Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Holocaust denial case shows flaws in the EU

Expand Messages
  • World View
    It is important to reopen the debate on arrest warrants Holocaust denial and a case that shows flaws in the EU Chris Huhne Friday, 24 October 2008 The case of
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 4, 2008
      It is important to reopen the debate on arrest warrants

      Holocaust denial and a case that shows flaws in the EU
      Chris Huhne
      Friday, 24 October 2008

      The case of the odious Holocaust-denier Dr Frederick Toben is
      destined to become a cause célèbre precisely because such hard cases
      test fundamental liberal principles. "I disapprove of what you say,"
      said Voltaire, "but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
      This is my position on Dr Toben.

      Dr Toben's views about the Holocaust are offensive, ugly and wrong.
      But freedom of speech is the cornerstone of liberal democracy without
      which all the other freedoms flounder. We restrict that freedom at
      our peril and only in extreme circumstances (such as incitement to
      racial hatred and violence).

      Much of my political life I have spent fighting racism including anti-
      semitism. But I now find myself oddly defending Dr Toben's right to
      deny that the Holocaust existed, and to refuse his extradition from
      Britain to Germany under a European arrest warrant, a decision that
      will be made on Monday.

      In Dr Toben's case, the European arrest warrant is being used to
      detain someone who lives in Australia and who was changing planes at
      Heathrow, but is accused of the offence of Holocaust denial in
      Germany. Dr Toben has not committed an offence under British law or
      indeed under the law of 17 of the 27 European Union member states. I
      respect the right of Germany, Austria and others to criminalise
      Holocaust denial, but I do not want to imitate them. That is why our
      courts should refuse extradition.

      The legal controversy does not end with the use of the warrant. Dr
      Toben is accused in Germany but his offence is to post on an
      Australian website. Germany has taken on itself the role of censor,
      because of the capacity to download content in Germany. It is hard to
      see where such an attempt to extend jurisdiction might end, or what
      its chilling effects on freedom of speech might ultimately be.

      The technicalities may yet stop Dr Toben's extradition. The warrant
      is designed to respect each EU country's legal system by allowing
      automatic extradition, although it allows British courts to assess
      whether fundamental rights are being challenged. A clause in the
      legislation also allows our courts potentially to refuse extradition
      because the offence was committed outside the territory of the
      issuing member state, and does not allow prosecution here.

      At least one member state – Belgium – has already said it will look
      behind a warrant to assess whether it should be executed. Poland
      issues about a third of all European arrest warrants received in the
      UK, and is said to treat abortion as murder. However, the Belgians
      have said they will not execute warrants for abortion or euthanasia.
      Belgium's attitude provides a precedent for refusal.

      Whatever the outcome of Dr Toben's case, though, it highlights why it
      is important to reopen debate on the arrest warrant. I am not
      arguing, as the Conservatives do, that it should be ended. In a
      globalised criminal world, it has proved far too useful in
      extraditing one of the London bombers from Italy and in shutting down
      the old Costa del Crime in Spain. In the vast majority of cases, the
      EU arrest warrant is a good example of how member states can work
      together effectively.

      The arrest warrant is extradition for the Ryanair age. If criminals
      can re-emerge hundreds of miles away in a different jurisdiction
      within hours of a crime, the state must be able to pursue offenders
      without the interminable bureaucracy that is such a feature of
      traditional extradition. But countries must be able to trust each
      other's legal systems and the responsible use of the warrant, or the
      political support for the warrant will wither.

      The warrant was principally designed to ensure swift extradition
      between member states for offences such as murder, human trafficking,
      money laundering, organised or armed robbery, rape and terrorism.
      When the legislation was considered, the Commons committee warned
      about the inclusion of racism and xenophobia in the list of offences
      where it was unnecessary to prove it was against the host and issuing
      country's law, precisely because of differences in interpretation
      from one EU country to another.

      The cleanest solution would be to exclude racism and xenophobia. But
      there may be other solutions that respect the essential differences
      in history and culture from one member state to another. In Britain,
      we value freedom of speech too highly to see it sacrificed because of
      the racist views of an oddball academic. Nor should we turn Dr Toben
      into a misplaced martyr. Strength of argument, widespread outcry and
      ridicule will defeat the Holocaust-deniers. Let us not dignify their
      status or their argument with prosecution.

      The writer is the Liberal Democrat Party's home affairs spokesman


      Suspected Holocaust denier Dr Gerald Toben has won his fight against
      extradition to Germany where he is wanted for allegedly publishing
      anti-Semitic material on his website.

      Suspected Holocaust denier Dr Gerald Toben wins extradition fight
      30 Oct 2008

      Dr Toben, 64, a prominent Australian academic, is wanted to stand
      trial for material he published between 2000 and 2004.

      The German authorities claim they are 'of an anti-Semitic and/or
      revisionist nature'.

      In the European Arrest Warrant issued in October 2004, he is accused
      of approving of or playing down the murder of the Jews by the Nazis.

      But District Judge Daphne Wickham yesterday ruled the warrant invalid
      as it contains inadequate detail about the offences.

      It neither states the name of the website nor where the propaganda is
      said to have been published from - merely referring to the 'world-
      wide internet'.

      After discharging Mr Toben, Judge Wickham granted him bail pending an
      appeal by the German authorities.

      But he was not expected to be released immediately, after she imposed
      a series of strict conditions including a £100,000 security.

      Grey wavy-haired Toben, heard the judge's decision from the glass-
      fronted dock at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.

      The public gallery was packed with supporters of Toben.

      Judge Wickham rejected an argument from Melanie Cumberland, for the
      German authorities, that the required information could be acquired.

      The judge said: "Compliance, in my view, cannot be fulfilled by a
      drip-feed of information as and when the issuing authority provides

      "I find that the particulars are vague and imprecise, I find the
      warrant invalid and therefore discharge the defendant."

      She added that she had not been required to decide at this stage
      whether the alleged crimes were valid extradition offences.

      Toben has been in custody since October 1, when he was arrested at
      Heathrow Airport on a flight from America, on his way to Dubai.

      He was refused bail at that time.

      Ms Cumberland opposed bail yesterday, but Ben Watson, defending,
      successfully argued it would be 'abhorrent' to keep him behind bars
      any longer.

      His other bail conditions include residence at an approved address,
      written confirmation from the Australian High Commission of which
      passports he holds, and not to access the internet.

      He is also banned from giving press interviews. These were
      safeguards 'to prevent any public order act offences', said Judge

      Toben claims he will not get a fair trial in Germany.

      The controversial author was reportedly jailed in 1999 at Mannheim
      prison for breaching Germany's Holocaust Law Section 130, prohibiting
      anyone from 'defaming the dead'.

      Toben's Adelaide Institute website has drawn criticism for many

      In 2000 he fought an order by the Human Rights and Equal
      Opportunities Commission in Australia to remove its 'offensive'

      The commission claimed it breached Australia's Racial Discrimination

      Toben completed his Dr of Philosophy course at the University of
      Stuttgart in 1977 and taught schools and colleges all over the world.

      He founded the Adelaide Institute and is the author of at least eight
      books on education, political science and history.

      When his Heathrow plane was cleared of passengers flamboyant Toben
      allegedly moved seats which officers suspected was a bid to evade

      When cautioned he replied: "You can't arrest me on British soil." At
      an earlier hearing he accused the 'world press' of wrongly portraying
      him as 'horrible, terrible, vicious...I must respond to that, because
      this is nonsense.' Attempting to reassure the court he would not jump
      bail, he added: "The world is my prison.

      "I'm well known and to suggest there's no honour in my person is to
      slander me." Toben went on to claim he could not be tried in Germany
      due to 'double jeopardy', referring to ongoing proceedings on the
      same issue in Adelaide.

      He also suggested the new warrant was a re-hash of the old matters he
      was convicted of in 1999 but with a 'cyber-crime' veneer.



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:


      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.