Why Romania had to ban Holocaust denial twice

[UKBengali]

antisemitism doesn't come under free speech.Its ' hate speech '

Lol denying holocaust is not hate speech.

 

[gslv mk3]

Lol denying holocaust is not hate speech.

says who ? Muslim extremists ?

 

[Penguin]

OH Ok,
in a list of some 150 countries!!
Right!
AND i just noticed that we are at 109

Anyway, that is not the point. The point was it is a surprise that nations can ban and allow and encourage in name of freedom of speech, no matter what different one calls it, the fact remains that there are double standards. Not that i complain about them, there country there rules, just pointing out the irregularity!

Just lets not pretend either that Romania is an exemplary democracy, or even a long and well established one..

 

[Arsalan]

Just lets not pretend either that Romania is an exemplary democracy, or even a long and well established one..

Sure, as long as we can stop pretending that the "exemplary democracy, or even a long and well established one" have not been found going down the same road. Hypocrisy is a simple fact in this case. NO need to bring in examples from Denmark, Norway or France as i am sure you already know about all that.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Why Romania had to ban Holocaust denial twice



By Adam Taylor July 27
on Wednesday, meaning that public denial of the systematic slaughter of Jews by Nazi Germany, along with a number of other offenses, would now be punishable by up to three years in prison.

The move earned praise from the World Jewish Congress, an international federation of Jewish communities and organizations. “We congratulate President Iohannis for his strong stand against fascism, anti-Semitism and racism,” WJC President Ronald Lauder said in a statement on Thursday. “Only by fighting Holocaust denial and fascism at the highest levels can a nation effectively counter the troubling spread of anti-Semitism across Europe."

Romania is far from the only country to put in place laws that explicitly ban Holocaust denial. A large number of European nations, including Germany and France, have laws that prohibit Holocaust denial, as does Israel. However, looking over the list of countries that have banned Holocaust denial, you might discover something surprising: Romania had already banned Holocaust denial in 2002.

So why exactly would a country ban Holocaust denial twice? The answer to that question shows some of the difficulties that lie behind enforcing such measures.

In 2002, Romania's government pushed through legislation, known as Emergency Ordinance No. 31/2002, that stated that public denial of the Holocaust could be punishable by up to six years in prison. The ordinance had been created, in part, as a reaction to a growing movement to rehabilitate Gen. Ion Antonescu, a pro-fascist dictator who had overseen the deaths of about 280,000 Jews and 11,000 Roma people during the war — more than any other country except Germany. Antonescu was executed as a war criminal in 1946.

Despite Antonescu's role in these deaths, by the early 2000s, streets had been renamed and statues erected in his honor as Romania struggled to rediscover its national identity after decades of harsh communist rule, during which fascist organizations had been banned and World War II history distorted and suppressed. An anti-Semitic Romanian group that existed until 1941, the Iron Guard, also was reevaluated and celebrated by some groups.

In 2003, Romania's Ministry of Public Information even told the Associated Press: "We firmly claim that within the borders of Romania between 1940 and 1945 there was no Holocaust," though the statement was swiftly withdrawn.

In response to international criticism from Jewish groups, Romania's government, then led by the center-left Social Democratic Party (PSD), drew up the ordinance. In 2005, the country set up an institute, led by Nobel winner Elie Wiesel, to examine Romania's role in the Holocaust. Despite these moves, there were concerns from a variety of groups that there had been little actual change. As early as 2002, groups that monitor anti-Semitism in Romania warned that Emergency Ordinance No. 31/2002 "lies forgotten in the drawers of the Parliament commissions." A report from the Wiesel institute published a few years later noted that "Holocaust denial literature continues to be published and sold freely."

Paul Shapiro, director of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Mandel Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies, says part of the problem was that the 2002 ordinance was "vague" and couldn't stop groups from denying the Holocaust or publicly using the symbols of World War II fascists. Another major issue was a disagreement in Romania over what constituted Holocaust denial. “Most Romanians believe the Holocaust happened, but many still think Romanians did not perpetrate it,” Liviu Rotman, a historian at the University of Bucharest, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency last year. “To them it was the Hungarians or the Germans, but never Romanians, despite a wealth of evidence.”

Far-right Romanian politicians attempted to change the wording of the 2002 ordinance so it referred only to the acts committed by Nazi Germany. Even mainstream politicians tripped up: In 2012, Dan Sova, a spokesman for the PSD, said in a TV interview that “no Jew suffered at the hands of Romanians” during the Holocaust, despite the findings of the Wiesel commission clearly stating otherwise. Sova was sent to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum to learn about Romania's role in the Holocaust.

Last week's amendment was drafted with the help of the D.C.-based museum and Wiesel's commission. Shapiro feels that it represents a true shift in the nation. Noting that, unlike the 2002 ordinance, the 2015 law cleared parliament, Shapiro says "it really is quite striking" because not so long ago Romania "could easily have been labeled a total denial country." The new law not only specifically outlaws the use of fascist symbols from World War II, but it also makes clear that Romania's role in the Holocaust should be acknowledged.

"We've seen a commitment to ensure that civil leadership and military leadership of the country understands the reality of the Holocaust and the Holocaust in Romania," Shapiro says.

It is remarkable that 70 years after the Holocaust, denial of the state-sponsored persecution and murder of million of Jews — and others — by the Nazis and their collaborators still exists. Yet there's also considerable disagreement over the logic behind bans on Holocaust denial. Such bans are incompatible with the concept of freedom of speech, for example, and even in countries such as France where Holocaust-denial laws have been on the books for some time, the measures remain controversial. Given concerns about rising levels of anti-Semitism in Europe, these are fraught debates.

The Romanian example may show that even where these laws exist, they have to reflect the appropriate local context. Shapiro believes Romania is on the right path now, but he has concerns about Hungary, which officially bans Holocaust denial but still allows far-right parties such as Jobbik to flourish.

so western freedom of speech is down in drain.

 

[flamer84]

Just lets not pretend either that Romania is an exemplary democracy, or even a long and well established one..

Actually it is......The formation of the Romanian state is 1859

1859-1940,Romania was a democracy

1940-1990-not a democrcy

1990-2015-democracy

156 years of history-106 years being a democracy.

 

[Penguin]

Actually it is......The formation of the Romanian state is 1859

1859-1940,Romania was a democracy

1940-1990-not a democrcy

1990-2015-democracy

156 years of history-106 years being a democracy.

If born in 1940 > now 75 years old > very little actual and recent experience.
If born in 1930 > now 85 years old > what memory of democracy would a 10 year old bring from the 1958-1940 era

so western freedom of speech is down in drain.

Only if you equate Romania with 'the west'?

Sure, as long as we can stop pretending that the "exemplary democracy, or even a long and well established one" have not been found going down the same road. Hypocrisy is a simple fact in this case. NO need to bring in examples from Denmark, Norway or France as i am sure you already know about all that.

Which illustrates a flawed understanding of freedom of speech.

Governments restrict speech with varying limitations. Common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform and oppression.

freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[2][3]

Freedom of speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In the context of DEMOCRACY

Freedom of speech is understood to be fundamental in a democracy. The norms on limiting freedom of expression mean that public debate may not be completely suppressed even in times of emergency.[11] One of the most notable proponents of the link between freedom of speech and democracy is Alexander Meiklejohn. He argues that the concept of democracy is that of self-government by the people. For such a system to work an informed electorate is necessary. In order to be appropriately knowledgeable, there must be no constraints on the free flow of information and ideas. According to Meiklejohn, democracy will not be true to its essential ideal if those in power are able to manipulate the electorate by withholding information and stifling criticism. Meiklejohn acknowledges that the desire to manipulate opinion can stem from the motive of seeking to benefit society. However, he argues, choosing manipulation negates, in its means, the democratic ideal.[13]
Eric Barendt has called this defence of free speech on the grounds of democracy "probably the most attractive and certainly the most fashionable free speech theory in modern Western democracies".[14] Thomas I. Emerson expanded on this defence when he argued that freedom of speech helps to provide a balance between stability and change. Freedom of speech acts as a "safety valve" to let off steam when people might otherwise be bent on revolution. He argues that "The principle of open discussion is a method of achieving a more adaptable and at the same time more stable community, of maintaining the precarious balance between healthy cleavage and necessary consensus." Emerson furthermore maintains that "Opposition serves a vital social function in offsetting or ameliorating (the) normal process of bureaucratic decay."[15]
Research undertaken by the Worldwide Governance Indicators project at the World Bank, indicates that freedom of speech, and the process of accountability that follows it, have a significant impact in the quality of governance of a country. "Voice and Accountability" within a country, defined as "the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and free media" is one of the six dimensions of governance that the Worldwide Governance Indicators measure for more than 200 countries.[16] Against this backdrop it is important that development agencies create grounds for effective support for a free press in developing countries.

Freedom of speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see how holocaust denial furthers a 'healthy' in the sense of democratic political process, or how banning it hinders it. If that is the will of the population, expressed democratically, there is nothing hypocritical.

ANYWAY > let's not shift off topic.

 

[Declein]

@Penguin it's a non-issue to start with, antisemitism is absent in Romania, nobody is denying anything because nobody cares or knows that much about it, hence it's a useless piece of paper with which I don't agree.
They're beating a dead horse, and it's been dead for decades..

The only point I could see where this might get applied is regarding Antonescu, but since his.."rehabilitation"..has very few to do with the Jews and much more to do with the Russians, everyone will happily ignore the law anyway.

@Edit; if born in '85, like me, a lot to do with democracy as my entire life, and my generations, was lived a "democratic" (or close to it) environment.

 

[Penguin]

@Penguin it's a non-issue to start with, antisemitism is absent in Romania, nobody is denying anything because nobody cares or knows that much about it, hence it's a useless piece of paper with which I don't agree.
They're beating a dead horse, and it's been dead for decades..

The only point I could see where this might get applied is regarding Antonescu, but since his.."rehabilitation"..has very few to do with the Jews and much more to do with the Russians, everyone will happily ignore the law anyway.

@Edit; if born in '85, like me, a lot to do with democracy as my entire life, and my generations, was lived a "democratic" (or close to it) environment.

Wasn't suggesting antisemitism currently. Law/Policy is often also/just symbolic. It may take several generations to fully 'recover' from the 1940-1990 period, institutionally speaking. That's all.

 

[Arsalan]

Which illustrates a flawed understanding of freedom of speech.

It will always illustrate the same flawed understanding as long as the people defining the word do not follow it truly.
They will always keep changing the meaning or the sense of the word just to suit there needs/agenda. As in this case, the meaning /understanding of freedom of speech will be anything that is done to hurt Muslims, can be done. Any other thing against, for instance, Jews (with no disrespect to them, contrary to normal perception, i personally do not hold any grudge against the Jews and neither do our religion asks us to), is a bad understanding of this word or expression.

This is nothing new.

 

[flamer84]

If born in 1940 > now 75 years old > very little actual and recent experience.
If born in 1930 > now 85 years old > what memory of democracy would a 10 year old bring from the 1958-1940 era

If you were born in the 19100-1910 you lived much of your life in a democracy and had all the will to transmit to your future generation that spirit,be it undercover.Not to mention that the 1975 onwards generation are "democratic" to the bone.At least in Romania the political class doesn't dare to interfere in the Justice system by sacking the prosecutor general when they don't like the cases he's working on like it happened in Germany recently.Sry,Romania doesn't need lessons on democracy from the West.

 

[Penguin]

If you were born in the 19100-1910 you lived much of your life in a democracy and had all the will to transmit to your future generation that spirit,be it undercover.Not to mention that the 1975 onwards generation are "democratic" to the bone.At least in Romania the political class doesn't dare to interfere in the Justice system by sacking the prosecutor general when they don't like the cases he's working on like it happened in Germany recently.Sry,Romania doesn't need lessons on democracy from the West.

You would be correct if it was a Judge. However, unlike a Judge, the prosecutor is NOT part of the justice system a.k.a court. It is one of the parties of a courtcase. In the end, it is a civil servant that falls under ministerial responsibility.

The Public Prosecutor General (German: Generalbundesanwalt or Generalbundesanwältin) is the federal prosecutor of Germany, representing the federal government at the Bundesgerichtshof, the federal court of justice. Besides its role in appellate cases, the Public Prosecutor General has primary jurisdiction in cases of crimes against the state (in particular terrorism, espionage and treason), and offences under the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch (genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes). The Public Prosecutor General also represents Germany in certain civil and administrative cases.
The Federal Minister of Justice proposes the Public Prosecutor General with the approval of the Bundesrat to the President of Germany (Bundespräsident) for appointment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Prosecutor_General_(Germany)

Also, I never stated or suggested Romania needs lessons in democracy. I merely pointed out Romania is a relatively new democracy, and in that sense possibly not yet fully matured and perhaps not the best representative of all or typical democracies. Mind your toes.

 

[flamer84]

You would be correct if it was a Judge. However, unlike a Judge, the prosecutor is NOT part of the justice system a.k.a court. It is one of the parties of a courtcase. In the end, it is a civil servant that falls under ministerial responsibility.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Prosecutor_General_(Germany)

It's like in this in Romania to,with the difference that the political class won't sack him if they don't like the cases he's working on.And believe,many don't like her,nor her cases.

 

[Penguin]

It will always illustrate the same flawed understanding as long as the people defining the word do not follow it truly.
They will always keep changing the meaning or the sense of the word just to suit there needs/agenda. As in this case, the meaning /understanding of freedom of speech will be anything that is done to hurt Muslims, can be done. Any other thing against, for instance, Jews (with no disrespect to them, contrary to normal perception, i personally do not hold any grudge against the Jews and neither do our religion asks us to), is a bad understanding of this word or expression.

This is nothing new.

Freedom of speech and democratic process are intertwined, as you can't have the latter without the former. The former without the latter is ... well ... (do you know of any non-democratic i.e. authoritarian or olicharchic state with free speech?) . It is not the same as 'anything goes', newer was, never will be. The right of one ends were the right of another begins. There isn't anything hypocritical about that.

Harald Range (born 16 February 1948 in Göttingen) is a German jurist and was Attorney General of Germany. After completing his studies at the University of Göttingen he began his career with the judiciary of Lower Saxony, serving as a judge from 1975–78, as a prosecutor from 1978–86 and as a senior prosecutor at the Higher Regional Court in Celle from 1986–89. From 1989–2001 he occupied various roles within the Lower Saxon Ministry of Justice (de), including as the leader of the Criminal Law, Law of Criminal Proceedings, and Clemency Unit. From 2001 until 2011 Range served as the State Attorney General in Celle. He is serving as the Attorney General of Germany since November 2011.[1]
In the aftermath of the treason investigation of netzpolitik.org, Federal Minister of Justice Heiko Maas forced Range into retirement for breach of public trust on 4 August 2015

Harald Range - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Treason investigation 2015[edit]

Berlin, 1st of August 2015
In Spring 2015, netzpolitik.org leaked internal government documents which detailed the proposed surveillance expansion of social networks by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution,[2] an intelligence agency, producing two articles, first in February 2015[3] and then in April 2015.[4]
On July 31, 2015, netzpolitik.org announced:
Today, we received a letter from the Federal Attorney General of Germany confirming ongoing investigations against our reporters Markus Beckedahl, Andre Meister and an “unknown” source, suspecting us of treason according to the German Penal Code.[5]
Up until that point, they were known to have been witnesses in the case, but this letter confirmed that they would be investigated as "joint principals".[5]
The last time such charges were brought against a journalist in Germany was in 1962 amid much uproar, when the editor-in-chief of Der Spiegel was accused of treason for publishing secret documents about the German defense forces, and spent 103 days in prison (see Spiegel scandal).[6]

netzpolitik.org - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently the German Justice Minister didn't approve of his underling messing with the press (no doubt the minister had with full support of the remainder of the administration and a parliamentary majority). The prosecutor messed up by overstepping his bounds.

 

[Arsalan]

Freedom of speech and democratic process are intertwined, as you can't have the latter without the former. The former without the latter is ... well ... (do you know of any non-democratic i.e. authoritarian or olicharchic state with free speech?) . It is not the same as 'anything goes', newer was, never will be. The right of one ends were the right of another begins. There isn't anything hypocritical about that.


Harald Range - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


netzpolitik.org - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently the German Justice Minister didn't approve of his underling messing with the press (no doubt the minister had with full support of the remainder of the administration and a parliamentary majority). The prosecutor messed up by overstepping his bounds.

Yes they are intertwined. However we were/are not talking about democratic process. The point was, simple, how the term of "freedom of speech" can be applied to certain terms while others are ruled not to be falling under that category. The examples are NUMEROUS!
I am sure you know about all or most of them. Whether you understand them or are open enough/bold enough to admit to them is a separate point and a personal trait, no one can do anything about that.