Still No Laws in Italy against Holocaust “Denial” and None to Come
This document is part of a periodical (Smith's Report).
Use this menu to find more documents that are part of this periodical.
People may wonder why an otherwise emphatically “politically correct” Italy has no law against “Holocaust denial” or “negationism”. This is indeed still the case, in spite of the European Union’s 2008 “Framework Decision” calling for legislative harmonization in this respect throughout its territory. The EU-wide prohibition of anti-“Holocaust” revisionism by means of the sordid ruse of officially associating it with racial hatred and supposed dangers of violence inspired thereby remains in effect: [no, by itself it’s without effect: individual parliaments still have to pass laws to put its contents into effect] (see, for example, the New York University Law School paper by one Laurent Pech, decidedly critical towards such harmonization: “The Law of Holocaust Denial in Europe: Towards a (qualified) EU-wide Criminal Prohibition” http://tinyurl.com/lz2ezkl
It must be acknowledged that so far the political establishments of EU countries without specific anti-revisionist legislation have generally been able to make do with their respective anti-“racism” laws, which are enough to intimidate most prospective thought criminals. But the persistence of those few Italians who dare defy the H taboo [it is pretty normal here] is enough to set the Jewish lobby there clamoring from time to time for its enshrinement by parliament, despite the “problem” posed by the unequivocal protection of freedom of belief and speech provided by Article 21 of the Italian Constitution.
Below is a brief exposé on the subject by Mr. Giuseppe Poggi [author of the piece], in charge of the dynamic (and still legal) revisionist website Olodogma.com
Why the Italian Anti-“Negationism” Bill Will Not Pass
By Giuseppe Poggi
As I write, the Israeli lobby is maneuvering to “bring home ‘again’” to the Jewish ghetto in Palestine as many hands as possible to take up rifles and help fill the ranks of the local army, the government there having already drawn even from among the Orthodox Jews! Fear is quite a powerful engine: the situation in Ukraine and the 4 deaths in Brussels on May 23 are making it huge. And desperation is still more powerful!
What with the wave of emotion following the Brussels murders and the always alluring pretext of curbing those who—with “negationism”—“incite hatred” ... “killing the dead [sic] a second time”, it cannot be ruled out that there will be a new “push” for approval, in Italy, of an anti-“negationism” law. At present, passage of such a law has been impeded by the absolute indeterminacy  of the “offence”, its vagueness as postulated in the most recent text tabled in the national legislature, a bill which, in line with the Framework Decision against “racism” passed by the European Parliament in 2008, would punish revisionism if expressed in a manner likely to cause public disorder.
The Reason for the Rebuff to Come
It is quite unlikely that an anti-“negationism” bill will pass for a simple technical reason: in criminal cases brought against revisionists there would have to be appointed, as “expert witnesses”, exterminationist historians paid by universities, foundations, communities, etc. ... to dispute, with documentation, the “deniers’” statements. That is the normal practice.
However, those history technicians know that they do not have the evidence needed to counter the revisionists and so, aware of their impotence, they themselves are opposed to the bill. What conventional historian with any sense would address the questions raised by revisionism? The miserable impression made by the Jewish Raul Hilberg at the first Ernst Zündel trial in Toronto (1985) has instructed the conformists, who are thus advised to steer clear of certain subjects! (On that sorry showing by Hilberg see Point 10 of Robert Faurisson’s paper “The Victories of Revisionism”, December 11, 2006.) Never has there been a greater truth than the Maoist “Strike one to educate a hundred!”
So then, what technical experts will the public prosecutor, or the “injured party”, be able to rely on? None. And without such experts, cases against the “negationists” will not go ahead! (unless on the grounds that airing one’s doubts about undemonstrated “historical fact” constitutes an incitement to racial hatred, actionable under the 1993 anti-racist law—the “Legge Mancino”!).
For this reason alone, then, the anti-“negationism” bill will not pass.
If the nomenklatura of conformist historians had any scrap whatsoever of historical evidence for the alleged Jewish Holocau$t, evidence valid for a court of law, they would be happy indeed to be appointed and paid lavishly to gloat before the bar as haughty experts in cases against “negationists”! But, aware of the absolute lack of such evidence, they pull their behinds back and fob off their job of combating “negationism” onto State employees who, by profession, know nothing about History and who, in order to “win”, identify “negationism” with “incitement to racial hatred”!
The disgraceful flight of the Holo-salaried historians was nailed down by the (exterminationist) Swiss historian and novelist Jacques Baynac in two articles appearing in Le Nouveau Quotidien (Lausanne) on September 2nd and 3rd 1996 entitled, respectively, “How the historians delegate the task of silencing the revisionists to the courts” and “In the absence of supporting documents on the gas chambers, the historians dodge the debate”. To close, here is a brief passage from the latter piece:
One must be grateful to Pierre Bouretz for having finally dared to ask the key question, that of the extent of the scientific field of investigation and, consequently, the questions of the nature of scientific history and its method. For it is there, and nowhere else, that the deniers have set their trap for historians, who identified it in 1979 but, not knowing how to avoid it, abandoned their duty to ascertain reality and left the job of telling the Truth to the justice system. All the rest was but consequences of that, and today we find ourselves with a problem that goes far beyond that of the existence of homicidal gas chambers in the Nazi camps. Now it is the question of the knowability of the past that is being put. It is that of History itself.
|||“Grosso [i.e. Carlo Federico Grosso, law professor at the University of Turin] on the other hand has expressed doubts about the bill currently under consideration in Parliament because of its generality, insofar as it refers not only to the Holocaust but also to several undefined events. A dangerous element in a structure like criminal law, which represents only the last resort: punishment is justified in the face of a concrete offence against something defined. Indeterminacy and the criminal law cannot go together” (“Negazionismo e Legge”, Moked website, “portal of Italian Jewry”, February 18, 2014).|
|||French philosopher, author of Witnesses for the Future: Philosophy and Messianism (“Negazionismo e Legge”, Moked website, “portal of Italian Jewry”, February 18, 2014).|
Additional information about this document
|Title:||Still No Laws in Italy against Holocaust “Denial” and None to Come|
|Sources:||Smith's Report, No. 207, July 2014, pp. 4f.|
|First posted on CODOH:||July 13, 2014, 7 p.m.|