08.03.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY<br />

17th Thesis<br />

The protection of the historical truth by penal law harbors the<br />

danger to withdraw sections of history from an essential societal<br />

discussion.<br />

18th Thesis<br />

In spite of its neutral wording, section 130 III of the German Penal<br />

Code concedes a problematic special protection to the Jewish<br />

part of the population by way of a ‘privilegium odiosum.’ There is a<br />

danger that, in the eyes of the populace, one group is more protected<br />

than the majority, which reinforces the consciousness of alienness<br />

toward the protected group. […]<br />

22nd Thesis<br />

The application of the offense of incitement of the masses to defense<br />

attorneys showing so-called ‘behavior alien to a legal defense’<br />

restricts the free advocacy and the right of the defendant to an effectual<br />

defense in an unacceptable way. A restriction of behavior without<br />

any connection to a legal defense is therefore preferred.”<br />

Hence Körber lobbies the complete abrogation of article 130 of the<br />

German Penal Code, and he also recognizes that the “special protection”<br />

for Jews can backfire on them, which needs to be prevented.<br />

It is by the way striking that neither Wandres nor Körber do even<br />

raise the question, let alone address it, whether those paragraphs of article<br />

130 of the German Penal Code, which prohibit only certain opinions<br />

about only one single topic and which are therefore special laws, can be<br />

constitutional in the first place. This question has been addressed only<br />

by a few authors in law journals – and they did of course answer it in<br />

the negative. 159<br />

What is certain is the fact that my writings and those which I have<br />

published have no content which, if considered objectively, “incite to<br />

hatred,” “disparage, insult,” etc., and which also cannot be considered<br />

to “disturb the peace.” That the prosecution uses such terms – against<br />

better knowledge – merely demonstrates what they really have in mind:<br />

to scandalize, to taboo, and to ostracize me by way of untrue affirmations.<br />

159 Cf. e.g. Stefan Huster, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1995, pp. 487-489.<br />

141

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!