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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
on that critical date how columns of cussing neo-Nazis ganged up in
front of the Holocaust memorial in Berlin and marched through the
Brandenburg Gate, it seemed clear that something had to happen to halt
such activities. But what? A change of the right of assembly promised
relief, although it was to be shored up with penal measures – by a renewed
tightening of article 130 Penal Code. Although hate sermons,
Holocaust denial as well as any use of Nazi symbols or slogans 9 had
long since been prohibited, by now it was known that the “Neos” were
not only stupid and dull, but also clever and cunning and knew how to
glibly slip through legal gaps; hence those had to be plugged. On 11
Feb. 2005, the German Secretary of Justice introduced a bill and announced
that the state had so far been reluctant to restrict freedom of
speech and assembly due to their high priority, but it now had to close
gaps – also as a signal to young people – among other things by a new
paragraph to article 130 Penal Code, according to which punishment
will be meted out against him “who publicly or during a gathering disturbs
public peace in a way injurious to the dignity of the victims by
approving, glorifying or justifying the National Socialist violent and
despotic rule.” 10 Glorification is also given if unjust conditions of the
National Socialist rule appear in a context of positive evaluation or
when emphasis would be put on positive values, and prosecutable approval
can also occur under reservation or by implication. Did that
jeopardize the core of several civil rights? Hasty debates about that ensued
within the government coalition, but already a month later the bill
passed – in a slightly amended form – the final parliamentary debate. 12
IV. Alien Element in a Liberal State under the Rule of Law?
1. § 130 III German Penal Code
One can already find grave doubts in the literature about the question
whether any legally justifiable good in need of protection can be
found in paragraph 3 of article 130 Penal Code (which had remained
unchanged this time).
Is it the honor of the victims, public peace, the basic consensus of all
democrats, a decent political climate, concerns of foreign policy, or historical
truth? Penal law is certainly inept to take care of the latter – but
all the other hypotheses can be challenged as well with compelling reasons.
13 And what does approving mean, foremost also denying 14 and
downplaying – objectively and subjectively? Does this law aim only at
307