Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYviews. Not even an argumentation exclusively centered around the theoryof science or around civil rights meets any response anywhere.The fourth criterion – violation of general laws while protesting – isalso indicative, because the peace and anti-nuclear movements were notcontent to express their opinions without impediment, no, they resortedto deliberate violations of the law like trespassing and breaching publicpeace as well as coercion in order to gain even more attention. This isquite in contrast to the revisionists: the only law we break is a speciallaw prohibiting us to speak our mind. If we revisionists acted like thepeace and anti-nuclear movements, we would for instance organizemass demonstrations at Holocaust commemoration events, and wewould also try to disrupt or prevent these events even by means of violence.We would sabotage museums with sit-in blockades and woulddamaged or even destroy memorials violently. But nothing like this hasever happened, and none of it has ever been demanded or even endorsedby revisionists.The fifth criterion – general acceptance of laws violated in protest –is undisputed regarding the peace and anti-nuclear movements, as thelaws about trespassing, breaching public peace, and coercion are ofcourse generally accepted as legitimate and necessary penal provisions.The case is tricky regarding revisionism, because on the one hand article130 of the German Penal Code is assumed to be legitimate and necessary– at least by a majority of published opinion. On the other hand,however, the principle of general laws, which supersedes and contradictsthis article 130, is of course considered to be important or evenmuch more important. In the case of article 130 one simply claims thatan exception to the rule is necessary, 233 the convoluted argumentativejustification of which I will address later.The question whether or not the resisters themselves accept the lawsthey violate serves as the last criterion. This is doubtlessly true for the233 In this way recently again by the German Constitutional High Court on 4 Nov. 2009 (1 BvR2150/08); cf. www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg09-129.html: “In general,restrictions to the freedom of opinion are permissible only on the basis of general laws accordingto art. 5, para. 2, alternative 1, Basic Law. A law restricting opinions is an inadmissiblespecial law, if it is not formulated in a sufficiently open way and is directed right from the startonly against certain convictions, attitudes, or ideologies. […] Although the regulation of art.130, para. 4, German Penal Code is not a general law […] even as a non-general law it is stillcompatible with art. 5, para. 1 and 2, Basic Law, as an exception. In view of the injustice andthe terror caused by the National Socialist regime, an exception to the prohibition of speciallaws […] is immanent.”Or put differently: Exceptional laws are prohibited, except in exceptional cases.192