Plevris Verdict
Published by deviousdiva December 14th, 2007 in Anti-Semitism.A short while ago I wrote about anti-semite and holocaust denier Kostas Plevris who was taken to court over his book “Jews: the Whole Truth”. The post sparked a long discussion that turned into a (mainly) anti-immigration thread. This was unfortunate because it was an historic trial for Greece, the first to be tried under the 1979 anti-discrimination law. When the book was published in May 2006, the Greek Helsinki Monitor immediately filed a complaint against the author under that law.
In the book, Plevris states
To begin with, I declare that I am a Nazi, a fascist, a racist, an anti-democrat, an anti-Semite. Jews are mortal enemies and deserve the firing squad
The leader of the Central Board of Jewish communities in Greece (CJBG), Moses Costantinis testified in court that
After the book was published, attacks against Jewish sites increased
Yesterday, Plevris was found guilty of inciting hatred and sentenced to 14 month (suspended pending appeal) prison sentence.
Yesterday, the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece issued the following press release
Regarding the decision of the Athens Court of Appeal for Indictable Offences to find against K. Plevris, the Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece expresses its contentment with the decision of the Court as it effectively condemns modern-day racism and Nazism in any form.
This decision is an instrumental parameter in the on-going, unceasing battle being waged by society and humanity against barbarity and racism, anti-Semitism and fascism
Read the full article from the European Jewish Press
[All off-topic comments will be deleted. Please keep to the issue of this post. It is not about immigration. Thank you]
Technorati: Kostas Plevris, Plevris, greece, antisemitism, discrimination, incitement to violence
What happened to freedom of speech ?
I can say whatever I want without being taken to court, can’t I?
obviously not anymore.
a sad day for democracy.
To David Flynn
Freedom of speech does not include incitement to violence. Yes, I guess you can say whatever you want (although people will comment and argue) BUT you cannot call for people to be killed, persecuted or abused. And that’s what Plevris did. From his book…
Again, I repeat… the trial was not an issue of freedom of speech but about the issue of incitement to violence. We have freedom of speech laws that protect people who want to say (to me) totally unacceptable things but we must have laws that protect us from people that would do us harm ? What now ?
Wow. You know, when I was living in Greece researching the destruction of the Jewish community of Thessaloniki, I had more than one small child inform me, overhearing an interview or seeing my books or notes, that if you find a house a Jew used to live in and dig into its foundations, you will find GOLD. And Easter burnings of effigies of Judas, and the usual Nationalist xenophobia directed at Jews (and Roma, of course) in language that could have been taken straight out of the medieval and Spanish Inquisition texts I was studying as background and context. Word for word. Even fantasies of poisoned wells and the eating of Christian children.
I am a lover of Greece, in some ways; and the racism there is a virulent disease.
I echo DD. This is not an issue of freedom of speech. This is also not an issue unique to Greece: see the upsurge in nooses, in hate crimes and hate speech in the U.S.. The hate speech of ignorant trolls privileged enough to think a nasty comment is funny? Ignorable. Hate crimes incited by organized supremacists? All our responsibility to confront and end, directly and effectively.
I am amazed that I have to repeat that in the whole of Europe and with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights freedom of speech does not cover hate speech.
Knowing that such stupidities -in effect a defense of freedom of racists- are prevailing in Greece, the European Court felt it necessary in an almost irrelevant case to remind Greece on 6 December that:
“La Cour considère qu’une peine de prison infligée pour une infraction commise dans le domaine de la presse n’est compatible avec la liberté d’expression journalistique, garantie par l’article 10 de la Convention, que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles, notamment lorsque d’autres droits fondamentaux ont été gravement atteints, comme dans l’hypothèse, par exemple, de la diffusion d’un discours de haine ou d’incitation à la violence (voir, mutatis mutandis, Sürek et Özdemir c. Turquie [GC], nos 23927/94 et 24277/94, § 63, 8 juillet 1999).”
Read Here
You can find several such posts here in the past. And by the way DD, not just incitation to violence but also mere racist speech is punishable according to the European and Greek law.
And read this news from yesterday.
MEPs call for withdrawing of public funds from extremist political groups
Justice and home affairs - 13-12-2007 - 15:10
The European Parliament adopted a resolution requesting all Member States to at least provide for the possibility - after a court ruling - of withdrawing public funding from political parties that do not condemn violence and terrorism and do not respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law as set out in the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The House also calls on those that already have this possibility to do so without delay; also calls on the Commission to ensure that no EU funding is available to media which are used as a platform to widely promote racist, xenophobic and homophobic ideas.
The text, adopted by 527 votes in favour, 15 against and 39 abstentions, calls on the Commission to support NGOs and civil society organisations devoted to promoting democratic values, human dignity, solidarity, social inclusion, inter-cultural dialogue and social awareness of the dangers of radicalisation and violent extremism, and which are devoted to fighting all forms of discrimination.
The resolution also calls on the Commission to ensure that no EU funding is available to media which are used as a platform to widely promote racist, xenophobic and homophobic idea.
Islamic fundamentalist recruitment and anti-Semitism
MEPs also say that they are “seriously alarmed at the Islamic fundamentalist recruitment and violent propaganda campaign with terrorist attacks within the European Union, based on hatred of European values and on anti-Semitism.”
MEPs stress that public personalities should “refrain from statements that encourage or incite to hate or stigmatisation of groups of people on the basis of their race, ethnic origin, religion, handicap, sexual orientation or nationality” and believe that being a public personality should be considered as an aggravating circumstance when inciting to hatred. Furthermore, on an amendment adopted by 450 votes in favour, 93 against and 30 abstentions, MEPs warn, looking to the 2009 European elections, “of the possibility that extremist parties may secure representation in the European Parliament and calls on the political groups to take the appropriate measures in order to ensure that a democratic institution is not used as a platform for financing and echoing anti-democratic messages”.
The resolution calls on the EU institutions to give a clear mandate to the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights to investigate on the structures of extremist groups, and for governments to give appropriate preventive responses.
MEPs urge the Commission and Council to lead the search for appropriate political and legal responses, especially at the preventive stage with reference to young people’s education and public information, teaching against totalitarianism and disseminating the principles of human rights and fundamental freedoms in order to keep alive the memory of European history; calls upon the Member States to develop policies of education for democratic citizenship based on citizens’ rights and responsibilities.
MEPs also express their concern on how to counteract the existence of public and easily accessible websites which incite to hatred without violating freedom of expression.
The resolution says that neo-Nazi, paramilitary and other extremisms are directing their violent attacks against a wide variety of vulnerable population groups, including migrants, Roma, homosexuals, antiracist activists and the homeless.
On 29 November, Parliament also adopted a consultation report to harden a future EU law to combat certain forms of racism and xenophobia, including the establishment of criminal sanctions -from one to three years of prison- to any public incitement to violence or hatred, even by dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material. The legislative text - first European law of this kind, which still needs to be transposed by Member States -, also includes punishment for the denial or gross trivialisation of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Read Here
Freedom of speech is exceptionally constrained by law. This is done with the clear purpose of promoting social harmony and outlawing the promotion of racial violence or other comparable violent acts. These laws are passed by democratically elected parliaments and typically implement universally accepted standards.
For David Flynn to think that this is a denial of democracy suggests that in fact he does not support the institutions of democracy, but the right of the individual to do or say as s/he likes. That is called anarchy, not democracy.
The Court’s judgment in this case is most welcome, and indicates that there is some improvement in the promotion of fundamental rights in Greece.
Has anyone read the whole book?
DD, can you say why you omitted to mention this part of Moses Constantinis’ post-trial remarks?
“We thank the Greek justice system for its dignity and for demonstrating that we truly live in a democratic society.”
Given your various experiences in Greece, do you agree with him?
Also, I don’t want to tell you what to do on your blog, but why have you not deleted the comment from so-called HellasMaster. What are you trying to prove? You know his remark is just trash and can’t reflect or represent anything.
john Z, you asked why did I omit that remark? I didn’t quote any of the post-trial comments from the article. No reason really. I just felt that the official press release was enough ? Perhaps I was wrong but I did post a link to the full article.
although this verdict is certainly a victory against hate speech, I am surprised that the eisageleas asked for an acquittal, and that it was a majority, not a unanimous decision. I wonder if the eisageleas and dissenting judge understood what the case was about…
also, how come the people who reprinted this rubbish got away with it ?
it sounds to me like the court went for the bare minimum…
Nevertheless, congratulations to all the people who took the case to court. it was about time someone did it. keep going!
Danilena
You are right on all counts.
The prosecutor and the dissenting judge had shown they are anti-Semites by espousing the Talmud trash arguments of Plevris. The prosecutor actually gave herself up when she called the book scholarly during her motion, and accused Eleftherotypia as undemocratic for not having published a Plevris letter repeating his neo-Nazi views in response to an article about him. She also reproached to the Jews for not having entered a dialog with Plevris!
Martin
I agree with you on almost everything.
I write almost as I draw my ideological influences partly on the anarchist movement -Proudhon version- and on Christian anarchism - although no longer a Christian. So what you call anarchy is in fact lawlessness, or as Lipovatz put it:
“IN Greece, hardly anyone respects the law, it is considered authoritarian to uphold the law, and smart to violate it.”
full article in Greek:
http://i100.photobucket.com/al.....povatz.jpg
COMMENT EDITED BY DEVIOUS DIVA
Daniel, just so you know, once and for all, you are banned from this blog. My IP banning is not working for your comments (perhaps you are posting from different machines).
Apologies to everyone else. I am trying to fix this problem. I have been having problems accessing my dashboard recently so please bear with me. As always, these issues seem to bring out the worst in people and although I am staying on top of it when I’m in front of my computer, I can’t be here all the time. Apologies again.
DD
Yes, sorry Panayoti, by anarchy I mean lawlessness, and not the political ideologies of that name.
Insofar as the comments of Daniel are concerned, not only are these remarks highly offensive and racist, they are a denial of the history on which our society is based. Personally, I have no problem with any serious historian who wishes to revisit the atrocities of WW II and improve our understanding of what happened. However, all of these Holocaust deniers, including those who class themselves as historians, are nothing other than outright racists, nazis and ignorant bigots. There is no scholarship or factual analysis involved in these claims, just intolerance, childish conspiracy theories [which Greeks adore] and frequently racial hatred.
It is to protect vulnerable and easily influenced people (especially young people) from predators such as Plevris and Daniel that we have these democratically-passed laws, and personally I would like to see these predators being given long prison sentences. The sentence in this case was the bare minimum that could have been envisaged, suggesting that Greek courts are still not very bothered by racism unless it is against Greeks.
Martin
The sentence was not the bare minimum nor the maximum either. For incitation you can get up to two years AND/OR a fine and he got 10 months. For racial offense you can get up to one year AND/OR a fine and he got 8 months. As usual sentences get joined into one lower than the sum of the parts, hence 14 months. As he has never been convicted he got a suspended sentence for 3 years which means that if he gets another one in that time he will have to serve or buy off this one, if of course upheld on appeal.
Sure a French or German court would have sentenced him to a higher prison sentence and a fine, but this being a first ever in Greece and in a trial where anti-Semitism ruled and the only academic testifying proudly said that she says worse things to hwr students (future teachers of Greece) than Pelvris and that four of her academic colleagues should be hanged in Constitution Square for their treacherous views, what we got is splendid.
Panayote
Thanks for the correction, Panayioti: I had not understood the exact sentencing process and this crazy reduction by addition. (Do Greeks lawyers need arithmetic lessons??)
Who was the academic who testified? It would be good for people to know the names of these advocates of racism…
I am quite surprised by the reaction of the supposed ‘progressives’, one of the hallmarks of a democratic society is that people are held to the same standards, as Noam Chomsky once said, ‘If you don’t believe in freedom of speech for those you despise, you don’t believe in it at all.’
Has anyone bothered to read the whole book?
I repeat, louder this time…
THIS WAS NOT AN ISSUE OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. IT WAS A CASE ABOUT INCITEMENT TO VIOLENCE AND HATE SPEECH WHICH IS PUNISHABLE UNDER EUROPEAN AND GREEK LAW.
Legein, do you seriously think that this would have gone to court if no-one had read the whole book? If you are meaning have I read it, then no I haven’t. Have you ?
No, therefore I am not commenting on its contents. Neither should you.
Even if, as some Greek friends of mine claim, the overall content of this very long book is more sophisticated than the extracts given, this does not alter the fact that those extracts are in breach of the law. Some people have told me that when Plevris refers to Jews he does not mean all Jews: this is disingenuous. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of European history is aware of the sensitivity of this issue, and refusal to acknowledge such is in itself a clear political position. For a so-called academic to do it, is outright defiance of the law.
Martin, your comments about Greeks are not disimilar. If the laws extended to the Internet do you think there are grounds for prosecution?
legein: if I thought you were serious, I would suggest that you study some law to understand basic ideas. As I know that you are merely playing a game, I have nothing but contempt for your comment.
Legein is very clever, he traps Baldwin-Edwards in his words, if Baldwin-Edwards could understand Ancient Greek he could read the dialogues of Socrates and see how Socrates did exactly the same thing, using logic to trap his opponent into an unwinnable situation, in which he is not so much forced to admit defeat but forced to abandon any hope of rationally rebutting Legein’s excellent point.
Perhaps Baldwin-Edwards should read some Socrates.
Martin, have you read the Socratic-Platonic dialogues? I have read nearly all of them. Some of them in the Hellenic language, our language of “wind beaten verbs” as Elytis said - meaning that our language is like an old ship that has travelled through time and space carrying within it the stupendous experiences of its sailors, the Greeks. The allusion to the sea is apt. Possibly no other people have opened themselves so much to the world and taken in what it has to offer. Maybe that is why we want to nurture and protect what we have, because if we lost it, we would lose the ability to appreciate the Other.
I digress. Like most people I like the middle dialogues. How can anyone not like the Symposium or Meno or Gorgias? Some of the people on this blog remind me of the character of Callicles. But for some reason I am drawn to the later dialogues. Plato seems to have become somewhat disillusioned by the time he wrote them. They have a less playful tone and are more systematic - they read almost like treatises. They are less like what is generally considered a Dialogue. The Sophist is fascinating; particularly, if you have read Parmenides and his poem On Nature. Have you read that? You probably have because someone with so much knowledge such as yourself would have analysed the subject of knowledge itself. The Eleatic Stranger raises some amazing questions. Can there be non-being? Can we even think about non-being because if we think about something then is it being? Is becoming being? Or can only being be being as Parmenides asserted? Is non-being death? Is it this absolute abstraction which drives us to create myths and religions? Ontology, the study of being, is like Heidegger said, one of the most fundamentally general questions. And it is because it is so fundamentally general why we cannot really grasp it although there are beings all around us - including ourselves.
Martin, are you interested in knowledge? Sometimes knowledge is painful. It is non-intuitive. It is hard. And colourless. Most people do not have the soul for knowledge. Nietzsche said about Parmenides in his Thus Spake Zarathustra he was “to feed on the acorns and grass of knowledge and for the sake of truth suffer hunger of the soul.” Meaning that he was one of the brave philosophers who sought knowledge despite the consequences. These people are rare. But sophists are more numerous. Which one are you?
I have read the complete works of Plato [as opposed to the Sokratic dialogues which do not exist in recorded form] and I do not find the games of modern Greeks in the slightest way comparable with these.
An important result due to the AntiNazi Initiative and Helsinki Monitor - my sincere compliments to them. This decision brings hope but at the same time is indicative of how much antisemitism is alive, given how the prosecutors behaved but also the deafening silence of greek media.
Hopefully the huge difficulties that were encountered for condemning a man who openly advocated the killing of jews will raise the alarm on how much needs to be done, both by the greek civil society but also from the disappointing leadership of the jewish communities.
I am really torn between freedom of speech for all and the need to deal with hate speech. On one hand, I believe that denying even the most offending views the right to be freely expressed is a slippery slope: once you begin establishing exceptions, then any given dominant ideology,political party, leader, religion, whatever, will be inclined to set up new ones according to its interests. There will never be a stop to this. Also, we need some philosophy of language here: what is hate speech? Expressing dislike or even hatred towards a group of people is one thing, and explicitly inciting violence against it is a completely different thing. In effect, you can NEVER know in advance whether a statement of this kind will lead to acts of violence, or the degree to which that violence is the direct outcome of the statement itself or of its misinterpretation by the public. Can a law effectively distinguish the two without compromising freedom of speech? Personally, I am willing to tolerate hatred against me as long as it does not make people attack me; of course the line between the two is blurred.
On the other hand, I believe we would all agree that it would be nice if some law had prevented, for example, Hitler and his ideology from convincing Germans that they should occupy and oppress, let alone exterminate, anyone they considered inferior. Unfortunately, the ordinary person is quite easily manipulated by demagogues (which exist in all parts of the political spectrum), so I would wish for a mechanism able to safeguard against such abuses to exist. The problem is that humans cannot hold the absolute knowledge which would enable them to know what is right and wrong without qualifications, so it always comes down to who owns the power; he makes the rules that promote his interests and then tries to legitimize them by whatever means he can.
The technicalities, the practical implications, but also the philosophical questions behind this issue are all very complicated. Somehow, I get the feeling that we cannot reach what would be the objective truth on this subject.
still puzzled
You and many others write all that as if this question has not been addressed manifold by the expert bodies of the UN and the Council of Europe, including the European Court of Human Rights; as well as by the European Parliament even recently; as if all that have nt been posted in DD’s blog again and again.
Any bona fide challenge must address those texts and argue if, why and how they should be changed, which means that Greece should withdraw from the UN and European conventions.
They also should argue why they have a problem with freedom of expression not protecting hate speech but have no problem with freedom of expression not protecting defamation, libel and slander, that are also punishable by law.
To make it plain, they should say why “you dirty Jew/Gypsy” must not be punished while “you fraudster/forger/embezzler” must be punishable.
Panayote,
you refer to “you and many others” as if we constitute a group that does challenge the wide-spread concern regarding the causes and consequences of racism. Personally, I do not; I just feel the need to reflect on the issue much more deeply than the average person before adopting a solid opinion.
Now let me make some “bona fide” remarks on your post: First of all, as a free spirit that I consider myself, I am instinctively suspicious of “expert bodies”. The Holy Inquisition was once such a body, yet now we look back at it with disgust. I never start with the assumtion that the UN or any other IGO possess the papal infalibility and what they propose is to be accepted uncritically. UN conventions are exactly that: conventions, i.e. agreements among humans, which are extremely liable to change throughout time inasmuch as agendas and power balances change as well. It is not necessarily the case that whatever the UN decides reflects the international public opinion. Let’s not forget, for example, that after the end of the US invasion of Iraq, the UN legitimized US and UK occupation of the country (Resolution 1483, 22 May 2003), yet most people around the world still oppose it. So, your argument that the issue has been dealt with by the bodies you mention, and thus we need not further elaborate on it as you seem to imply, is both logically and substantively weak.
As for your second point, yes, the accusation “you fraudster etc.” is far more serious than the “you dirty Jew/Gypsy/Greek/whatever” because the former is related to a CRIME, something that is unquestionably against the law. Being a fraudster IS illegal, so, being falsely accused that you are a fraudster requires that you defend yourself otherwise you risk being prosecuted. On the contrary, being a Jew or a Gypsy is NOT a crime, neither a negative thing in the eyes of the majority of people. Being referred to as “dirty Jew” will not necessarily endanger your personal safety. I suppose you can imagine the implications of legally incriminating any kind of insult which does not by and in itself generate violence.
Just to make things clear, my criticism regarding your post targets your argumentation and not the need to eliminate racism, which I completely share as an imperative for humankind. I am just not convinced that we should deal with it in a way that actually legitimizes and perpetuates practices that have been used by fascists themselves. That would make it even easier for them, if they ever come to power again, to repeat their atrocities. Are we not unlike them?
Still Puzzled
Do not confuse decisions of the Security Council - taken by some 15 countries - with UN Treaties and European Conventions voted by large majorities if not unanimity of countries and then -most importantly- ratified by national parliaments to make them domestic law; followed by case law of judges for decades. All that is irrelevant? In that case, we should withdraw from those human rights treaties. As the Greek anti-racist law has been introduced in parliament -voted by all parties- in implementation of those treaties. Should we repeal the law? Or should we not implement it? Should we ignore the repeated case law of the UN and European courts that state the freedom of speech does not protect hate speech or incitation to violence?
But then your reaction to the two examples implicitly indicates that you in fact possibly in an unbeknown to you way are not in fact against racism. You claim that calling someone a fraudster when he is not must be punished, while calling someone a dirty Jew should not because he is -careful what you said- a Jew. But the punishable action is not because he is called a Jew which he is but a dirty Jew. Just as the punishable act in the first case is not because he is called a human being which he is, but a fraudster human being which he is not. Keep also in mind that the minority status of a Jew or a Gypsy makes him more vulnerable to be hurt by such insult, than calling in Greece someone dirty Greek. Yet the latter is punishable too, just as calling someone malakas, faggot, etc.
We have articles punishing insult as well just as we have articles punishing ethnic insult. You seem to favor the former and oppose the latter. We have articles punishing threat and incitation to violence, as well as other punishing the same thing on an ethnic basis. You seem to favor the former and refuse the latter.
These are exactly the arguments of those who utter racist speech and incitation to racial violence. This is why they opposed Plevris conviction but applauded the almost coincidental court decision punishing Papathemelis for defamation because he called Georgiadis satanist. While they have launched against GHM and the Jewish leaders who took them to court at least two criminal cases for defamaiton and illicit existence of GHM, and many lawu suits asking from me 400,000 euors, my colleague Andrea Gilbert 200,000 euros and there is a pending interim measures decision for the freezing of her assets, and each Jew leader 200,000 euros - all that for defamation. Absolutely no one has taken a stance against those cases (which are well-known as they are published in a follow up book by Plevris), as -again- they all favor the defamation laws but not the anti-racist law.
Finally, have you ever asked a Jew or a Gypsy how s/he feels by being constantly called names because of their ethnic identity and also discriminated or attacked occasionally because of their identity?
Oh yes you should want to abolish also the new anti-discrimination EU directives which became a law in all EU countries, right? While at that, we should also abolish the similar ones based on gender. People should be free to argue that women after all are -like Jews and Gypsies- inferior human beings and should not have access to jobs and homes like us, and we should not be punished for all that, because they are in fact women, Jews or Gypsies, right?
I am sure you will say no.
Then you will go next room to enjoy Christmas while some dirty Gypsies are evicted from their filthy settlement in Votanikos (see make some noise post here) and no one would do anything about it because they are Gypsies, and they are dirty, and they are thieves, etc.
Panayote,
Indeed, Security Council resolutions are a bit different than General Assembly ones, but I hope you’ll agree with me that the fact a resolution has been later on ratified by national parliaments does not necessarily say something about its public legitimacy. The US Patriot Act, just like the Greek Antiterrorist law have been passed through the legislature, yet most citizens are quite uncomfortable, to say the least, with its provisions. Do you agree that in those cases the parliament ignored and by-passed public opinion? Parliamentary decisions are increasingly inconsistent with the public will. Do you agree that there is a democratic deficit in modern societies?
As for your clarification that it is the word “dirty” and not “Jew” that is punishable, I see your point, and I admit I wasn’t aware of such technicalities. But still my point was that even comparing “fraudster” with “dirty”, no matter to whom they are attributted, the former is much more consequencial than the latter. Personally, I would not want so rigid laws that punish insults which do not have legal implications. And remember that my initial point was that there is no way we can assess the degree to which a specific insult or statement is directly responsible for inciting violence, and not that threat and incitement on an ethnic base should not be punishable. Since it is adjectives that we deem punishable, imagine the possibility you, personally, start at some point being continually brought to justice for calling someone a “racist”, which is equally derogatory to “dirty”. I think “you dirty Jew” is not better than “you racist Greek”, especially nowadays. Also, I do not accept your argument about the vulnerability of a member of a minority. Aren’t we all supposed to be equal? How can a progressive mind like you favor preferential treatment of a specific group, whether majority or minority.
At the end of your post, you seem to barely restrict yourself from becoming more tough and overtly aggressive against me. Maybe you think I’m full of latent racist sentiments, or maybe you feel contempt for those who are lucky - and apathetic - enough to be able to “go next room to enjoy Christmas”, while fellow human beings live in unspeakable conditions. I hope I am just far too touchy to appreciate your bona fide remarks, and that I just misunderstand your motives. In any case, since our debate seems to have degenerated into a technical examination of syllogisms, I will keep from it your reminding me of those unfortunate people and their situation, which surely makes me empathize with them, and I hope you and the rest here just give some more thought on the implications of the current anti-racist and anti-hate speech laws at which I point in my posts.
If there is no such thing as race or ethnicity (Martin Baldwin Edwards, 2007) then how can someone be punished for race hate or ethnic slurs? Or does the law and certain interest groups recognise race and ethnicity in a negative sense and not in a positive sense?
Still Puzzled: the universal consensus in the Western world condemning racist speech started in 1945, and the formation of the Council of Europe is an important part of that process. Unlike recent ephemeral events, like the US Patriot Act, this is a long-standing position of the civilised world. That Greeks do not feel part of the post-Nazi debate is a very serious problem, and not to be found elsewhere. Although in every country you will find racists, the outspoken ones tend to be uneducated people.
The relationship with democracy is that our parliaments, and also the European Parliament in principle, have decided [correctly, in my view] that social harmony is best preserved by some small constraints on freedom of speech. Those constraints [in the case of Greece, anyway] relate specifically to incitement to racial violence. In some other countries, there are greater constraints such as denying the existence of the Hoilocaust. Although I am less happy with those, I can see the reason for those specific countries doing that, and would not dispute their right to choose such legislation. I do not favour complete freedom of speech, because it is not socially productive and likely to lead to social chaos. This actually typifies Greece, where nobody can agree on anything so nothing gets done.
legein: I did not deny the existence of “ethnicity”. I said that “race” does not exist as a scientific fact, and is a social construct. As I also told you in that post, or a subsequent one, the existence of popular belief in something is sufficient to deal with it as a “real” thing, even when it is not. I did not discuss with you what the law says about race, which is a different matter from scientific discourse on the matter.
Ethnicity as an idea is complex, and is really socially and historically constructed. Unlike race, it does not matter so much whether there is any scientific basis for it, because it does not claim to be a “real” thing but an important part of a community. The problems occur when ethnicity is used for the purposes of racial exclusion — as it is against the Greek Roma, for example. This is a clear example of racism, and is something all Greek people should be ashamed of.
“Communication No. 550/1993 * **
Submitted by: Robert Faurisson
Victim: The author
State party: France
Date of communication: 2 January 1993 (initial submission)
Date of decision on admissibility: 19 July 1995
The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Meeting on 8 November 1996,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 550/1993 submitted to the Human Rights Committee by Mr. Robert Faurisson under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication and the State party,
Adopts the following:” (…)
“On 13 July 1990, the French legislature passed the so-called “Gayssot Act”, which amends the law on the Freedom of the Press of 1881 by adding an article 24 bis; the latter makes it an offence to contest the existence of the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 8 August 1945, on the basis of which Nazi leaders were tried and convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945-1946. (…)
Although it does not contest that the application of the terms of the Gayssot Act, which, in their effect, make it a criminal offence to challenge the conclusions and the verdict of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, may lead, under different conditions than the facts of the instant case, to decisions or measures incompatible with the Covenant, the [U.N. Human Rights] Committee is not called upon to criticize in the abstract laws enacted by States parties. The task of the Committee under the Optional Protocol is to ascertain whether the conditions of the restrictions imposed on the right to freedom of expression are met in the communications which are brought before it. (…)
The restriction on the author [Faurisson]’s freedom of expression was indeed provided by law i.e. the [Gayssot] Act of 13 July 1990. It is the constant jurisprudence of the Committee that the restrictive law itself must be in compliance with the provisions of the Covenant. In this regard the Committee concludes, on the basis of the reading of the judgment of the 17th Chambre correctionnelle du Tribunal de grande instance de Paris that the finding of the author’s guilt was based on his following two statements: “… I have excellent reasons not to believe in the policy of extermination of Jews or in the magic gas chambers … I wish to see that 100 per cent of the French citizens realize that the myth of the gas chambers is a dishonest fabrication”. His conviction therefore did not encroach upon his right to hold and express an opinion in general, rather the court convicted Mr. Faurisson for having violated the rights and reputation of others. For these reasons the Committee is satisfied that the Gayssot Act, as read, interpreted and applied to the author’s case by the French courts, is in compliance with the provisions of the Covenant.
To assess whether the restrictions placed on the author’s freedom of expression by his criminal conviction were applied for the purposes provided for by the Covenant, the Committee begins by noting, as it did in its General Comment 10 that the rights for the protection of which restrictions on the freedom of expression are permitted by article 19, paragraph 3, may relate to the interests of other persons or to those of the community as a whole. Since the statements made by the author, read in their full context, were of a nature as to raise or strengthen anti-semitic feelings, the restriction served the respect of the Jewish community to live free from fear of an atmosphere of anti-semitism. The Committee therefore concludes that the restriction of the author’s freedom of expression was permissible under article 19, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant.
Lastly the Committee needs to consider whether the restriction of the author’s freedom of expression was necessary. The Committee noted the State party’s argument contending that the introduction of the Gayssot Act was intended to serve the struggle against racism and anti-semitism. It also noted the statement of a member of the French Government, the then Minister of Justice, which characterized the denial of the existence of the Holocaust as the principal vehicle for anti-semitism. In the absence in the material before it of any argument undermining the validity of the State party’s position as to the necessity of the restriction, the Committee is satisfied that the restriction of Mr. Faurisson’s freedom of expression was necessary within the meaning of article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.
10. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts as found by the Committee do not reveal a violation by France of article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant.”
JEWS NOT A RACE; MOSES, EXODUS PROVEN TO MYTHS, NOT FACTS.
The judges (and even the writer) in this case seem to be ignorant of some basic facts. By using the words “Jew”, anti-semetic and racist to describe this Greek author’s work, they are
showing their ignorance of some basic facts.
People of various races converted to Judaism. The majority of the present-day “Jews” are descendents of the caucasian Khazars (such as the Ashkenazi and the Turko-European khazars) that
converted to Judaism.
An excellent article on Hareetz.com called “An invention called the Jewish people” by a Jewish historian shows this clearly and is available at:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/959229.html
For extensive research on khazars (caucasians) who converted to Judaism, see http://www.khazaria.com/
Also see the book “THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE”, by Arthur Koestler (Random House).
No serious anthropologist believes in a separate race called “Jews”.
2. Moses and Exodus Myths. The Torah (Old Testament) is filled with myths such as a man called Moses, the myth of Exodus and the various persecutions of Jews by an Egyptian king who allegedly enslaved them. Archealogical and historical evidence has repeatedly shown the stories of
Moses, Exodus, Joshua, King David, etc. to be basically myths.
For eg., according to Prof. Ze’ev Herzog who teaches in the Department of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University, in an article entitled “Deconstructing the Wall
of Jericho”:
“This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the
united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of
Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in
scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people’s emergence are radically
different from what that story tells.” (in an article in the Jewish magazine Haaretz (as quoted on
http://www.truthbeknown.com/biblemyth.htm)).
Another excellent book by British writers Gandy and Freke proves that Moses and exodus are pure myths and Moses never really existed and the Exodus never happened.
See: The Laughing Jesus: Religious Lies and Gnostic Wisdom , by Timothy Freke and Peter
Gandy.
In summary, Jews are not a separate race; most of them are whites (90%) and the 10% like Middle Easterners, a mixture of white and black; there was no Moses, no Exodus, no Abraham and
no Kind David. “Jews” are basically people who happen to follow a common religion, Judaism, without any common history, culture, nation or race.