Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYjournal Neuen Juristischen Wochenschrift, issue 21/2005, on the pages1476–1478. This is one of the expert articles referred to by me whichclearly highlight the unconstitutional nature of the law with which I amprosecuted here. Because of its importance I may read it here aloud inits entirety. (For the full text of the article see Appendix 4, p. 303.)* * *I would like to remark that I disagree absolutely with Bertram’sview that the Shoah justifies the German Auschwitz taboo. But the articlestates clearly enough that article 130 “push aside constitutionallaw,” which is a mere circumscription of a violation of the constitution.In a similar way as Bertram, the former and also current German ministerfor the interior Wolfgang Schäuble has tried to justify the Auschwitztaboo, although in contrast to Bertram he also justified its judicial implementationby force. In an exchange with the then president of theCentral Council of Jews in Germany Ignatz Bubis, which was publishedby the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Schäuble stated: 269“With respect to the question whether the Auschwitz lie is a criminalact, and with respect to the prohibition of National Socialistsymbols I will say only this: in an abstract space we could havewonderful discussions about whether it is nonsense or not, from alegal point of view, to suppress the utterance of opinions. In spite ofthis, this is the right thing to do, because we are simply not acting inan abstract space but have had concrete historical experiences. I donot think that those legal dispositions will be around for all eternity,but here and now it is right to say, by means of laws that might becalled problematic under purely legal considerations: there are limitsand barriers in this respect and this is where the fun ends.”That is obviously a circular reasoning, if not to say: an extremely absurdmental blackout. This pseudo-logic can be put in the followingway: 270 “Now everyone is in the know: The prosecution of revisionist historiansdoes not occur for legal reasons, as the laws created for thepunishment of those having disliked opinions can be labeled asproblematic nonsense. Instead some alleged ‘historical experiences’have to serve as an excuse in order that an open debate about exactlythese historical experiences can be outlawed. Or put differently:269 Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung, 24 April 1996, p. 41.270 G. Rudolf, in: Kardinalfragen, op. cit. (note 47), pp. 196f.211