German embassy's arrogant reply |  Günter Deckert A number of our friends has independently written to the German embassy demanding an explanation of the continued imprisonment of people for their beliefs. The reply appears to be standard, i.e. delivered without thought: -- | ||||||
Dear Mr. Gannon, Günter Deckert I have now received a reply from the competent authorities in Germany, and would like to answer you accordingly. Günter Deckert has been detained in Bruchsal Detention Centre since late 1995. Since 31 October 1997 he has been serving a prison sentence of two years and three months following a conviction for incitement to racial hatred and other offences which was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court of Mannheim on 11 April 1997. This is a final and absolute decision by an independent court which must be respected by everyone in a democratic and law-governed country. It is a historical fact that during the National Socialist tyranny European Jews in particular were systematically murdered and persecuted, including in the gas chambers of the extermination camps. Any attempts to falsify this historical truth must be resisted with complete determination. Any person who denies the historicity, expresses approval, or plays down the importance of the Holocaust is liable to prosecution for, among other offences, incitement to racial hatred; decisions on such cases are the sole responsibility of independent courts. Under § 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code, any person who publicly denies the historicity, expresses approval or plays down the importance of the racial murder committed under the National Socialist regime in a manner calculated to disturb the public peace is liable to a prison sentence of up to five years or a fine. Under § 130 (4) in conjunction with (2) of the Criminal Code, any person distributing or rendering accessible written material whose contents correspond to the (definitions in § 130 (3) of the Criminal Code under the conditions therein set out, or undertaking preparations to these ends, is liable to a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine. These provisions do not conflict with the constitutional right to freedom of expression under Article 5 of the Basic Law. Under Article 5(2) of the Basic Law, the right to freedom of speech is subject to restrictions arising out of statute in general and statutory provisions for the protection of young people and personal honour in particular. There are further restrictions arising out of other constitutional rights insofar as these conflict with the right to freedom of expression. Relevant constitutional rights for this purpose include, under Article i (I) of the Basic Law, the protection of human dignity and honour, enforcement of which is a duty of the State. The persecuted and murdered Jews are also entitled to such protection, and this is the purpose of §130 of the Criminal Code. The denial of the persecution of the Jews also represents a claim about history which, in the light of countless eyewitness reports and documents, the conclusions of numerous courts and the accepted findings of historical research, is demonstrably untrue. Such a claim therefore does not -- including in the view of Germany's supreme court, the Federal Constitutional Court -- enjoy the right to freedom of expression. § 130 of the Criminal Code does not (as also arises indirectly from § 86 of the Criminal Code) obstruct an objective discussion about historical events. Writing which serves the purpose of instruction, research or teaching, etc. does not constitute incitement to racial hatred, provided it remains within the constitutional boundaries of the Federal Republic of Germany. This is not the case, however, in the case of writing which under the cloak of scientific objectivity is intended solely to provide propaganda material for banned parties or their ideas. Extreme right-wing groups or their sympathisers in particular often try, under the guise of objective and comprehensive historical analysis and reporting, to approve, deny, play down or even justify the most terrible acts of violence and tyranny committed under the National Socialist regime. Yours sincerely, Rainer Dobbelstein (Head of the Legal and Consular Department) | |||||||
[...] Dear Mr. Dobbelstein, Thank you for your kind letter dated November 20, 1998 which awaited me on my return from overseas, concerning Mr Günter Deckert, a political prisoner detained at Bruchsal since late 1995. I must state at once that I am most disappointed by the reply from the competent authority in Germany. None of the points I made to HE Gebhard von Moltke in my letter dated June 25, 1998 have been treated of -- or, contested; that being so, I can only assume that these have been accepted as valid. Notwithstanding, the recital of the various articles of the German Criminal Code, I reiterate that these in themselves are a negation of the various Human Rights Conventions to which Germany is a signatory. They are in denial of free speech and the principles of natural justice, and would be so considered in any British or American court of justice. The allegations made in the matter of the "Holocaust" are not established as a fact by the act of so proclaiming; serious historians tu America, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland contest the truth of these claims -- and they cannot all be wrong. Why not submit this matter to the test which I suggested -- an open and public debate in which BOTH sides may be heard. As to the issue of Mr. Max Mannheimer of Saar, who is judged to be insulted by Günter Deckert -- the statement made by the accused would not be taken seriously in any British or American court as being grounds for imprisonment. On the contrary, by the process of cross-examination, such claims would be far more severely tested and rejected. In sum, I find it bizarre that a German government seems to be determined to blacken the reputation of the German nation and people, and in the process ignore any arguments to the contrary. I request you to forward this letter to the competent authorities in Germany, whereupon they feel obliged to respond to the points made in this, and my previous letter. Yours sincerely, John A. Gannon | |||||||
 Website supporter Tom Callow staged a one-man poster protest outside the German embassy in London (picture).
The German embassy wrote to Mr Callow in these terms:- | |||||||
Dear Mr. Callow, Günter Deckert Your letter of 21 August 1998 Thank you for your letter dated 21st August 1998. I am sorry that my reply took so long, but I had to wait for instructions from authorities in Germany. As I now have received a reply from Bonn, I would like to reply to you accordingly. Günter Deckert has been detained in Bruchsal Detention Centre since late 1995. Since 31 October 1997 he has been serving a prison sentence of two years and three months following a conviction for incitement to racial hatred and other offences which was upheld on appeal by the Regional Court of Mannheim on 11 April 1997. This is a final and absolute decision by an independent court which must be respected by everyone in a democratic and law-governed country. It is a historical fact that during the National Socialist tyranny European Jews in particular were systematically murdered and persecuted, including in the gas chambers of the extermination camps. Any attempts to falsify this historical truth must be resisted with complete determination. Any person who denies the historicity, expresses approval, or plays down the importance of the Holocaust is liable to prosecution for, among other offences, incitement to racial hatred; decisions on such cases are the sole responsibility of independent courts. Under § 130 (3) of the German Criminal Code, any person who publicly denies the historicity, expresses approval or plays down the importance of the racial murder committed under the National Socialist regime in a manner calculated to disturb the public peace is liable to a prison sentence of up to five years or a fine. Under § 130 (4) in conjunction with (2) of the Criminal Code, any person distributing or rendering accessible written material whose contents correspond to the definitions in § 130 (3) of the Criminal Code under the conditions therein set out, or undertaking preparations to these ends, is liable to a prison sentence of up to three years or a fine. These provisions do not conflict with the constitutional right to freedom of expression under Article 5 of the Basic Law. Under Article 5 (2) of the Basic Law, the right to freedom of speech is subject to restrictions arising out of statute in general and statutory provisions for the protection of young people and personal honour in particular. There are further restrictions arising out of, other constitutional rights insofar as these conflict with the right to freedom of expression. Relevant constitutional rights for this purpose include, under Article 1 (1) of the Basic Law, the protection of human dignity and honour, enforcement of which is a duty of the State. The persecuted and murdered Jews are also entitled to such protection, and this is the purpose of § 130 of the Criminal Code. The denial of the persecution of the Jews also represents a claim about history which, in the light of countless eyewitness reports and documents, the conclusions of numerous courts and the accepted findings of historical research, is demonstrably untrue. Such a claim therefore does not including in the view of Germany's supreme court, the Federal Constitutional Court, enjoy the right to freedom of expression. § 130 of the Criminal Code does not (as also arises indirectly from § 86 of the Criminal Code) obstruct an objective discussion about historical events. Writing which serves the purpose of instruction, research or teaching, etc. does not constitute incitement to racial hatred, provided it remains within the constitutional boundaries of the Federal Republic of Germany. This is not the case, however, in the case of writing which under the cloak of scientific objectivity is intended solely to provide propaganda material for banned parties or their ideas. Extreme right-wing groups or their sympathisers in particular often try, under the guise of objective and comprehensive historical analysis and reporting, to approve, deny, play down or even justify the most terrible acts of violence and tyranny committed under the National Socialist regime. So far as Article 10 of the European Human Rights Convention is concerned, which you mention, I would like to ask you to take into account not only subsection 1, but also subsection 2 where the limits are described to which freedom of expression is subject to. Yours sincerely, Rainer Dobbelstein (Head of the Legal and Consular Department) | |||||||
Botschaft
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
 write
to David Irving |
