Jews Outraged by Holocaust-Denying Bishop

[Kanastrous]

VATICAN CITY - The Vatican's relations with Jews risked a new crisis Friday after an excommunicated British bishop — reportedly in line for rehabilitation — said that historical evidence "is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed" during World War II.

Two Italian newspapers reported Thursday that Pope Benedict XVI planned to lift the excommunication of Richard Williamson and three other bishops punished for having been consecrated without papal consent 20 years ago by the late French conservative Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre.

The Vatican declined to comment on the reports, but Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi suggested Friday that such a decree would be made public soon.

Rome's chief rabbi asked the Vatican to halt the reported rehabilitation.

Rabbi Ricardo Di Segni said it is "inconceivable" the pope didn't know Williamson's views.

The International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultation also urged that the excommunications of all four — and especially Williamson — not be lifted, saying they were all opposed to pursuing relations with Jews, Protestants and Muslims.

Vatican-Jewish relations have been already strained by Jewish criticism of World War II Pope Pius XII, accused by some of not speaking out in a bid to head off the Holocaust. Israeli officials recently took offense when a senior cardinal said Gaza under the Israeli offensive seemed like a "big concentration camp."

Williamson made his comments in an interview with Swedish state TV while in Germany in November; the broadcast was aired Wednesday night.

He said the Nazis did not use gas chambers.

"I believe that the historical evidence ... is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler," he said.

He cited what he called the "most serious" revisionists who he said had concluded that "between 200,000-300,000 perished in Nazi concentration camps, but not one of them by gassing in a gas chamber."

Vatican officials declined Friday to comment on his remarks.

Lefebvre rebelled against the Vatican's modernizing reforms of the 1960s, which included reaching out to other religions and replacing Latin with local languages at Mass.

Benedict has already made a concession to Lefebvre's traditionalist Society of St. Pius X in the hope of bringing it back into the Church by making the old Latin Mass more readily available. Lifting the excommunications would satisfy another key demand of the group.

Williamson's remarks could bring him legal problems in Germany. State prosecutors in Regensburg opened a preliminary investigation about whether he broke German laws against Holocaust denial.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28815634/

---

Of course the Pope knows Williamson's views; that's not as important a piece of Church business as returning the Society of St. Pius to the fold.

[The Vortex Empire]

"I believe that the historical evidence ... is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler," he said.

Really, so then where did the massive piles of bodies come from? And why did the death camps have gas chambers?

[Aratech]

"I believe that the historical evidence ... is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler," he said.

Really, so then where did the massive piles of bodies come from? And why did the death camps have gas chambers?

Well, if that were all he had said, I think he might be technically correct. The research I've done (not as much as full time scholars on this stuff) indicate that there were not 6 million Jews that were actually gassed with Zyklon B (though this was the 'final' method the Nazis settled on, as it was vastly more efficient than other forms of extermination (I'd have to see where I stashed that paper I wrote for class, but IIRC, Austwitz was killing people at a rate of one every ten seconds)). However, that number does jump up to around that (I've heard some say 7 million Jews with 6 million other 'undesirables' and vice versa) once you factor in the firing squads, carbon monoxide gassing, beating, starving, disease, medical experimentation, 'work people to death' camps, other types of shootings, and so on and so forth.

Granted, given what appears to be the spirit of his argument, I'm giving this scum bag waaaaay too much benefit of the doubt.

[Admiral Valdemar]

As much as I hate scum like this and their delusions, they are simply delusions. It rubs me the wrong way in a serious manner when I see laws enacted that arrest and detain people for holding an opinion, however ignorant it may be.

[Kanastrous]

Nazism was in large part a delusion (well, a tissue of delusions). Given their prior experience with it, it doesn't surprise me that some number of Europeans are willing to quash the mere endorsement of it, lest that prepare the ground for a re-run.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I don't doubt that sentiment from many in the Germanic regions that anyone voicing such views is despicable in the extreme given how this kind of thinking evolved last time. That doesn't excuse the conduct of the authorities all the same for basically coalescing a thought-crime in law.

[Thanas]

^Is it really a thought crime if he is spewing nazi propaganda? I would think it more to be a free-speech issue, and lies are not protected by free speech according to german law.

[Kanastrous]

Promoting Nazism (or some web-toed offspring thereof) impresses me as being akin to the old hollering FIRE! in a crowded theater, when it comes to the free-expression angle. Like most any right, a right to free expression is not absolute.

[Admiral Valdemar]

^Is it really a thought crime if he is spewing nazi propaganda? I would think it more to be a free-speech issue, and lies are not protected by free speech according to german law.

It all amounts to the same thing. He has views that people don't like, therefore he can be locked up. And it is not equivalent to shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded cinema. Why stop with Holocaust deniers? You could curb a lot of hateful speech if you so wish, whether it was factually correct or nebulous in veracity. If this man was faking an alarm in public, then that is putting people in immediate danger for no purpose. If he was selling a product and deluding people which then got them financially, or physically, harmed, then that is a to the net detriment of society in a measurable way. In this instance, you could build a case for clamping down on religious fundamentalism because of the net ills it has caused in the past and the Church's complicity in these actions. And in Germany, they already passed that too with the outlawing of Scientology.

[Kanastrous]

Perhaps the visible effects of Nazism on its last go-round place it in a category beyond merely being a view that people don't like.

[Thanas]

^Is it really a thought crime if he is spewing nazi propaganda? I would think it more to be a free-speech issue, and lies are not protected by free speech according to german law.

It all amounts to the same thing. He has views that people don't like, therefore he can be locked up. And it is not equivalent to shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded cinema. Why stop with Holocaust deniers? You could curb a lot of hateful speech if you so wish, whether it was factually correct or nebulous in veracity.

No, due to the widespread protection of free speech there really are only three instances were this would apply:

- the person in question actively calls for violence against parts of society (e.g. a politician actively calling for the murder of muslims)
- the person in question slanders or makes repeated rascist remarks against parts of societies that are proven false and are liable to incite violence (hate speech).

The law does really apply to all cases of hate speech, not just Nazism.

Then there are the two special exceptions regarding Nazism, who were written to empathize that those were typical examples of hate speech:

(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.
(4) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung den öffentlichen Frieden in einer die Würde der Opfer verletzenden Weise dadurch stört, dass er die nationalsozialistische Gewalt- und Willkürherrschaft billigt, verherrlicht oder rechtfertigt.

In short, whoever argues that the nazi genocide or war conduct was great and that the jews deserved it...and does so in a manner that is liable to slander the victims or disrupt the peace, can be locked up. However, the issue here is proving that the person who made such remarks intended them to disrupt the peace or slander the victims. Since that is very hard to prove, very few people are ever convicted of this and I only know of two cases who actually served jail time, and those were neo-nazis. In fact, I predict the Bishop will not even face a trial and that the whole matter will be dropped.

In this instance, you could build a case for clamping down on religious fundamentalism because of the net ills it has caused in the past and the Church's complicity in these actions.

Anyone who engages in religious fundamentalism that aims to abolish the federal order can theoretically be punished by law, provided it is proven that he engages in unlawful activites to do so (e.g. sponsoring terrorism).

And in Germany, they already passed that too with the outlawing of Scientology.

Scientology is not outlawed. It is under observation, but so far they have not come up with evidence that scientology is an organization that aims to abolish the Federal Republic of Germany.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Indeed. However, let us look at another example of historical revisionism that takes place across the pond and in a more contemporary affair: 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Would it be right, for instance, for the creator of Loose Change and those running various whackaloon websites distributing questionable evidence and hypotheses on the events that transpired in September, 2001? If Bush had made this into law, to arrest and detain then try people guilty of denying the WTC attacks were the work of a group of organised Muslim extremists, but in fact due to a government cover-up for whatever ulterior motive they had planned, should we be as accepting of such legislation? I know for a fact that would scare the shit out of me, and I'm certainly no supporter of these fools and their quaint ideology of finding malice where there is only ineptitude.

[Admiral Valdemar]

To respond to Thanas, hate speech with the aim of inciting violence is another thing. While you should be allowed to dispute historical facts to your heart's content, it is a whole different level to start telling people to take up arms against another group of people based on race or class or any other feature. Just as it would be cause for calling in the cops were someone to write death threats repeatedly to a person which were seen to be more than an off-the-cuff remark or figure of speech.

I concede the Scientology point. I had heard it was clamped down upon after the movement got more public exposure over the last few years.

[Thanas]

To respond to Thanas, hate speech with the aim of inciting violence is another thing. While you should be allowed to dispute historical facts to your heart's content, it is a whole different level to start telling people to take up arms against another group of people based on race or class or any other feature. Just as it would be cause for calling in the cops were someone to write death threats repeatedly to a person which were seen to be more than an off-the-cuff remark or figure of speech.

Yeah. The trouble the bishop is in that he is echoing neo-nazi proganda disguised as a historical argument. If you look at what he said (the Spiegel had a transcript of his words), he said that at best there were 370.000 deaths in total caused by the Nazis and iirc he even claimed that a lot of those deaths were not the result of a Nazi plan to eradicate the jews. That is a classic neo-nazi argument that tries to legitimize the actions of the Nazis and which has been in play (and refuted) since the 1950s.

Neo-Nazi extremists have committed hundreds of violent acts in Germany. In 2005, for example, there were 958 violent attacks, including murders. There were around 17.000 crimes committed with nazi symbols and hate speech. That is the real reason Germany tries to clamp down hard on those idiots. Because once you get the combination of "the nazis weren't so bad" "the holocaust is an invention by the allies and historians" and "the jews deserved whatever was coming to them" coupled with equating jews in general with the israeli zionists (and the bishop in question or his organization are on record of saying all that) I think you are way past discussing historical facts and you have crossed the line into hate speech territory.

A bit different than persecuting WTC conspiracy nuts, methinks.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You're locking people up for beatings and murder there, not denying the Holocaust. There's a difference. In my line of work, we allow protests at our gates which totally conflict with what medical science produces and how we get those products of biomedical research. However, as you may have seen in a thread I posted earlier in the week, several such people went further and started threatening and beating up people within said community. The Judge explicitly stated that they were being sentenced for their actions, not their views. We can argue about the validity of the arguments these people spout for a long time, just as we can with Creationists. But make no mistake, no one is being jailed for stating views that are contrary to established fact. They are being sent away for actual harmful actions. Likewise, 9/11 deniers who start firebombing government buildings and stalking public sector workers will be tried under the relevant laws.

One can deny the Holocaust and not be violent. Do they make that distinction as much in Germany, or is it just lock up anyone who considers the events to be not a big deal or total fabrication?

[Thanas]

One can deny the Holocaust and not be violent. Do they make that distinction as much in Germany, or is it just lock up anyone who considers the events to be not a big deal or total fabrication?

It is a bit complicated and has a lot to do with the german interpretation of freedom of expression. First, the law only applies to public statements. What you say in the privacy of your home is of no concern to the state.

Regarding freedom of expression in germany, there is a distinction made between opinions and statements of facts. If you make a statement of fact like "no jews were gassed at Auschwitz" you do not enjoy constitutional protection. If you express an opinion like "the holocaust was not a big deal", a lot depends on the context. Denial of the Holocaust in the extreme form is a pure statement of fact and is not protected speech.

If you are for example a scientist who compares the holocaust to the genocide caused by the Romans against the jews and you come to the conclusion that the genocide caused by the Romans was worse than what the Nazis did or were planning to do, chances are you will not be prosecuted. Scientists (including historians) enjoy special protection under german law. Obviously, if you behave like David Irving, you are not protected at all. However, if you are a scientist or even an amateur historian and you would be able to prove or at least logically argue that instead of 6 million "only" 1 were killed, you would not be bothered. A lot of it depends on whether you are just running your mouth or whether you actually have an argument. In the case of the Bishop, it is clear (at least to me) that he is just running his mouth.

Finally, when making public statements it comes down to the intent and what the state can prove. For example, if you express the opinion that the jews deserved it in front of a hundred guys wearing Lonsdale clothes, you will be found guilty since you belittled the memory of the victims. As said above, the state has to prove that either you wanted to deny the holocaust, that you were belittling the victims or that you were using hate speech.

Allow me a quick tangent regarding the punishment - it is extremely unlikely that you will be locked up if you are a first or even a second-time offender. Holocaust deniers are typically only fined several hundred euros and then sent on their way. If they are sentenced to prison, that sentence is usually not carried out but changed into probation.

Finally, Germany is not alone in outlawing holocaust denial. Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland have all laws against denying the Holocaust.

[Admiral Valdemar]

That clarifies the reasoning somewhat. Though someone on another board raised an interesting question. Could the accused in this instance take this up with the European Court of Human Rights? Has anyone in the past considered the course? It would seem logical if someone was being taken up on this seriously, like David Irving.

[Thanas]

That clarifies the reasoning somewhat. Though someone on another board raised an interesting question. Could the accused in this instance take this up with the European Court of Human Rights?

Theoretically, yes, but I do not know of anybody who did so.

Has anyone in the past considered the course? It would seem logical if someone was being taken up on this seriously, like David Irving.

David Irving reportedly thought about it, but didn't challenge it.

The Austrian foreign ministry released a statement arguing that it would not violate Article 10 of the ECHR (freedom of expression), since prosecuting holocaust deniers is according to them necessary to prevent hate crimes or the rise of Nazism.

I definitely think the court would rule about it. The question of course is whether they follow the german interpretation of freedom of expression or the british one. I honestly have no idea, and I believe it would depend on the specifics of the case.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It's an interesting case, and it got me thinking about the motivation of people by a third party, namely, the media. I'm sure we can all regard the "Violent movies/games cause violent people" as bullshit, so how this applies to real people influencing others rather than fictional ones is a curious angle. The Nuremberg trials tie in here too, I would imagine, with Eichmann's famous "I was just following orders" excuse not saving him from justice.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Nitpick: Eichmann wasn't tried at Nuremberg, but in Israel itself after an extraordinary rendition by the Mossad from Argentina.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yeah, just noticed that now after thinking I misspelt his name. Still got his comeuppance, albeit, later.

[hongi]

The excommunication has been lifted for all four bishops, including the Holocaust-denier.

Vatican City, Jan 24, 2009 / 09:20 am (CNA).- The Press office of the Holy See released today a statement announcing an official decree from the Congregation of Bishops lifting, upon the request of Pope Benedict XVI, the excommunication of the four bishops of the Society of St. Pius X ordained by Bishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988, in the hope that such decision will lead to “real and final unity.”

[Tribble]

Yah, this clearly shows how far humanity's come since WW2, with some people still arguing over whether or not the holocaust really occured.

Though I must admit that's better than hearing that the Jews deserved what happened to them. I heard this from several of my classmates throughout highschool. A canadian highschool, no less. Seems like Jews are still near #1 on the list of people to hate.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yah, this clearly shows how far humanity's come since WW2, with some people still arguing over whether or not the holocaust really occured.

Their will always be a few who disagree with anything, no matter how obvious. Its absurd to imply that humanity as a whole hasn't progressed, because we don't have complete unanimity on these particular issue.

[Thanas]

Just to clarify the issue about the words of the Bishop: In today's paper, he was quoted as claiming that "no jews were gassed at Auschwitz or anywhere else at all."