|
Holocaust denial, the denial of the systematic genocidal killing of millions of ethnic minorities in Europe (including Jews) by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, is illegal in 14 European nations. Many countries also have broader laws that criminalize genocide denial. Of the countries that ban Holocaust denial, some, such as Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Romania, were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and many of these also ban other elements associated with Nazism, such as the expression of Nazi symbols. In several nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States, laws against Holocaust denial have come up in legal discussion and have been proposed, but the measures have been rejected. Organizations representing groups that have been victimized during the Holocaust have generally been split about such laws. == Overview and commentary == Scholars have pointed out that countries that specifically ban Holocaust denial generally have legal systems that limit speech in other ways, such as banning hate speech. According to D. D. Guttenplan, this is a split between the "''common law countries'' of the United States, Ireland and many British Commonwealth countries from the ''civil law countries'' of continental Europe and Scotland. In civil law countries the law is generally more proscriptive. Also, under the civil law regime, the judge acts more as an inquisitor, gathering and presenting evidence as well as interpreting it".〔D D Guttenplan, (Should Freedom of Speech Stop at Holocaust Denial? ), ''Index of Free Expression, 2005''.〕 Michael Whine argues that Holocaust denial can inspire violence against Jews; he states, "Jews' experience in the post-World War II era suggests that their rights are best protected in open and tolerant democracies that actively prosecute all forms of racial and religious hatred." János Kis〔János Kis: Szólássabadság és náci beszéd, Népszabadság, March 30, 1996.〕 and in particular András Schiffer〔(Fogadatlan prókátorok - A gárdaítélet félreértelmezéseiről ), Magyar Narancs, July 23, 2009〕 feel the work of Holocaust deniers should be protected by a universal right to free speech. An identical argument was used〔(decision 30/1992 (V. 26) )〕 by the Hungarian Constitutional Court (Alkotmánybíróság) led by László Sólyom when it struck down a law against Holocaust denial in 1992. The argument that laws punishing Holocaust denial are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been rejected by institutions of the Council of Europe (the European Commission of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights) and also by the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Historians who oppose such laws include Raul Hilberg, Richard J. Evans, and Pierre Vidal-Naquet. Other prominent opponents of the laws are Timothy Garton Ash, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Singer, and Noam Chomsky. An uproar resulted when Serge Thion used one of Chomsky's essays without explicit permission as a foreword to a book of Holocaust denial essays (see Faurisson affair). These laws have also been criticized on the grounds that education is more effective than legislation at combating Holocaust denial and that the laws will make martyrs out of those imprisoned for their violation. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Laws against Holocaust denial」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|