Erdzhanov T. K. (scientific adviser)
Kazakh National
University named Al-Farabi, the Republic of Kazakhstan
Criminalization of Holocaust denial.
Genocide is s the
systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, national, religious or ethnic group, as such killing members of
the group, ñausing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group,
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended
to prevent births within the group, forcibly transferring children of the group
to another group [1].
There were a lot of acts of genocide in
the entire history of mankind. Basically the crime occurred in the territories
of hostilities. The most tragic and largest genocide for the entire period of
the human history in the 20th century is the genocide of Jews on the territory
of Nazi Germany and in the occupied territories from 1939 to 1945. There are
about 6 million of victims among the Jewish population caused by Nazi Germany
over the entire period of the Second World War, 4 million of which are
officially identified persons [2].
Proof of the barbaric acts of the Nazis are mass executions on a
national basis, the concentration camps on whose territory the gas, chemical
tests, mainly on the faces of Jewish confirmation which are numerous documents,
audio recordings and video found after the war. Well preserved evidence of
exportation or destruction of the Jews had already buried the remains before
the arrival of Soviet troops, which is an obstacle to the establishment of a
more precise number of victims of the tragedy among the Jews.
There was
appeared a theory of Holocaust denial in modern stage development of human
history.
Holocaust
denial is the act of denying the genocide of Jews in the Holocaust during World War II. [3] This phenomenon is often highlighted by the thesis that
"Holocaust deniers" claim that a number of documents and facts was
allegedly falsified in order to toughen existing in the history the facts in
favor of the Jews. Also deniers are trying to convince that historical data
were deliberately falsified to increase payments from Germany to capitulate
sides of the war. But starting from November 21, 2005, the General Assembly of
the UN rejects any full or partial denial of the Holocaust as a historical
occurred event that. On January 26, 2007 UN General Assembly adopted a
resolution on "Holocaust denial" on the eve of International
Holocaust Remembrance Day condemning the denial of the Holocaust as a historical
fact. In some countries public denial of the Holocaust punishable by criminal
liability [4].
Laws against
Holocaust denial is a system of common law which fixes criminal responsibility
for public denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, which exists in a
number of countries, primarily in Europe, affected by the ideology and practice
of nationalism.
The
countries that prohibit criminal publicly denial of the Holocaust are Belgium,
Austria, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania, Poland, Slovenia, France,
Switzerland and Canada, Israel, Liechtenstein, Portugal, Czech Republic,
Slovakia and Hungary. The sociality of countries that have introduced the
criminal denial is that some countries have included responsibility for the act
to existing criminal legislation and a number of other countries have adopted a
separate law on Holocaust denial.
The
denial typically constitutes fines, imprisonment for a definite period.
For example, in Austria, Romania and the Czech Republic the maximum period of
imprisonment is up to 10 years. [5]
One
of the test cases against the presumed extermination for denying the Holocaust
is a "Faurisson against France."
In his writings, Faurisson claimed that the
Nazis did not use gas chambers and did not start the genocide against the Jews
and that these myths have been created for the benefit of the Zionists in
Israel. Faurisson also reiterated his opinion in an interview with one of the
magazines which states that the myth of the gas chambers - it was a fake,
supported by powers - the winner after the law restrain crime, express doubts
and denial of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter 1945.[6]
Later
in 1996, Faurisson appealed to the European Commission of Human Rights with
reference to the violation of Art. 10 "Freedom of expression" of the
European Convention on Human Rights in the content, which was denied. Refusal
was the article. 17 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
«Nothing in this Convention may be
interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in
any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights
and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than
is provided for in the Convention.» [7]
Following the example of the European
Commission of Human Rights the UN Committee on Human Rights rejected the
complaint of Faurisson who referred to
the violation of Art. 19 "Freedom of Speech" of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, but the Committee found no violations.
Also one of the
high-profile cases of denial of the Holocaust is "Garaudy against
France."
The reason for
criminal prosecution served his famous work "The Founding Myths of Modern
Israel" in which the author casts doubt on the Holocaust - the total
destruction of the Jews during World War II.
«I respect Judaism ... but the Nazi
Holocaust - a myth that has become a dogma that justifies the policy of Israel
and the United States in the Middle East and around the world…» - said Garaudy. [8]
Many critics
believe that Garaudy in his work blamed the Jews and questioned the crime
committed by the Nazis during World War II.
The national court
has identified the presence of France, in the book Garaudy, the denial of Nazi
crimes against the Jews and imposed a fine of 120,000 francs.
Disagrees with the
court's decision Garaudy tried to challenge it in the European Court of Human
Rights referring to the violation of Art. 10 Freedom of expression of the
European Convention on Human Rights.
But the facts
provided by Garaudy, the European Court of Human Rights found insufficient and
concluded that Garaudy acted for the purpose aimed at violating the rights
guaranteed by the Convention in consequence of which the applicant's arguments
were refuted. [9]
Experience shows
that on the issue of genocide denial the humanity cannot yet come to a
consensus, but it must be emphasized that the scale associated with this
phenomenon is becoming increasingly grafting, which in turn stimulates the
modern community to tackle these issues at the legal level.
References:
1 http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/lower/13938
2.http://ejwiki.org/wiki/%D0%A5%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82
3.http://mfa.gov.il/MFARUS/ForeignRelations/Holocaust%20WWII/Pages/What-is-Holocaust-denial.aspx
4.https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/
6.http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/russian/hrtsbook/Rhrcases-freedomofspeech.html
7.http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/1588978
8.http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_RUS.pdf
9.https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/