John’s essentially on the money so far as the defence case is concerned – the argument there is that holocaust denial is not, per se, an offence in UK law such that for extradition to take place the laywers making the application must demonstrate that Toben’s writing amount to something incite to racial hatred in UK law and not just bad scholarship.

You seem to be implying that the principle of dual (or double) criminality comes into play, which is not the case – it’s something the EAW framework decision abolished.

(by the way, your hyperlink leads to your old website, not me.uk.)

Personally I would rather Pinochet had been put on trial in a Chilean court for everything he did, as Juan Guzmán Tapia and Alejandro Madrid almost managed to do. Or like the Rwandan genocidaires were tried in Rwanda. After that  the Hague is the recognised place for dealing with mass murdering bastards like him; the way that Slobodan Milosevic was. Since those routes where not available then, yes, pack him up and ship him off without hesitation.

Pinochet ordered lots of actual harm to lots of actual people. Töben has harmed nobody nor ordered anybody harmed. I cannot see how what he did would fall into the same category as state sponsored kidnap, torture, and murder and I do not see why it should be treated as if it where state sponsored kidnap, torture, and murder. It does not matter that he’s wrong, he’s a creep, or what his motives are, the state should not be in the business of saying what is and what is not debatable.

It’s not a Belgian precedent, its an ECHR precedent which lawyers making the extradition application will deploy to try to preclude consideration of article 10 as a basis for denying the warrant.

John’s essentially on the money so far as the defence case is concerned – the argument there is that holocaust denial is not, per se, an offence in UK law such that for extradition to take place the laywers making the application must demonstrate that Toben’s writing amount to something incite to racial hatred in UK law and not just bad scholarship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciaran_Tobin_extradition_case

I’d tend to agree that European Arrest Warrants should only be used in reasonably serious cases, but you invariably see legislation which has been passed with good intent being warped by the bureucracies for purposes it was never intended. Whether the Toben case falls within or outwith that parameter is, I suppose, the issue here. Personally, I’d leave it up to the Judges to decide and keep politicians out of it. Which is the way it’s supposed to work, anyway. Though the Irish case should be appealled by the Hungarian Court if at all possible, as I think they have misdirected themselves on a point of Law.

I take it it’s not a one way street?

Some states have interpreted the framework in a different way from others and that intended by the EU Commission, and some prohibit the extradition of their nationals.

Belgium for example came in for some criticism from the Commission for explicitly excluding abortion and euthanasia from the category of “murder or grevious bodily harm”.

And I think that EU ruling is flat out wrong. Rights are derived from freedoms, not the other way round, although this legal dispute probably originates in linguistic interpretation.

“The Jews are lizard-creatures who kill babies for their blood” is, rightly, actionable in the UK because it’s incitement to racial hatred. “Hitler didn’t kill the Jews” isn’t, because it isn’t, any more than saying “America didn’t kill at least 50,000 North Vietnamese civilians from 1966-1972″ would be. Being lizard creatures who kill babies is a good reason to hate someone; not having had their ancestors murdered by Nazis isn’t.

(side point as always: if I were a massive Beatles fan, then I wouldn’t seek to deny that they made Sgt Pepper’s…)

The framework for European Arrest Warrants does include provision for extradition for racism and xenophobia related offences but, as yet, its not clear how a UK court will interpret those provisions and their extent where there is no parallel offence in UK law.

So, its not certain that Toben will be extradited to Germany but, one way or another, his arrest will mean that an important piece of case law will emerge out of this case.

As for Holocaust denial and free speech, so far as the EU goes the key precedent lies in a 2003 ECHR ruling on Belgium’s Holocaust denial law in which the court cited article 17 (abuse of rights) as justification for excluding an appeal based on article 10 (free speech)…

“denying or minimising the Holocaust must be seen as one of the acutest forms of racial slandering and incentives to hatred towards the Jews. The negation or the revision of historical facts of this type call into question the values which found the fight against racism and anti-semitism and is likely to seriously disturb law and order. Attacks against the rights of others of this kind are incompatible with democracy and human rights and their authors incontestably have aims that are prohibited by article 17 of the Convention.” The court concludes that in application of article 17 of the ECHR, the plaintiff can’t appeal to the protection of article 10 ECHR, insofar that he wants to use the freedom of expression to dispute crimes against humanity.

So where the guy’s opinions don’t account for certain indisputable facts he only makes himself look like a misguided fool. But in his ability to stir up any discussion about accepted facts he makes us look like fools.

It’s not worth getting offended about because to do so enables him to grow his platform and spread his message further.

Jast as it is an irony that a joke met with disapproval is funnier in its’ perversity than a joke met with silence it is an irony that such a message is being spread on the back of outraged reaction. This should warn us that we aren’t quite as intelligent or mature as we may like to think.

Such an irony correlates closely with the ironic truth that German law incorporates certain repressive Nazi traits designed to suppress Nazi ideology (which will therefore never completely allow Naziism to be expunged).

So the foolish holocaust deniers are, perversely, doing liberals a favour, albeit for opposite reasons and against their actual ideological intentions.

Douglas, does this apply only to individuals who defend the Nazis, or also to institutions, such as the EU and the Israeli government, who also practice holocaust denial – the holocaust in this case being the Armenian massacres committed by Turkey nearly 100 years ago?

OK. So, I’d assume that, like me, you’d have sent Pinochet to trial in Spain without a qualm? Would that be right?

Toben has continued to preach, on a world wide stage, his disgusting views. If he falls within Germany’s extended jurisdiction, then hell mend him. I’d assume that a jihadist, say, who had been publishing internet porn from an Arab state, who fell within Germany’s jurisdiction, would be subject to a similar extradition to the UK, if we felt it appropriate, requested it, whatever.

Your point about free speech is not, really, well taken. I appreciate the difficulty of regulation, but Holocaust denial does seem to me to be the cultural equivalent of shouting ‘Fire’ in a theatre. It is designed to cause havoc. It is done by the, frankly, creepy, in an attempt to create a riot. It is reasonable to ban it. Let the ECHR decide whether his rights have been curtailed. That, presumeably, is why we help fund it.

What’s the point of any international law, otherwise?

Also, Chris Huhne is an idiot. If he does mean it, then I’d argue that when there are so many good causes you could die for, choosing to die for the right of a Nazi to propogate racist views is a pretty poor choice. But I suppose if the religion of socialism is the language of priorities, classic liberalism is the language of really stupid priorities.

Of course, really it’s just hyperbole – which undermines the entire sentiment. If this Nazi does get deported, I’m willing to bet any sum of money that Chris Huhne will not die in an attempt to stop the deportation.

Plus as a completely separate argument free speech is too important to be meddled with, to paraphrase Larry Flint if the law protects scum like him, then it will protect you. If it does not protect him then it may well not protect you either.

I take it it’s not a one way street? Presumeably, if someone breaks UK law and runs away to, oh I don’t know, Spain or somewhere like that, then under this sort of legislation it is possible to extradite the person to stand charges in the UK? Whether they are a Spanish national or not? So, let us pretend it is not illegal to say racist things in Spain, but it is in the UK. Would it be wrong for the UK government to ask for an extradition of someone who had allegedly committed an offence? Given that they could probably appeal any conviction all the way back up to a European institution like the ECHR, if there was a suspicion that the law under which they were being prosecuted violated their human rights?

I appreciate that it isn’t for all, this idea of reciprocity, this idea of co-operation.

But, I’d have thought, correct me if I am wrong, that there is more to be said for EU co-operation on this issue than there is to be said against it.

It wasn’t that long ago we had the Costa del Crime, or whatever it was called….

Useful idiots are ione thing but useful drooling slack jawed inbreds are in bad taste .

I like national sovereignty, except of course when it is the free market. I love it when G.A.T and the World Trade Organisation tell me what to do. I particularly like it when multi national corporations play one country off against each other to destroy the most basic of national laws.

For my summer holidays I like to go to concentration camps where I walk round doing Nazi salutes. This I find very funny, and it gives me a great sense of freedom.

I am so glad that we will be able to rely on the Government to not enforce its own laws.

“I may not agree with what you say, but I probably will not openly support the German government claiming the right to jail people visiting Britain for saying it in Australia.

But I object to people saying the EU makes such things easier, althought they are right.”

And let’s suppose there’s a candidate – presumably an independent – at the next Mayoral election who runs on a secessionist ticket, calling for London to be an independent city-state, like Singapore. They’d pretty much have to be signed up for the whole of Sarah Palin’s agenda not to attract some – quite possibly substantial – support on here.