Nobody is safe from the long arm of EU law

Among the ways in which freedom is being chipped away in Europe, one of the less obvious is the legislation of memory. More and more countries have laws saying you must remember and describe this or that historical event in a certain way, sometimes on pain of criminal prosecution if you give the wrong answer. What the wrong answer is depends on where you are. In Switzerland, you get prosecuted for saying that the terrible thing that happened to the Armenians in the last years of the Ottoman empire was not a genocide. In Turkey, you get prosecuted for saying it was. What is state-ordained truth in the Alps is state-ordained falsehood in Anatolia.

Who will decide what historical events count as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and what constitutes "grossly trivialising" them?

celinskiThreads: 83 Posts: 2,800 Joined: Nov 14, 07	Oct 6, 08, 06:09 / #
Where is the EU heading? "Here is something the Government told us would never happen. When Britain signed up to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) six years ago, critics pointed out that an individual could be extradited to another EU state to face prosecution for something that is not a crime in Britain and had not even been committed in the requesting country. Ministers dismissed such concerns as fanciful, but it has come to pass." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/06/ do0604.xml

MarekThreads: 4 Posts: 1,120 Joined: Feb 15, 07	Edited by: Marek Oct 6, 08, 09:08 / #
Didn't have a chance yet to peruse the above-listed website, but, if I'm not mistaken, the issue sounds similar to the US, whereby not each one of the fifty states has identical laws governing crimes such as rape, manslaughter, murder, armed robbery etc... If someone commits a crime, say, in the state of New Jersey, said culprit might escape across state lines into Pennsylvania, for instance, where that particular crime is legal. As far as felonies (serious/capital offenses) and misdemeanors (less serious infractions), that is fairly uniform, throught the land. Gambling's another good example. In Europe too, certain EU nations such as Germany also have state laws ('Laenderrechte') vs. federal laws ('Bundesrechte'), while, as here in my country, there is one overarching Constitution ('Grundgesetz') which oversees each one of the fifteen or so states of the Federal Republic. There too, not all of those Laender rule the same on absolutely everything, even education standards may vary regarding highschool requirements in various subjects such as English or foreign languages. The latter is also very much like America. I'm not as familiar with Poland or the rest of Europe in this respect-:)

joepilsudskiThreads: 44 Posts: 2,529 Joined: Apr 27, 07	Edited by: joepilsudski Oct 6, 08, 16:19 / #
The EU 'constitution' is 1000 plus pages, and almost no one, including the EU 'parliamentarians' who pased it, have read it or understand it...From what I have read of it, it gives draconian powers to the EU that overule any nation's sovereignty...Whether all of it is put into play is a good questions...I read a British writer who stated that over a billion pounds of UK taxpayers money was spent last year setting up EU police/enforcement offices in the UK....You must understand that the founding 'fathers' of the EU thought ttha Communism was a good and neccesary step on the road to European unity.

plk123Threads: 30 Posts: 6,412 Joined: Aug 29, 07	Oct 6, 08, 19:28 / #
Marek: Didn't have a chance yet to peruse the above-listed website, but, if I'm not mistaken, the issue sounds similar to the US, whereby not each one of the fifty states has identical laws governing crimes such as rape, manslaughter, murder, armed robbery etc... If someone commits a crime, say, in the state of New Jersey, said culprit might escape across state lines into Pennsylvania, for instance, where that particular crime is legal. none of the crimes you mentioned are legal in any state. since there there was state line crossing, one could end up in fed court which is tougher then the states. also, what you said doesn't really hold water as the criminal would be transferred back to the jurisdiction of where the crime was committed and one would would be tried there and not where they escaped to.

MarekThreads: 4 Posts: 1,120 Joined: Feb 15, 07	Oct 7, 08, 07:26 / #
".....what you said really doesn't hold water......" Round about fifteen years back, a fella named List was arrested in Arizona, some twenty or more years after committing a most heinous quadruple homicide in New Jersey; he killed one fine Sunday morn his wife, their two kids, his mother and then piped in Bach organ music throughout the large rambling Jersey house, giving the crime scene a most lugubrious effect when the police finally came to investigate. Fast forward approx. twenty, twenty-five years hence. An elderly chap, sixty or so, is living comfortably, yet modestly, i.e. super low profile, out West. He's long re-married and has no other children. Am old photo from the TV show 'America's Most Wanted' flashes across millions of screens nation wide and suddenly the local Arizona precinct is barraged with phone calls. "Yes, we know this man! In fact, he's my neighbor. Lovely guy!"-:) After years of searching, the Feds finally catch up with this guy, but are stymied into proscuting despite mountains of newly found evidence, merely because he's now an established Arizona resident and would have to be extradited to New Jersey where the crime was committed. If List had remained any longer on the lam, his statute of limitations would have run out and even if he were found guilty twice, he couldn't be prosecuted!!

celinskiThreads: 83 Posts: 2,800 Joined: Nov 14, 07	Oct 7, 08, 16:34 / #
I believe in freedom of speech and I do not feel this right is the EU's place to use the powers intrusted. "Gerald Töben, 64, is wanted in Germany for the offence of "Holocaust denial".

loco polacoThreads: 3 Posts: 421 Joined: Aug 5, 08	Oct 7, 08, 16:45 / #
holocoust denial is one of the few restrictions on speech which is understandable as it encites nazism. but at least they still have habeas corpus unlike the USA. in maerica one could just disappear if one was labeled an enemy.

celinskiThreads: 83 Posts: 2,800 Joined: Nov 14, 07	Oct 7, 08, 16:51 / #
loco polaco: holocoust denial is one of the few restrictions on speech And yet when Poland wanted denial of crimes directed toward Polish, it was voted down. Sorry but this is discrination and aburd.

lesserThreads: 7 Posts: 2,014 Joined: Oct 19, 07	Edited by: lesser Oct 7, 08, 17:08 / #
loco polaco: holocoust denial is one of the few restrictions on speech which is understandable as it encites nazism. So in your opinion denial of Armenian genocide should not be penalized? Jews are worth more than Armenians? Hitler himself was supposed to say: Who, after all, speaks to-day of the annihilation of the Armenians?

loco polacoThreads: 3 Posts: 421 Joined: Aug 5, 08	Oct 7, 08, 17:23 / #
celinski: And yet when Poland wanted denial of crimes directed toward Polish, it was voted down. Sorry but this is discrination and aburd. poland wanted denial of crimes against her? huh? lesser: So in your opinion denial of Armenian genocide should not be penalized? Jews are worth more than Armenians? i didn't say that... talk to the A Merkel if you have an issue with it.

osiolThreads: 59 Posts: 4,714 Joined: Jul 25, 07	Edited by: osiol Oct 8, 08, 11:21 / #
What happens if someone denies that anything that supposedly happened before 1976 didn't really happen? (Well, I wasn't there to witness it). Proof alone should be enough. If proof needs to be supported by silencing and criminalising people for their opinions, then it may appear that that proof is either inadequate or has even been falsified. I'm not denying that back then, some people wanted to and tried to wipe out these people and those people. I believe that a law constraining everyone into one view of these events may be stifling to historical inquiry and a threat to the very truth it means to protect.

celinskiThreads: 83 Posts: 2,800 Joined: Nov 14, 07	Edited by: Moderator Oct 16, 08, 06:46 / #
Misty: There's nothing worse than being told what to think... We were just talking about this very subject under http://www.polishforums.com/nobody_safe_long_arm_eu_law-34_28425_0.htm l Thanks for a very fair report. From Article: By forbidding anyone from saying that, on pain of imprisonment? No. You refute it by refuting it. By mustering all the available evidence, in free and open debate. This is not just the best way to get at the facts; ultimately, it's the best way to combat racism and xenophobia too. So join us, please, to see off the nanny state and its memory police.

celinskiThreads: 83 Posts: 2,800 Joined: Nov 14, 07	Oct 8, 08, 05:57 / #
loco polaco: poland wanted denial of crimes against her? huh? Poland wanted the same rights as Holocaust, a crime to deny what took place in Poland.

jonniThreads: 26 Posts: 4,181 Joined: Nov 27, 07	Oct 8, 08, 10:40 / #
celinski: Poland wanted the same rights as Holocaust, a crime to deny what took place in Poland. Somebody is denying this?

celinskiThreads: 83 Posts: 2,800 Joined: Nov 14, 07	Oct 8, 08, 11:38 / #
osiol: I believe that a law constraining everyone into one view of these events may be stifling to historical inquiry and a threat to the very truth it means to protect. That's how I feel. We have history that we cannot speak about unless we say what we are told is the "truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth". That's a lot of power, I can't imagine telling people they cannot question a part of history or they will be arrested. Do you think anyone will back me if I did?

MistyThreads: 6 Posts: 196 Joined: Jul 20, 08	Oct 16, 08, 05:49 / #
Thread attached on merging: "The freedom of historical debate is under attack by the memory police" Among the ways in which freedom is being chipped away in Europe, one of the less obvious is the legislation of memory. More and more countries have laws saying you must remember and describe this or that historical event in a certain way, sometimes on pain of criminal prosecution if you give the wrong answer. What the wrong answer is depends on where you are. In Switzerland, you get prosecuted for saying that the terrible thing that happened to the Armenians in the last years of the Ottoman empire was not a genocide. In Turkey, you get prosecuted for saying it was. What is state-ordained truth in the Alps is state-ordained falsehood in Anatolia. Who will decide what historical events count as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and what constitutes "grossly trivialising" them? We already know that some countries already try to teach history to follow their own ideals and thankfully there is a band of historians who are trying to push back against that. There's nothing worse than being told what to think... The freedom of historical debate is under attack by the memory police.