The headline is wrong: the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU court. There is also no such thing as a "European Union Convention on Human Rights". You'd expect a website that specializes in legal news to get this right.
>The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.
The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
The article says "European Union Convention", not "European Convention". And as your quote also shows, it's a Council of Europe thing rather than a European Communit(y|ies)/European Union thing.
There's a difference between a public figure, such as a politician making such statements vs. an ordinary person expressing an opinion.
Politicians have lots of privileges and visibility in society, and with those comes the responsibility of being accountable for what they say.
>>A seven-judge panel found that far-right German politician Udo Pastörs had “intentionally stated untruths in order to defame the Jews and the persecution that they had suffered during the Second World War.”
> There's a difference between a public figure, such as a politician making such statements vs. an ordinary person expressing an opinion.
Not sure why you say that, but AFAIK in all places where Holocaust denial is illegal, that applies to everybody equally. Yes, an ordinary person expressing the "opinion" that the Holocaust did not take place would be sentenced just like this local politician was.
Alright. In France or in Germany, if you walked up to a police officer and started saying in a bright clear voice "The Holocaust didn't happen" (in French or German of course), what do you think would be the more likely response:
798 prosecutions for Nazi activities in 2017, 409 in the first half of 2018. These are not all politicians, nor all the occasional public figure like David Irving. They are average Joes, posting or saying something in public or drawing swastikas on things.
The article doesn't say what activities were prosecuted in detail; the law prohibits much more than just Holocaust denial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbotsgesetz_1947, but all of them are of the form "you are not allowed to say certain things".
You might meet a right-wing policeman who doesn't mind, or you might have to put something in writing or be caught on camera, but overall these are not things that the justice system takes lightly.
No you don't understand. When people get prosecuted for Nazi activities it's usually much more than merely saying "The Holocaust didn't happen." Americans in general really overestimate the extent to which these kinds of laws are enforced. This generally stems from a divide between the 'spirit of the law' (it's mainly meant to prohibit political figures from being openly Nazi) and the 'letter of the law' (thinking a policeman will literally handcuff you if you say 'The Holocaust didn't happen' to their face). Americans generally feel the need to spell out every little thing for fear of the law being gamed or selective enforcement (this is why EULAs and License agreements have obnoxious 20-page unreadable legalese crap), whereas continental Europe has a more relaxed approach to the spirit of the law and favors clarity through brevity. A similar misunderstanding arose when GDPR enforcement was looming.
My point is that what public figures express (in public) should not be conflated with what a random person expresses online, say on Facebook etc. And in practice the two are conflated, and statements by politicians are used to censor the population at large (for example, the case above).
The law you're referring to is - IMO - a violation of freedom of speech.
_Unless_ you're a politician. Because then - in public - you are in your official capacity, so you don't have the same "freedom of speech" in that capacity - your statements carry a different weight (which is why you chose to be a politician supposedly.)
This politician did not tell this to his wife at dinner at home. He made a speech on Remembrance Day in 2010.
>>On Holocaust Remembrance Day in 2010, Pastörs, then a member of the local parliament in the German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, made a speech in which he claimed the commemorations were “theater” and claimed that “the so-called Holocaust is being used for political and commercial purposes.”
