Originally posted by Ushgarak
The logic that says he could be tried on the subsequent law is legally sound, but practically awkward.The way it is sound is like this- say someone commits a murder in 1990 You know he did it, issue a warrant for his arrest, but he escapes. Then, in 1995 the Murder law is changed to give a harsher sentence. In 2000, you catch the criminal.
He would now go on Murder tiral under the 1995 law, even though that did not exist when he committed the murder.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
I knew pretty much all that, however, the concept that a law could be introduced outlawing something you have said in the past tmz, and you could be found guilty under it. Is despite being sound, pretty silly in my opinion.
It's not really sound; that shouldn't happen legally. The precept has been enshrined in the Human Rights Act, Article 7:
NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW
1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Ridiculous, truly stupid.Unless there is a threat of unwanted harm to a person or possibly property, there should be no limits on free speech. It's not justifiable in any way. Denial of something, no matter what, isn't grounds for a jail sentence.
It's almost too silly to discuss.
Agreed. It's very ridiculous. Not much else can be said.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's not really sound; that shouldn't happen legally. The precept has been enshrined in the Human Rights Act, Article 7:
[B]
NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT LAW1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
[/B]
I think you'll find the fact that it happens legally all the time makes it legally sound. There is no question that this move was illegal.
Besides which, the second part of that article means that discretion can make it virtually irrelevant, even if Austria had enshrined something like that in law, which I am not really sure it has. Even in the UK, which has, Parliament has the option to make law retroactive if it wishes.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Only in the sense of legal authority, which is hardly the whole of the matter.
True, however, that's assuming that an individual has the power to challenge the governments "moral" authority. In this case, the individual clearly did not.
I can see this type of stuff happening frequently within a completely naturalistic government. It's definitely a scary thought, sadly I believe many modern countries are moving towards this end.
its just like the police chief in england who questioned the media attention surrounding the killing of 2 little girls... claiming that they were biased to the cases they reported as killing 2 little white girls is worse then killing others... Although he had a point, the case he was addressing was a sensitive one... And thus, he had to apologise...
Same here whob, even if he was in the right had he should have the right to claim what ever he wants the holocaust is a sensitive subject, and without provoking too many people he probably thought it was better to hush up then try to make some sort of moral speech, to which people would shrug it off with the claim he was a nazi supporter...
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
hmmmmmmm, many in those countries seem to disagree 🙂
Many in those country's are stupid... Well sort of.
Western nations are very much for freedom of speech at least they claim to be, but then when there views are challenged they throw people in jail for it? I don't car how terrible what he said is, it was still an opinion and last time I checked people were allowed to have those, as long as they don't act upon it they aren't doing anything wrong.
Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
In your opinion - you've already stated you don't believe the scale of the holocaust in historical records Marius.
When was that? If I remember correctly he said the guy was wrong, but what does that have to do with anything, this guy was arrested for stating his opinion. That is just wrong.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think you'll find the fact that it happens legally all the time makes it legally sound. There is no question that this move was illegal.Besides which, the second part of that article means that discretion can make it virtually irrelevant, even if Austria had enshrined something like that in law, which I am not really sure it has. Even in the UK, which has, Parliament has the option to make law retroactive if it wishes.
True enough