Are Germany's laws on their Nazi legacy wrong?

Au--

I empathize with your sentiments about not wanting to revise history-- I've just got this thing about free speech, even though the speech we are discussing is abhorrent.

I suppose Germany has very powerful experience of what can happen when lies are repeated often enough and with great power behind them.

I am wondering what criteria might be used in deciding whether such laws go "too far" or not?

The US is an especially individualistic and individual rights based country. Many other democracies which also prize free speech also tend to have stronger thread of community responsibility running alongside their beliefs about individual rights about free speech etc.

It is likely that , culturally, American citizens will have a feeling of discomfort about laws such as Germany's, that might not be felt by people brought up in cultures with a slightly different emphasis.

Do we judge on what feels right? For most of us this will be strongly related to where we were brought up.

Do we judge by effect? This would be difficult, perhaps, in countries with such differing histories - and lengths of history - as germany and the US.

Sofia
I was just hypothesizing as to the reason that the laws exist in Germany.

Accepted.

Still hope some German members would respond with their preferences about these laws.

It seems to me a law preventing speech about beliefs HIDES the truth about people's feelings. I think this is a bad thing. How can you address a problem, if you can't see it? It evokes the image of a broiling problem, gaining strength, red embers obscured. I wonder what, if any, difference we would see if Germans, and others silenced by such laws, were free to speak their feelings.

When considering this, and the rise in European anti-Semitism--one can imagine how the hush-hush atmosphere would increase anti-Semitic feelings, and allow it to stay underground, rather than be seen (and fought) in the light of day.

It reminds me of an oppressive household, where the children are dared to mention sex. They have no instruction, no advice--and wind up with STDs, or unwanted pregnancies. And, who is to blame?

Anyway, one opinion.

Hmmm - I think there is no lack of mention of far right racist beliefs in Germany - they have had their neo-nazi skinheads etc.

Here, the nazis may exist - but there is a limit to what they may incite.

Mind you, we did not ban the communist party, either.

Yeah. We have our commies, and the KKK (though, I think we are making things difficult for them tax-wise...), and all manner of indelicate groups.

I think I'm operating on the adage "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer..." May not want them very close, but I'd like to hear what they think and see who their leaders are; see their numbers,-- to be able to fight (educate, study, change) them.

Anyhoo-- Thanks everyone, for this thread.

'Tis an irritation here - and in the US? - that the Japanese do not face their history.

For instance, school books gloss over the whole war period - and do not mention the treatment by the Japanese of prisoners of war and subject populations. Especially, the Japanese medical experimentation on prisoners - or "logs of wood", as they were called - were made public, as I recall, by a few of those who were involved in running them, to the great displeasure of the government.

However, with Australia itself locked in "history wars" over the existence, extent and nature of its own Aboriginal holocaust, and with any reasoning middle aged or older Australian aware of the, (until the sixties, almost invisible in public discourse), facts of our founding and ongoing policies towards Aboriginal people, I don't think too many feel able to throw very big stones.

And - they are a huge trading partner.


In a sense Oz is right in the middle of its own internal determination about reconciliation, facing history, how much to acknowledge (or, according to the right, to ruminate mournfully about) the (somewhat contested) realities of history. How much is too little, how much is too much?

The previous federal labor government was clear that the way to move forward was to acknowledge past harm, to move forward on land rights, to attempt via special programs and structures to attempt, as far as possible, to repair harm.

This, of course, caused a backlash - and the current conservative government rode to power - partly - (there were many other factors) on a platform of "we have done too much", that the left was promulgating a "black arm band" view of Australian history, that focused on, and exaggerated, the negatives of invasion and subsequent race relations - it was time to be proud etc - that was, in some of its sly allusions frankly racist, and which did not seek to divorce itself from the extreme views of some of its fellow travellers - (saying this only gave them credence) - so that it benefited from a wave of racist backlash, while seeking to keep itself clean, and to be articulating the views of the sensible "silent majority".

Frankly, I wish I knew what was the proper balance.

In the case of Japan - there was an imperative to 'gather them into the fold' as quickly as possible and deny the physical location to either China or the USSR. And unlike Germany - it was occupied by a single power, not four.

I don't think the passing of such legislation is a reaction to the events of WW2. I'd say it is part of the process in actually creating a 'unified' German state. There was no such entity till after 1890 and the only period of time when Germans lived within a democracy was under the Weimar. Just catching up I suppose.


deb-
Sad to say, the medical staff implicated in such activities were quickly subsumed into the bio-weapons programs of the USA and the USSR.

Among the Japanese is a centuries old aversion to the admission of shame. Without being either melodramatic nor historically inaccuate, many Japanese have throughout history been willing to die rather than face public shame. In Clavell's book King Rat, the final scene has a robust young paratrooper marching up to the gate of the Changi road prison, and barking out orders to the guards there, taking their weapons from their hands, and throwing them to the ground. The inmates all await the inevitable murderous reaction, and are totally stunned to see the Japanese guards bowing their heads and apologizing vociferously.

When McArthur decided the time had come, he boarded a transport plane, and completely unarmed, with only a handful of staff officers and no guard, he flew to and landed near Yokohama outside Tokoyo. He proceeded to a local hotel, and ordered dinner. The hotel management, by what miracles in a starving nation one can only surmise, produced a steak dinner for him. He gazed at it with relish, and, as he prepared to eat it, his chief of staff became distraught and warned him that it could be poisoned. He replied that this was nonsense, and proceeded to dine with much show of enjoyment. His behavior was that of the confident victor, and the symbolism and behavior were immediately understood by the Japanese, to whom his every gesture spoke a language inculcated over the millenia.

After MacArthur had graduated the USMA in 1903, he accompanied his father, Lieutenant General Arthur MacArthur, then the highest ranking officer in the U.S. Army, and certified Civil War Hero, on a tour of the far east. He spent quite a bit of time in Japan then, and on other occassions later on. He knew his enemy very well indeed. The day after he had landed, he drove into Tokoyo in an unescorted car, and the Japanese who saw him pass stopped in the street and bowed very low. This gesture was repeated every day that the "King of Japan" rode to his office there. Shortly after his arrival, Hirohito appeared in public with him. This was the first time most of the Japanese had ever seen their emperor.

But MacArthur has been gone for more than half a century. Generations have grown up since then, generations steeped in a culture little altered by the events of the mid-twentieth century. MacArthur behaved as the confident conqueror, and in terms of their culture, the Japanese understood him completely, and responded as he knew that they would. But for more than 50 years now, the Japanese have seen us as a nation without a unified culture, without a unified will, and as an economic enemy in a war which they intend to win. No American Viceroy reigns from an office in the Dai Ichi building, and most Japanese now living resent having their noses rubbed in what is increasingly seen not as a shameful defeat, but an heroic if doomed defense against a relentless and voracious enemy which hunted them down, but has now grown weak and unwary.

A sense of shame does not come easily to the members of that culture, and can only be associated in the cultural mind with defeat and utter self-abasement. That they are not inclined to accept such a position, which is what they conceive of being what would be required of them, is not to be wondered at. In economic terms, they consider themselves to be the current victors. Why should they admit to guilt, the most difficult species of character examination on a cultural level, when it appears to them that they lost a brief war and have won a long peace.

Some sleep at night :wink:


All those, who have statutes, which are against the Basic Law.



Laws against 'freedom of speech' have to be according to the Basic Law.

No, I don't think, such laws should be changed: it's part of our legal (and democratic) culture .

More here: The Treatment of Hate Speech in German Constitutional Law





No, not me.

The oldest banned party is the NSDAP - National Socialistic Worker's Party [and all their organisations]

banned since September 2, 1945 by Proclamation No. 2 of the Allied Control Authority (Allied Control Authority Law No. 2 of October 10, 1945)

What effect do you think this has had on Germany, Walter? These laws, I mean? Why do you support them? Do you know what shades of opinion young Germans have? I wonder, too, how many parties are banned?

----------------------------------------



Yeah, Set - I was thinking about the extent to which, as I am told, (I make almost no claim to direct knowledge) being a shame-based, as opposed to guilt-based, culture, would mean re Japan. It makes a lot of sense re different reactions.That sounds a bit too glib to me, though.

Germany (at least West Germany) could be well argued to have won the long peace, too....




Re "legislating reconciliation" by banning the expression of certain ideas, which is what Craven is asking about.

Obviously, in people's "hearts and minds" you cannot legislate reconciliation. You CAN provide a legislative framework which seeks to assist in the process - like that which set up the "Truth and Justice Commission" in South Africa, or determinations in Australia that Aboriginal culture and history will be taught to children (it will be interesting to see whether this has a measurable effect on attitudes - my obviously limited anecdotal "evidence" suggests it may - but adolescence will be the telling time - as will a properly conducted study) or legislation and internal policies and procedures mandating that child welfare bodies (which were the means by which many children were forcibly removed from Aboriginal parents) will have appointed Aboriginal consultants, will have a special Aboriginal agency which deals with abuse of Aboriginal children, will provide all staff with intensive training in cross-cultural work, will employ and train Aboriginal staff.

Banning expression of thought, though.....

I think no, unless it incites harm against a group, or the country.... Partly I think this because I think banning parties may be a slippery slope - eg look at the hysteria in the USA about the Communist Party, and the damage it did.

Partly I think this because I do value free speech highly amongst competing values.

Partly, also, because usually such parties and groups are articulating the beliefs, however unpalatable, of a segment of the population larger than the group membership itself, and things which are being said privately, anyway - and often in places like school playgrounds, pubs etc and it would seem to me better to be knowing about and confronting such beliefs.

I actually say this very reluctantly - and I am glad that we have anti racial vilification laws here, which ameliorate, to some extent, the lengths to which these people can go with their abuse of others.

But I DO think that, for the sake of the people being injured by the expression of racist or whateverist ideas, that governments ought to speak out against the extremism - as has not happened, for instance, with the current federal government.

I doubt it has that big effect.

There are (only) acouple of parties banned (4 or 5 smallest parties and a couple of "other organisations" (some skinhead groups; all the others had more or less the same people as members: 23 groups, associations, parties).

I support them, because I don't like/want any group being allowed, with anti-Basic Law-statutes.
I know that this opposite to what I actually act/say otherwise: the reason certainly is
a) that I grew up with these laws
b) that I don't want any right-wing nuts again here in Germany.

It's - to add - not that easy to get banned: the major/bigger "parties with national-socialistic-ideas are (still) legal: they are (officially) not against the Basic Law.

That we are not allowed to say "Heil Hitler" (Nazi paroles in general), sing Nazi songs etc in public ("disturbing the public peace by ....") is fully supported by me.

I've never heard that someone wanted these laws to be abolished - even not by Nazi hardliners (which really isn't surprising - otherwise they would ... :wink: ).

Thank you Walter - I WANT to ban those damn groups, too!

Obviously not so much interest in this question than indicated

Dead on the vine. Poor fruit?

Love your Nietzsche quote, Walter.

Thanks, Walter-- In reference to your reasoning...

I support them, because I don't like/want any group being allowed, with anti-Basic Law-statutes.
I know that this opposite to what I actually act/say otherwise: the reason certainly is
a) that I grew up with these laws
b) that I don't want any right-wing nuts again here in Germany.
--------
We all grow up with certain laws that are counter-productive. Just because they exist, IMO, is no vote of confidence in them, nor does it give a law any merit. China and Iran are examples of long-standing laws that are being rejected by masses, who deem them as too restrictive, and undemocratic (IMO).

To your second point-- The laws denying aspects of free speech do not mean you don't have right wing nuts seething in hiding. It just denies them the right to speak their opinions, and it denies your country, and the world, the ability to see what people really think there.
-------------
You also said--

I've never heard that someone wanted these laws to be abolished - even not by Nazi hardliners (which really isn't surprising - otherwise they would ... ).
-------------
Is it also illegal to speak of wanting to change such laws?
++++++++++++++++++++++
I had read your opinion previously, but didn't want to challenge it, because you are entitled to your opinion. However, reading that you think lack of a response may indicate lack of interest, I continued. I have been interested, but as I said, thought you were entitiled to an unchallenged opinion.

Is it also illegal to speak of wanting to change such laws?

The Basic Law (our constitution) is shaped by two distinctly German experiences:
- the long-standing federalist tradition
and
- the lessons drawn from the unstable governments of the Weimar Republic and the destruction of democracy and the rule of law by the National Socialist regime.

The Basic Law also empowers the Federal Constitutional Court to ban political parties that seek to overthrow or endanger the principles of democracy, civil rights and the rule of law.

This part of our constitution can of course be changed by the methods outlined within it (and it's be no means at all illegal to speak about changing the constition - how did you guess such???):

Philosophically I prefer the American way of handling such things, but I can understand why the laws are tougher in Germany. Over the last 100 years, we have lived through five different political systems, two of which didn't respect free speech at all (the Nazis and the Communists) one of which kind of respected it (the monarchy), and one of which did but was too weak to survive (the Weimar Republic, 1919-1933).

Given that, I think it's forgivable that current German laws have some built-in measures of self-defense against totalitarian demagogues. Still, if there was a vote between Germany's current laws and America's current laws on free speech, I'd vote for the American version. Specifically, I wish our parliament hadn't inserted the paragraph outlawing Holocaust denial into §130 of our penal code in 1994. (See Walter's translation.) I expect this paragraph will help, not hurt, neonazis in the long run because it allows them to pretent they'd been hushed up by law, not refuted by reality.