neddy65

My best friend's father is a holocaust denier. His politics suck, in my opinion but here is the rub, even though he has never been convicted of a crime in Canada, the govt took away his citizenship and tried to send him back to Germany.
A little history, he has resided in Canada for almost 40 years and once ran for the leadership of the liberal party in Ont. He has been brought up on hate crime charges several times and has won every case. 3 or 4 years ago the govt revoked his citizenship and made plans to send him to Germany where he has been convicted of hate crimes in absentia. My friend's father went to Kentucky instead and lived quietly until late in 2003 when the INS decided he had overstayed his welcome and shipped him to Canada to face extradition.
Canada cannot send him to Germany because the crime he has been convicted of there does not exist here. He is being held in jail here while he applies for refugee status. He is being held under the National Security blanket law not because he is a threat to national security but because he may influence people who could be a threat to national security.
I dislike what he stands for and all who follow him but this is a classic example of govt run amoke. How can we hold someone in jail when he has never been convicted of any crime.
Your thoughts please.

__________________
If you're travelling at the speed of light, and you turn the headlights on, do they do anything?

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die!

Drink Dickens' Hard Cider because nothing makes a girl smile like a Hard DIckens' Cider!

Kadath

He HAS been convicted of a crime, of hate crimes in Germany, yes? And you say he has been brought up on charges of hate crimes in Canada, but then you say he can't be extradited to Germany because the crime he committed in Germany does not exist in Canada. What was his crime?

__________________
it's quiet in here

filtherton

Did he, by any chance, recently produce a movie about christ?

neddy65

the hate crime he was convicted of in Germany is not a crime here. In Germany it is a crime to deny the Holocaust and that is the crime he was convicted of. He has several times been charged with hate crimes but has always won his cases.
He has never been convicted of any crime in Canada.

__________________
If you're travelling at the speed of light, and you turn the headlights on, do they do anything?

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die!

Drink Dickens' Hard Cider because nothing makes a girl smile like a Hard DIckens' Cider!

Kadath

What crimes was he charged with in Canada?

__________________
it's quiet in here

OFKU0

Was Christ a Holocaust denier too?

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

kutulu

It really shows the importance of freedom of speech. I think its fucked up to deny that the holocaust ever happened but if someone wants to believe it and spread that message, they should be allowed to.

Pacifier

We don't want him

serious:
why was he convicted here? what did he do here in germany?

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

hannukah harry

hey, listen up...

canada probably has an extridition treaty with germany. what this means is, that if germany knows he's in canada and wants him sent back, or if canada knows he's in canada and doesn't want him anymore, then they can lock him up while awaiting extridition. his status is probably the equivelent of someone who's skipped bail.

it doesn't matter if canada considers it a crime, if he's been convicted in another country where there is an extridition treaty, then he's shit out of luck. canada can give him refugee status, but it sounds like they've got no reason to.

question: did he deny it while in germany or did they convict him in absentia saying that as a german citizen his denying it happening out of the country was still illegal?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

irseg

So basically you have an overbearing government declaring it a crime to deny the abuses of an overbearing government.

That's one of the best examples of irony I've ever seen.

Strange Famous

Canada, under intenational law, should ship him to Germany to face the imprisonment he deserves. If a man rapes a woman and then hides in some extreme Taleban-esque country where they dont think it's a crime to rape someone, would you be complaining about it if your government tried to extradite him?

He is a criminal, he has been found guilty by a democratic and just nation, and he belongs in jail, throw away the key... I dont really care that he might treat his family nice and he doesnt hate anyone apart from Jews.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

irseg

Unlike rape, having thoughts doesn't hurt anybody. Yes they are wrong and misguided, but he's entitled to his beliefs. Socialist/communist regimes have killed more people than the Nazis, yet it's not illegal to be have socialist views. Why the double standard? If you want to prosecute people for sympathizing with groups that committed murder, be consistent about it.

Strange Famous

1, there is only so many times I can say "Stalinism is not communism" before I have to think people just deliberately make this up rather than say it through lack of understanding.

2, Denying the holocaust is a crime in Germany because Germans committed the holocaust - hateful thinking and rabid anti semitism indeed have hurt and killed many people in the past - the point of this law is that they should not be allowed to do so again. It was and is very important for Germans to understand and be educated about this part of their history.

3, It is proposterous arrogance for Canada to judge its only legal system more valid than Germany's. We are not talking about sending someone back to a dictatorship tro face torture and trumped up charges, we are talking about charges made by a democratic and legal country... you do not have the right to withold criminals from other countries because you do not agree with their laws... of course, you understand this when America's laws are broken, but when it's someone else, when the victim is someone else who is not like you, perhaps it all seems rather different? I dont know - i cant speak for you, but thats how you make it sound.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

smooth

This is the first time I've ideologically differed from you Strange Famous, so please consider my point.

I don't agree that one nation should always follow the laws of another nation. For example, we still use the death penalty over here in the states. AFAIK, we are the only Western nation that still does. When we convict people of capital cases, the EU refuses to extradite the criminal. I believe this just recently happened to an accused terrorist--a nation is/was refusing to send him over for trial.

I support their position and think it's a moral course of action. I think the tough pill to swallow is that I have to support our position to not extradite someone back to Germany to be punished for an action we protect (and value)--freedom of speech.

kutulu

He's been convicted of speaking out on something he thought was right. I don't agree with him, but it's bullshit that he can't express his views. Canada should set him free.

Denying the holocaust won't make it happen again. What's truly preposterous is the fact that Germany has laws restricting speech. The charges are bullshit, the law is bullshit.

Strange Famous

Let's hope that if Germany refused to release a member of Al Qeida to American "care", no one who expressed one view regarding this criminal will suddenly change their mind and start saying "oh, this guy is a terrorist, he must be deported to face US justice..."

being part of the international community means respecting the laws of other nations - either you wish to belong inside the community of nations, or you wish to exist outside of it.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

timalkin

If freedom of speech doesn't exist, I'll stay outside, thank you very much.

Chalk this up to one more reason I'm glad to be an American.

Strange Famous

Freedom of speech is a uniquely American fetish, trust me.

And as we talked about before, it is a matter of degree, freedom of speech in America isnt total either - ie a man could be prosecuted for yelling "fire" in a movie theatre intentionally to cause people to be hurt.

So no one is free to say whatever they want whatsoever, there is a recognition that speech can be a weapon - it comes down to whether you wish to allow someone to attempt to incite violence and murder, or whether you dont.

The denial of a crime of the degree of Endsolung is hideous, grotesque, I have no sympathy for any person who does this, I dont wish to see them protected in anyway, or harbored from the justice they deserve.

Free speech is intended to mean the free expression of ideas, but these are not ideas, they are lies, they are grotesque, hateful, evil, offensive, harmful and disgusting. In the same way as slander is not allowed, ie - Kerry cant go on TV and say he knows George Bush is a rapist - so should this not be.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Stare At The Sun

^ Oh, so as long as the idea's are something you agree with, then you're just fine with it.

Perhaps you should take a look at your history books. Free speech needs to be protected, in america, and the rest of the world. In the time of Mcarthy, you would have been arrested SF had you been living in the United States.

Oh so true.

It is my opinion that this man is being held for no reason, and has not commited any crime. Limiting freedom of speech, is the first step towards no freedom of speech at all.

Strange Famous

He has committed a crime which the state of Germany defines as a crime, he has committed this crime in Germany, where he is subject to German law.

If you dont think it is a crime, fine, make that point - there's free speech, but it doesnt matter, it has no relevance to the argument about deporting him. The only reason to not deport him is if there is good reasn to believe he will face torture or death in Germany, there is no good reason to believe this.

You are free to disagree with German law as much as you like while this guy sits in jail and serves his sentence.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Mephisto2

So very very well said.

Mr Mephisto

Pacifier

nope, I also think it is a very importand right.

But that denying the Holocaust is a crime here is somthing i think is ok. We commited the crime and the fact that some people here that denying that, mostly because they still want to think that Hitler was a good man, makes me really mad.

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein

Yakk

Canada doesn't extradite people who break laws that Canada doesn't recognize. Hell, I think Canada has in the past refused to extradite someone to a death penalty nation, unless guarantees where made that the death penalty wouldn't be used.

However, it looks like Canada decided that he isn't a Canadian citizen. Probably because he lied on his citizenship application.

So, Canada are supposed to deport him, to the nation which he is a Citizen of, namely Germany. This isn't extraditing him, it is quite different.

Given the fact he is likely to flee rather than return to Germany, he was detained to prevent flight (together with the security problem). Canada doesn't want illegal immigrants who lie about their past wandering around.

At which point, Canada is sending someone to a country where he will be prosecuted for a crime that is not a crime in Canada. Hence the refugee arguement, which may or may not fly.

Inciting hatred against an ethnic group is illegal in Canada. This was probably what he was charged with.

Canada doesn't have an inalienable freedom of speach. In fact, the one completely inalienable Canadian right is the right to vote: most other rights can be taken away in extremis, and others simply by using particular language.

One may note that the ability for the establishment to disenfranchise their opponents was instrumental in Bush becoming president. (error-filled "this person cannot vote" lists where used in Flordia, resulting in a non-trivial number of people who should have been able to vote, even under American law, being refused their rights.)

The war on drugs, together with other crimes, has resulted in a non-trivial percentage of the black underclass of the southern states being unable to vote.
(from http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/conte.../08marable.htm -- I've seen similar numbers elsewhere. Possibly these numbers are wrong, I haven't verified them)

( http://www.drugpolicy.org/statebysta...lerd/index.cfm )
So, high and mighty "America is the land of the free", it is only free if you aren't being targetted by the latest wave of the American Prohibition-fetish.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

smooth

You might as well just name us

Edit:

My bad, about 77 countries still retain and use the death penalty. I still stand by my statement that I believe we are the only Western nation to do so, however.

I confused the fact that we still execute juveniles against international law (the Democratic Republic of Congo just stopped and, IIRC, only Iran and the US continue; Amnesty International lists 7 nations, but that tabulation is from 1990) with standard adult executions. I find it interesting that, according to AI, China, our cozy trading partner and up-and-coming superpower, leads the world in executions.

hannukah harry

could you possibly show us either an example or where in the law it states that? 'cause that doens't make much sense. it would probably violate their treaty. even withholding extradition because they're against the death penatly would probably be against it, but at there's a moral ground to stand on.

/help a brotha out...

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

timalkin

You do realize that everything Hitler did to the Jews was legal under German law, right?

hannukah harry

you realize in order for it to be legal, hitler had his brown shirts bully voters to get to power, then changed the laws to make it legal? not quite what i would call legitamate.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

splck

Here's an example of a case where Canada wouldn't extradite a couple of guys unless the US assured they wouldn't be put to death.

__________________
nice line eh?

hannukah harry

^^^ how about something about them not doing it for something they don't have as a crime (i actually agree with not doing it for the death penalty, sometimes) which actually seems to be the main argument.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

smooth

If you can justify refusing to send someone back to one's nation-state for murder, then it shouldn't be too problematic to understand the basis for not sending one back for behaviors that aren't even considered criminal.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

hannukah harry

i'm going to assume you mean me with that. i can't justify not sending someone back for murder. i can justify not sending someone back if they are going to face the death penalty, if they country holding the is against it. i can justify not sending someone to possible death. that's about it.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

Strange Famous

That is not a true statement.

At all times, murder was forbidden by German law.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

stevie667

what some people don't seem to be getting here is that an extradition treaty is based upon the fact that if you do something illegial in one country, and you go somewhere else, you can be sent back to stand trial for your crime.
this is designed to stop criminals shoving off somewhere else and not being punished.



now, just because a law doesn't exist in your country, doesn't mean that it isn't legitimate. Germany has passed a law saying that you can't deny the holocaust in an attempt to stop various nasty things happening (i won't go into political and legal wranglings).
now, this law is perfectly justifiable in germany, but naturally, canada doesn't have this law because it's never been needed. Why would canada have the right to stop deportation of someone who (for sake of argument) had broken this law?
the sentance isn't extreme, and isn't going to involve anything particually bad beyond the standard fine/minimal jail term. if he was going to be executed, then there would be a case, but simply, canada really doesn't have a good reason not to honour their treaty.
now, they don't want this guy to be buggering off, so they put him in a prison until the time that he can be deported (then you get the beaurocracy and crap, which is generally where the whole thing falls down).

everything is legal, unfortunatly, it's just not undertaken with the greatest of sense or intelligence.

smooth

I'm not claiming that laws in one country aren't legitimate if they don't exist in another country, but I might not have made my point clearly.

If you believe in your mind that killing someone is wrong and, subsequently, the death penalty is a punishment that is too extreme or morally wrong, then

a $1 dollar fine for exercising political speech (an inalieable, deity given right) is too extreme a punishment.

I think it's the logical conclusion of the argument that a punishment's extremity is the basis for it's legitimacy.

Especially in this context since people can (and have) argue that freedom of speech is more sacrosanct than life.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

hannukah harry

uh, someone already pointed out that canada doesn't quite view freedom of speech the otherway around. and no, the punishment doesn't determine the legitimacy. it is legitimate if the people of a nation give it legitamacy, and give a punishment they feel suitable for it. what we think doesn't matter. and unless it's to keep some from being executed or mistreated, you're on shaky ethical ground to ignore a treaty you approved and signed. (not you, smooth, you in the general sense).

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

smooth

My point is that in Kentucky (where the offender was residing before being sent to Canada), punishment in any way, monetarily or corporal, is mistreatment when the offense is exercising one's political voice.

I don't understand how you are drawing a distinction when the offense is murder, which is a more severe offense in all nations, even Germany, than hate speech.

I won't keep hammering this point. I just wanted to make clear my stance on the logical inconsistency between arguing to harbor a murderer because the penalty is too severe (as was the case when Canada refused to send a murderer to the states to face death; similar when Germany refused to send a terrorist suspect to the states to face trial until we promised not to seek death) and arguing that we don't have a similar moral right or obligation to harbor someone when we think the punishment is too severe (as is the case when someone makes political speech, which to our culture, can not be punished or curtailed in any way, shape, or form).

hannukah harry

again your missing the point that you are subject to the laws of the land you are in. you get arrested for smoking pot in the states, but go to amsterdam and you get a coffee to drink while smoking it. you honor your treaty to the country the person offended. we may think of freedom of speech being inalienable, but they don't, and he is a fugitive from their law, whether you agree with it or not and based on said treaty, we are duty bound to return him there if we can.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

smooth

I'm not missing any point.*

If we are duty bound to return someone for punishment, then they are duty bound to return someone to us, even if we are going to put him or her to death.

*earlier in the thread, instead of insulting another member of the forum by suggesting a lack of comprehension, I stated that I might not have explained myself clearly enough and laid my position out more explicitly.

hannukah harry

i'm sorry you feel my stating that i think you're missing the point is an insult. it's not. it's an opinion. (edit... i just looked at that post, and i probably could have worded it a bit less antagonistically. sorry).

and as an analogy to reply to your duty bound paragraph, if someone lies to you, that doesn't make it right to lie to them. so if someone else doesn't live up to their end of the bargin (even if it's because they feel the other persons life is at stake), that doesn't make it right for us to not live up to our end.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

smooth

harry, np.

however, you claimed you supported instances when country's didn't hold up to their end of the bargain in regards to capital punishment based on moral reservations.

so I don't understand how you can support their refusal to abide by an agreement while simultaneously saying we are duty bound to abide by an agreement in spite of our moral reservations?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman