Germar Rudolf, Resistance Is Obligatory (2012; PDF-Datei

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
Article 5, paragraph 2, introduced three restrictions of free speech.
The first refers to “general laws.” According to common sense as well
as various verdicts by the German Constitutional High Court, this precisely
does NOT include such laws which prohibit only certain opinions
or which regulate only certain topics. Already for this reason those paragraphs
of §130 of the German Penal Code which intend to regulate
historical views are unconstitutional – and besides, they are of course
also in conflict with Kant’s categorical imperative. The question really
imposes itself why this law regulates only this one genocide. Why not
all genocides of human history? And why is it restricted to genocides?
Why aren’t all views on history regulated which can evoke displeasure
in people against others? This would, of course, amount to outlawing
historiography as such, as one can always find somebody who feels offended
by certain views or which may motivate them to feel displeasure
against others.
The massacre of the Armenians in Turkey during World War I exemplifies
the absurd situation which can be created with the attempt to
regulate historiography by penal law. A short while ago France enacted
a law prohibiting the denial of the above genocide. At the same time it
is currently illegal in Turkey to claim that those events constituted genocide.
Let us for a moment assume that Turkey will become a member of
the European Union in the foreseeable future. Imagine, for instance, an
Englishman living in Germany who denies the genocide against the
Armenians in an article. He subsequently gets arrested due to a French
arrest warrant and put into a French prison. Since the Briton has learned
from this experience, he publishes an article after his release in which
he emphatically confirms the genocide against the Armenians. He subsequently
gets arrested again, this time due to a Turkish arrest warrant –
the European arrest warrant makes it possible! – and put into a Turkish
prison. And since our English fellow citizen is a role model in teachability,
yet like me cannot shut up, he publishes another article after his
release from Turkey, in which he once more denies the genocide against
the Armenian, upon which he ends up once more in a French jail. And
so he spends the rest of his life alternatively in French and Turkish prisons,
as he cannot please everybody at once.
And now imagine that all European countries would raise to a norm
the German pathological behavioral pattern of prescribing discussion of
traumatic events of their national history by penal law. Then everybody
125