11.07.2015 Views

Resistance

Resistance

Resistance

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

Create successful ePaper yourself

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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY17th ThesisThe protection of the historical truth by penal law harbors thedanger to withdraw sections of history from an essential societaldiscussion.18th ThesisIn spite of its neutral wording, section 130 III of the German PenalCode concedes a problematic special protection to the Jewishpart of the population by way of a ‘privilegium odiosum.’ There is adanger that, in the eyes of the populace, one group is more protectedthan the majority, which reinforces the consciousness of aliennesstoward the protected group. […]22nd ThesisThe application of the offense of incitement of the masses to defenseattorneys showing so-called ‘behavior alien to a legal defense’restricts the free advocacy and the right of the defendant to an effectualdefense in an unacceptable way. A restriction of behavior withoutany connection to a legal defense is therefore preferred.”Hence Körber lobbies the complete abrogation of article 130 of theGerman Penal Code, and he also recognizes that the “special protection”for Jews can backfire on them, which needs to be prevented.It is by the way striking that neither Wandres nor Körber do evenraise the question, let alone address it, whether those paragraphs of article130 of the German Penal Code, which prohibit only certain opinionsabout only one single topic and which are therefore special laws, can beconstitutional in the first place. This question has been addressed onlyby a few authors in law journals – and they did of course answer it inthe negative. 159What is certain is the fact that my writings and those which I havepublished have no content which, if considered objectively, “incite tohatred,” “disparage, insult,” etc., and which also cannot be consideredto “disturb the peace.” That the prosecution uses such terms – againstbetter knowledge – merely demonstrates what they really have in mind:to scandalize, to taboo, and to ostracize me by way of untrue affirmations.159 Cf. e.g. Stefan Huster, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, 1995, pp. 487-489.141

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!