GENOCIDE DENIALS AND THE LAEPDF电子书下载

PART ONE From Genocide to Denial 1

1. Law's Holocaust Denial:State,Memory,Legality&David Fraser 3

1. Introduction:Law's Holocaust/Law's Amnesia 3

2. Blind in the Left Eye:Weimar,Law's Republic and Denial 11

3. Holocaust and Legal History 19

4. Memory Laws and Law's Memory 22

5. Memory/Law-Memory Laws 27

5.1 The loi Gayssot 29

5.2 Lois Memorielles 30

5.3 The Armenian (Genocide) in French Law 39

6. Conclusion 47

2. From Trying the Perpetrator to Trying the Denier and Back Again:Some Reflections&Lawrence Douglas 49

1. The Logic of the Law:Denier as Perpetrator 49

2. The Risks of Trial:Perpetrator as Denier 60

3. Trying the Perpetrator to Answer the Denier 65

PART TWO Balancing Denial Prohibition 75

3. Holocaust Denial and Hate Speech&Robert A.Kahn 77

1. The Problem of "Bare" Denial 77

2. A "Minor Province of Censorship?" 79

3. Judging Hate by Its Content 82

4. Is Bare Denial Hateful? 84

5. The Limits of Traditional Hate Speech Laws 86

6. The Perils of Blanket Denial Laws 90

7. Bringing "Hate" Back In 94

7.1 Past Hate as a Rationale for Genocide Denial Laws 95

7.2 Past Hate as a Justification for anti-Denial Laws in European Jurisprudence 96

7.3 Past Hate as a Yardstick for Future Genocide Denial Laws 100

8. Holocaust Denial Laws and Blasphemy 103

9. Conclusion 106

4. Defending Truth:Holocaust Denial in the Twenty-First Century&Kenneth Lasson 109

1. Holocaust Denial 112

1.1 The Nature of Denial 113

1.2 Denial in the Twenty-First Century 113

1.3 Denial in the Middle East 116

1.4 Confronting Denial 122

1.5 The Academic Voice 123

1.6 Books 124

1.7 Holocaust Denial and Political Correctness 125

2. Historical Aspects of Free Expression:Framers and Revisionists 128

2.1 Principles of Liberty 129

2.2 The Right of Access 133

2.3 Arguments in Deference to Freedom of Expression 136

2.4 Arguments in Favor of Regulating Hate Speech 140

2.5 The Experience Elsewhere 144

1. Canada 144

2. England 146

3. France 146

4. Sweden 147

5. United States 147

3. The Quest for Truth in a Free Society 148

3.1 Ignorance and Education 148

3.2 Liberty and Responsibility 151

3.3 Toward a More Responsible Press 152

4. Summary and Conclusion 153

5. The Criminal Protection of Memory:Some Observations About the Offence of Holocaust Denial&Emanuela Fronza 155

1. Law as Protection Against Oblivion:Punishing Holocaust Denial as Part of a General Trend 155

1.1 Les "Lois Memorielles" and the Crime of Denial 156

2. Denial as an Offence 160

3. Deniers on Trial 167

3.1 History as Res Judicata:the Holocaust as a "Historically Established Fact" and Garaudy v.France 168

3.2 History on Trial:"the Correct Method" and the Theil Case 170

3.3 Claims About Facts and Claims About Values:the Spanish Tribunal Constitucional's Judgement of Partial Unconstitutionality 172

4. The Judge as Historian? 175

5. Denial as an Attack on the Founding Ethical Pact and the Need for a Long Road of Memory 178

PART THREE Ruling Denial Prohibition 183

6. The Law of Holocaust Denial in Europe:Toward a (qualified) EU-wide Criminal Prohibition&Laurent Pech 185

1.The Situation Before 9/11:United in Diversity 187

1.1 The Principle:The Lack of Criminal Provisions Prohibiting the Denial of the Holocaust 188

1.2 The Exception:The Express Criminalization of Holocaust Denial in "Militant Democracies" 190

1. Punishing the "Auschwitz Lie" in Countries Haunted by Their Dark Past:The Example of Germany 190

2. Punishing Holocaust Denial in a Context of Extreme-Right Resurgence:The Example of France 198

3. Decriminalizing the Denial of the Holocaust in a "Non-Militant" Democracy:The "Surprising" Judgment of the Spanish Constitutional Court 206

2. Holocaust Denial Laws Before the European Court of Human Rights:From a Low Standard of Scrutiny to the Absence of any Scrutiny 210

2.1 The Principle:The Freedom to Express Offensive,Shocking,or Disturbing Information or Ideas 210

2.2 The Holocaust Denial Exception:No Freedom to Deny "Clearly Established Historical Facts" 213

1. The Initial Approach:A Minimalist Degree of Scrutiny Under Article 10 ECHR Interpreted in Light of Article 17 ECHR 213

2. A More Radical Approach:Holocaust Denial as an Abuse of Right 217

3. The Triumph of the Militant Democracies' Camp:The 2008 EU Framework Decision on Combating Certain Forms and Expressions of Racism and Xenophobia by Means of Criminal Law 223

3.1 The Lack of a Universal Consensus 223

3.2 A Long Time in the Coming:The 2008 EU FD on racism 226

7. Denial of the Holocaust,Genocide,and Crimes Against Humanity:A Comparative Overview of Ad Hoc Statutes&Martin Imbleau 235

1. Introduction 235

2. Deniers' Intent and Tactics 237

3. Scope of Ad Hoc Statutes 241

3.1 Historical Events Targeted 241

3.2 From Complete Denial to Moral Equivalence--The Spectrum of Ad Hoc Statutes 244

3.3 The Event and the Rules of Evidence 246

3.4 Formal Legislative Establishment and References to International Tribunal Decision 249

4. An Overview of Ad Hoc Statutes and Other Approaches 255

4.1 Ad hoc Statutes in Europe 255

1. Germany 255

2. France 257

3. United Kingdom 259

4. Austria 260

5. Switzerland 261

6. Belgium 261

7. Spain 261

8. Other European Countries 262

4.2 North America 263

1. Canada 264

2. United States 265

4.3 Israel 267

5. Standardization of Ad Hoc Approaches in Europe 267

6. Requirements to Prosecute Denial as a Form of Hate Speech:Are Ad Hoc Statutes Justified Infringements of the Freedom of Speech? 269

7. Future Developments:The Cases of Japan,Rwanda,and Former Yugoslavia 273

8. Conclusion 275

8. The Denier's Intent&Thomas Hochmann 279

1. A few "psychological" considerations 281

1.1 Bare Denial as a Hidden Racist Attack 281

1.2 Denial as a Way to Fame 282

1.3 "Bona fide" Denial as Fanaticism:The Wishful Thinking of a Racist 283

1.4 The Repercussions of State Denial 287

2. Psychology of Denial Without a Specific Statute 289

2.1 Assessment of the Methodology 289

2.2 Other Techniques:Inferring Bad Faith 293

1. Common Knowledge 293

2. The Denier's Racism 294

3. Explicit Prohibition of Denial and the Denier's Intent 298

3.1 Legislative Discretion 303

3.2 Intent and Consequences 305

1. Some Distinctions 305

2. Looking for a Normative Support for the Dogma of Intent 307

3. "Substantial" speech regulations 308

4. "Consequential" speech regulations 311

5. Result:Irrelevance of the speaker's intent 312

6. The Possibility of Making an Extra Requirement 313

4. Conclusion 317

Index 321