Holocaust Denial Prosecutions
1. France – Gayssot Act Cases
Law: France’s Gayssot Law (1990) criminalizes Holocaust denial, specifically the denial of crimes against humanity as defined by the Nuremberg Trials.
Case: Paul Rassinier vs. State / French Courts
Background: Paul Rassinier, a French writer, publicly questioned the reality of Nazi gas chambers.
Outcome: Prosecuted under the Gayssot Act. French courts ruled that denial of crimes against humanity, even in published works, was a criminal offense.
Significance: This case set a precedent that historical revisionism in France, when it denies genocide, could lead to criminal liability.
Case: Robert Faurisson Cases
Background: Robert Faurisson, a French academic, repeatedly published articles and gave interviews denying the Holocaust.
Outcome: He was convicted multiple times under the Gayssot Act (1990s).
Significance: Faurisson’s convictions confirmed the state’s willingness to prosecute even scholarly figures for Holocaust denial and reinforced limits on freedom of expression concerning crimes against humanity.
2. Germany – Section 130 of the German Criminal Code
Law: German Criminal Code §130 criminalizes Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred (Volksverhetzung).
Case: Holocaust Denial by Ernst Zündel (Germany-related charges)
Background: Zündel, a German-born Canadian, ran publications denying the Holocaust. He was convicted in Germany after extradition.
Outcome: Sentenced to five years in prison in 2007 for incitement and Holocaust denial.
Significance: Germany enforces strict accountability for denial, emphasizing that denial is not mere opinion but part of hate speech and anti-Semitic propaganda.
Case: Horst Mahler
Background: Mahler, a former lawyer and far-right activist, publicly denied the Holocaust.
Outcome: Convicted in Germany and sentenced to prison multiple times for Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred.
Significance: German courts demonstrated that even former professionals are liable under §130, emphasizing that historical denial can constitute a criminal threat to social order.
3. Austria – Verbotsgesetz 1947
Law: Austria’s Prohibition Act 1947 (Verbotsgesetz) criminalizes Nazi revivalism and Holocaust denial.
Case: David Irving vs. Austria
Background: British historian David Irving, known for Holocaust denial, visited Austria.
Outcome: Convicted and fined for denying the Holocaust in public statements.
Significance: Austrian courts emphasized that Holocaust denial is not protected speech but a continuation of Nazi ideology, punishable under national law.
Case: Friedrich Berger
Background: Berger published material denying the extermination of Jews in concentration camps.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to prison in the 1990s.
Significance: Austria applies criminal sanctions to prevent the resurgence of Nazi propaganda and to protect historical truth.
4. Switzerland – Article 261bis of Swiss Criminal Code
Law: Article 261bis criminalizes racial discrimination and public denial of genocide.
Case: Faurisson v. Swiss Authorities
Background: Robert Faurisson gave lectures denying the Holocaust in Switzerland.
Outcome: Swiss courts convicted him under Article 261bis, reinforcing cross-border applicability.
Significance: Switzerland treats Holocaust denial as incitement to racial hatred, highlighting that denial is both morally and legally actionable.
5. Canada – Ernst Zündel Cases
Law: Canada prosecuted Holocaust denial under Section 181 of the Canadian Criminal Code (publishing false news), before introducing hate speech laws.
Case: R v. Zündel (1988)
Background: Zündel published “Did Six Million Really Die?” denying the Holocaust.
Outcome: Initially convicted; overturned by Supreme Court of Canada (1992) due to freedom of expression concerns.
Significance: This case is pivotal because it contrasts North American free speech approaches with European criminalization of denial. Canadian law initially struggled with balancing historical truth and freedom of expression.
Case: R v. Zündel (Deportation Case, 2005-2007)
Background: Later, Zündel faced deportation from Canada due to associations with Nazi propaganda.
Outcome: Canada deported him to Germany, where he was imprisoned.
Significance: Shows international cooperation and the principle that Holocaust denial can have legal consequences beyond national borders.
6. Additional Notable Case – Belgium
Law: Belgian laws against Holocaust denial include criminal sanctions for publicly denying, minimizing, or justifying genocide.
Case: Jean-Marie Dedecker
Background: Dedecker, a Belgian politician, made statements minimizing Holocaust atrocities.
Outcome: Prosecuted under Belgian Holocaust denial law; fines imposed.
Significance: Belgium actively enforces denial laws to prevent anti-Semitism and historical distortion, even for political figures.
Key Observations from Case Law
Europe vs. North America: European countries (France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium) criminalize Holocaust denial as incitement and protection of historical truth. Canada protects freedom of speech, but denial can still have indirect consequences.
Forms of Punishment: Convictions can result in fines, imprisonment, and professional sanctions.
International Dimension: Individuals can face prosecution in one country even if their denial occurs elsewhere, demonstrating the transnational concern over Holocaust denial.
Legal Basis: Laws rely on protecting public order, preventing hate speech, and honoring the memory of victims.
RELATED Blog
comments