Extradited for committing an offence on the web

[SurfDemon]

This strikes me as a difficult scenario that has occured, that cannot be tackled by conventional (i.e. pre-internet) laws.

An Australian teacher is in jail in London, based on Germany issuing a warrant for his arrest because he has committed the crime of "Holocaust Denial". This is not a crime in the UK or in Australia, and the crime wasn't committed in Germany.

Yet he published his work on the internet which is accessible from Germany, and therefore they argue that he should stand trial....

Full Story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/ma...C-exp_06102008

[homer13j]

That's messed up. Does Germany have enough jail space for all the holocaust deniers posting on the internet? Talk about selective enforcement...

[kleinma]

all crimes and punishments aside, its pretty sad that you have someone who is a TEACHER, who also denies the holocaust happened....

It is one thing for idiots like Mel Gibson, but its another thing when it is a teacher who is shaping the minds of tomorrows youth...

[Shaggy Hiker]

There are as bad in every fringe group school. People teaching various kinds of crap about any views they don't happen to agree with. Of course, the holocaust was a named genocide event, but people who deny it happened are actually making statements either about Jews, Germany, Nazi beliefs, or some combination of the three.

Still, this sets a dangerous precedent. If we can be imprisoned by a different country because of what we say in a third country, then there is no freedom of speech in any country.

[mendhak]

It's limited to Europe, but I think that this is fair in principle. Quite often, you'll read about a certain criminal that has committed crimes in Country1, and is currently residing in Country2, but there's nothing that can be done about it because there's no extradition treaty. The criminal gets away scott free (and duty free as well). The EAW at least makes it easier to extradite criminals between Country1, Country2, Country3... CountryN than it was before.

So some guy got arrested for what he said. He was a teacher and could have been feeding propaganda to his students. Isn't it better that he has been arrested than poisoning other minds? What good is freedom of speech if you use that right to shape the minds of tomorrow? Words are very powerful...

(Sorry about my country naming convention, I didn't want to stick to Hungarian naming convention because clearly we're not talking about Hungary. I also didn't think that prefixing 'cnt' was a very good idea in this case.)

[InvisibleDuncan]

I agree with most of what Mendhak says, but I don't think it necessarily applies in this case. The problem with extraditing him from Country2 (UK in this case) wasn't because of a lack of an extradition treaty, it was because he hadn't commited any crime according to Country2's laws. When you consider some of the rigorous blasphemy laws around the world, is it a good idea to set this precedent?

I believe that in North Korea (and I could be wrong about this), it's a criminal offence to speak out against Kim Jong Il. Should they be allowed to extradite the guys who made "Team America"?

[homer13j]

I believe that in North Korea (and I could be wrong about this), it's a criminal offence to speak out against Kim Jong Il. Should they be allowed to extradite the guys who made "Team America"?

Yes, if only for that puppet sex scene.

[kleinma]

the guy still gets a trial right? innocent until guilty and all that?

[Shaggy Hiker]

However, he did commit a crime under that set of laws. I, too, would be concerned about how this would hold for blasphemy laws...and others, too. It is my understanding that in some countries, the legal age for marriage is down around 14. However, in the US, that would count as statutory rape. Therefore, would it be fair for the UK to arrest somebody to stand trial in the US if they legally married a 14 year old in their home country?

Of course, the difference between these two cases is that the speech that this person is accused of was visible in the country that charged him. That's understandable, considering that the internet is largely without borders (except for China), but then, so would wedding photos be.

Is internet evidence of a crime under US laws sufficient cause to arrest and extradite somebody who committed no crime under the law of the country they were residing in at the time? Would we like to be tried in Iran for violating some of their laws just because the internet made the evidence of the crime available in Iran?

[Torc]

My understanding of the European Arrest Warrant was that it could not be
used to arrest someone for actions committed in another country that are
legal there.

Thus Germany could not issue a EAW for an someone who resides in the UK and posts on the Internet denying the Holocaust.

Sorry mendhak, although I agree that the EAW is designed to make
extradition easier, it is not meant to be abused in the way that Germany is
using it against this guy.

[mendhak]

But what would you guys judge to be the correct outcome of this situation? I think it'd be a case-by-case basis. Is it possible under the EAW for the UK authorities to have refused the extradition? (I don't know) If the UK can refuse, it can mean that in some cases, the extradition won't occur. Example: If Germany decides that InvisibleDuncan's avatar is too offensive, they could issue an EAW warrant, but the UK could dismiss it because they don't find it to be a problem.

I think the article highlights how this law can be abused, but then the "patriot" act exists, that too is a similar thing. Civil liberties left us a long time ago, we're alright with giving them away because Bush is the bestest and most edumacated president ever, but it seems like we want to maintain the pretense of hanging on to whatever little scraps of individuality and freedom we can hold on to.

If this was wrong, what should have happened to this guy? Should he have been left there to continue doing what he was doing? <-- Not rhetorical/sarcastic statement. It is a question I'm posing to all of you.

[Torc]

The point is that the EAW is to be used to speed up extradition of people
from Country A for a crime that they have committed in Country B.

It is not supposed to be used to extradite someone to Country A for doing
something in Country B that is not a crime in Country B.

Someone in the UK posting on the Internet in Denial of the Holocaust, can not
be arrested and extradited under the EAW to Germany, because they have not
committed a crime.

Yes the guy should have been left to continue what he was doing.

Surely the "Crime" would only be commited by someone in Germany downloading
the information.

[Davadvice]

I’m with Torc on this.

If I wish to have extreme views in my country then that country should deal with it as appropriate. I did not see any cartoonist getting extradited to a Muslim country when they published they images in the papers!! double standards I believe

David

[DeanMc]

This is the problem with freedom of speech in general. Freedom of speech is a good thing on paper but because humans rule on the basis of morals in practice freedom of speech is a very murky place. Allow me to present you with a scenario:

John believes that the Nazi party was correct in its views and policies and feels that the Allied forces conspired against the Nazi party and created this "false" genocide in order to ensure that Europe never encounters a situation like this again. It is john's right to believe this as we as humans hold freedom of speech as one of our core values. John was arrested yesterday and extradited to Germany for holocaust denial.

Is john's freedom of speech not being denied? The popular consensus says that the holocaust happened. Does that mean John is not allowed to question it? A very murky place indeed.