Should Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be arrested?

Politics International Politics
1

Should Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be arrested in Germany?

  • He should be, and he will be.
  • He should be, but he won’t be.
  • He shouldn’t be, but he will be.
  • He shouldn’t be, and he won’t be

0 voters

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, has been invited to Germany to watch Iran’s soccer team play in the world cup.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier.

Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany.

2

Diplo immunity

It enables the continuation of the lowest levels of the human existence with legal impunity.

3

I find it a little ironic that someone can be arrested and imprisoned for publicly denying the Holocaust. I believe these people to be lunatics but should they be denied free speech?

4

"Ein Staatsoberhaupt genie

5

No, they should not be denied the right to free expression of their beliefs. Such is a basic human right, is it not?

Instead, people should refute their idiotic assertions with reasoned rebuttal and evidence that supports the same.

6

[quote=“rice_t”]"Ein Staatsoberhaupt genie

7

rice_t’s quote says it all (active foreign leaders enjoy immunity except in case of crimes against humanity and genocide and similar).

Also, I do believe that most countries only enfore laws for crimes committed in the country or against the country / their people (say, an attack against an embassy and its personel), unless regulated by certain, more specific agreements.

[quote=“Tigerman”]No, they should not be denied the right to free expression of their beliefs. Such is a basic human right, is it not?

Instead, people should refute their idiotic assertions with reasoned rebuttal and evidence that supports the same.[/quote]
Do you apply the same argument to people that threaten to attack the life of the president of the United States?

8

[quote=“Rascal”][quote=“Tigerman”]No, they should not be denied the right to free expression of their beliefs. Such is a basic human right, is it not?

Instead, people should refute their idiotic assertions with reasoned rebuttal and evidence that supports the same.[/quote]
Do you apply the same argument to people that threaten to attack the life of the president of the United States?[/quote]

Completely different kettle of fish. Threats against a living person and holocaust denial (however repulsive it may be) are not at all similar. If I was to say that I think the US President is a murdering crack-head* I should not liable for prosecution. If I threaten to kill him I should be.

Personally I agree with Tigerman - what is there to be afraid of? Bring these people out into the light and show their claims for the bullshit that they are. Prosecuting them just seems to add the spice of the forbidden to what they are saying.

*Used to fit Rascal’s example, don’t flame me!

9

Given the ongoing EuroParliament investigation of extraordinary rendition, if I were a conservative Bush supporter I wouldn’t want to be bringing up the meme of European governments arresting visiting heads of state right at this moment.

10

Denial of the holocaust is classified as “Volksverhetzung” (partially comparable perhaps to the term “hate speech”). Basically, it is considered a crime, if you provoke hatred, violence etc. against parts of the population, because of their nation, religion, race etc. or slander. The law is a classic example of restriction of certain basic human rights in order to protect other basic human rights. The question is which one is to be valued higher in case of a conflict between these rights. In this case the dignity of the victims of the holocaust and their families is considered more important than the individual right of a person to deny a historical fact.

(3) (below) is the part relevant to denial of holocaust. It was introduced in 1994 and is based on a decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht.

de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksverhetzung

[quote]"Dieses [das Bundesverfassungsgericht] sieht die Holocaustleugnung als

11

Assume that someone disagrees so strongly with the president’s policies and actions that said person thinks the only solution is to kill him, without that we have knowledge if the person actually has the intent to do so.

12

I think you would have to come right out and say “I am going to kill the president” to be arrested. If you say 'I think someone should kill the president" Then you shouldn’t be. Otherwise Pat Robertson would have to be arrested for threatening Hugo Chavez, and there are not enough cells to house people who feel that way about Bush.

13

Just read this and I thought it is more or less on topic (at least on toipic with the off-topic parts of this thread). It is from an interview with Salman Rushdie.