to ridicule in which they operate, rather than just give them some spectacular feats of law stage, after they attack
end. prohibitions such as these can never fulfill its purpose. If they are unnecessary, because the overwhelming majority would come anyway never the idea to represent their subject, they may have undesirable side effects described above. If they were necessary, however, because substantial parts of the public actually share the "bad" opinion, a ban will remain unanswered, the thoughts remain free. It is necessary to allow active prevention and education going on, the idea that a legal ban could create an unwanted thought from the world, is already in the liberal revolution of the 19th Century refuted countless times for the better been. Wait, we do not assume that it is refuted even worse.
0 comments:
Post a Comment