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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
the evil, or also at the stupid and the ones who recklessly or naively parrot
others? What about offenders who act out of persuasion? A partial
denial fulfills the offense of downplaying, decided the Federal Supreme
Court on 22 Dec. 2004, 15 if the perpetrator conceals the true weight of
the historical facts, calculates downward the number of victims as opposed
to the historically recognized extent of the mass murder, or questions
not only marginal issues of the order of magnitude considered historically
established – that is to say, due to knowledge considered verified
up to now… That makes sense only at first sight, because nothing
else can be true here as elsewhere in science: The limits of knowledge
are never fixed, not even for the number of victims of Auschwitz, 16
which has been officially reduced in the course of time from some four
million to one million and which may have been higher, but perhaps
also lower than that. 17 Who can set a mandatory margin in this field,
who can set the limits of what is established? The offense defined by
article 130, paragraph III, Penal Code raises such questions and many
more, which cannot be discussed here, though.
Although the encompassing problem whether the offense of inciting
the masses can prevail over the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of
opinion also touches upon its paragraphs 1 ad 2, it is probably still solvable
there with an interpretation which does not impinge on freedom of
speech in case of doubt. 18 Yet paragraph 3 is hit by this problem with
full vehemence: Freedom of opinion has the high value assigned to it by
the Federal Constitutional High Court in the Lüth verdict of 15 Jan.
1958 19 – with downright imploring words! 20 – today not less than back
then.
The Constitutional High Court has so far not taken an opportunity to
evaluate the constitutionality of article 130, para. III, Penal Code: 21 remarkable,
if considering the concerns which have been raised and are
imposing themselves. †
2. The Amendment of Paragraph 4
It is pointless to evaluate whether this paragraph could be salvaged
as constitutional even when interpreting its wording extremely restrictively.
After all, the Secretary of Justice herself has put the legislature’s
intention on record with her interpretive guidelines as quoted above and
† On 4 Nov. 2009 the German Federal Constitutional High Court has approved Art. 130, para.
IV, German Penal Code as constitutional, see note 233; G.R.
308