Feb. 17




FRANCE:

French Nazi-era collaborator Maurice Papon dies


Maurice Papon, a former Cabinet minister who became a symbol of France's
collaboration with the Nazis for his role in deporting Jews during World
War II, has died. He was 96.

Papon, who was admitted to a clinic east of Paris last week for surgery on
his pacemaker, died in his sleep on Saturday afternoon, his lawyer,
Francis Vuillemin, said.

"Maurice Papon fought till the end," Vuillemin told LCI television. "He
died a free man."

Papon, who had been an official in the pro-Nazi Vichy regime, was the
highest-ranking Frenchman convicted of complicity in crimes against
humanity.

The April 2, 1998, guilty verdict was the culmination of a marathon trial
France's longest that throttled the nation backward in time, offering a
sometimes painful look at one of the darkest periods in modern French
history.

However, Papon who never expressed remorse and at one point fled France
to avoid jail lived out his final years a free man, released from Paris'
dour La Sante prison on Sept. 18, 2002, because of failing health.

Papon had served but three years of a 10-year sentence for ordering the
arrest and deportation of 1,690 Jews, including 223 children, from the
Bordeaux area to Nazi death camps.

The appeals court that ordered the early release cited a new law for aged
prisoners that had benefited a rare few.

Papon had suffered from cardiac problems that led to interruptions in his
six-month trial. He had a pacemaker implanted in January 2000 and had
earlier undergone triple bypass heart surgery. He was hospitalized while
in prison, in 2001 and 2002.

Still, the nation was stunned when Papon walked unaided from La Sante
prison, exiting via the main door in a show of defiance so often seen
during his trial.

Famed Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld, in an interview at the time, said the
decision to free Papon showed that "part of the French establishment does
not admit that a man like Papon can die in prison."

Klarsfeld had fought to bring Papon to trial. His son, Arno, also a
lawyer, represented families of deportees at the trial.

Papon had been a civil servant par excellence. During the war, he held the
No. 2 post in Bordeaux's Gironde region in southwest France from 1942-44.
Trial documents showed Papon, responsible for Bordeaux's Jewish Affairs
department, was greatly appreciated by the Germans for his "efficiency and
reliability."

After the war, Papon enjoyed a brilliant political career, easily slipping
into the machinery of the postwar state. He rose to become Paris police
chief under then-President Charles de Gaulle in 1958, holding the post
until 1967.

Elected to Parliament in 1968, he served as a lawmaker for 10 years before
being named budget minister in 1978 under President Valery Giscard
d'Estaing. He kept the post until 1981.

It took 16 years to bring the case against Papon to court, and his trial
was seen as a watershed.

The guilty verdict stood like a seal on the collective conscience a final
act of atonement for a nation that took years to come to terms with its
collaboration with the Nazi occupiers.

While found guilty of complicity, Papon was absolved of guilt in the
deaths of the Jewish deportees, most of whom perished at Auschwitz. The
jury had essentially accepted the defense argument that Papon was not
aware of the Final Solution, the Nazi plan to exterminate Jews.

Despite his advanced age, Papon remained defiant, relentlessly proclaiming
his innocence. Papon had argued that he was simply carrying out orders of
his superior. He called his trial "political" and, on his final day on the
stand, said he was a victim of "the saddest chapter in French legal
history."

In a February 2001 letter to then-Justice Minister Marylise Lebranchu,
Papon said he had neither "regrets nor remorse for a crime I did not
commit and for which I am in no way an accomplice."

The letter signed "before dying in prison" was Papon's personal
contribution to a pitched debate over whether he should be set free on
humanitarian grounds because of his advanced age.

The European Court of Human Rights took up the case only to turn down
Papon's request. President Jacques Chirac had three times refused to
pardon Papon.

Throughout his imprisonment, Papon's children and lawyers had worked the
legal circuit to keep him from spending his final years behind bars, an
effort that paid off.

But first, Papon himself made an ultimate attempt to defy destiny fleeing
to Switzerland after the guilty verdict. In a controversial decision, the
Bordeaux court had allowed Papon to remain free until his appeals process
was completed.

He was apprehended a week later. Papon had said that exile was the only
way to maintain his honor. However, then-Prime Minister Lionel Jospin
called Papon's flight a "final sign of indifference, contempt and
provocation with regard to all victims of the Holocaust."

Born Sept. 3, 1910, in Gretz-Armainvilliers, where he returned after
leaving prison, Papon was the son of a notary public. He attended Paris'
prestigious Louis-le-Grand high school and graduated from the Sorbonne
University with a degree in law and economics.

He entered the French administration in 1936 and served the leftist
Popular Front government of Leon Blum.

After the French capitulated to the Germans in 1940, Papon served Marshal
Philippe Petain, a World War I hero who headed the Vichy government in
World War II, a puppet regime of the Nazis named after the spa-town where
it was based.

Papon was promoted 5 times during the war, becoming police supervisor
in the Gironde from 1942-44.

After the war, he became Cabinet director of Gaston Gusin, named by de
Gaulle to administer Bordeaux when the Germans pulled out in August 1944.

He later headed Algerian affairs in the Interior Ministry and went on to
head prefectures in Constantine, in eastern Algeria then part of France
and in Corsica.

Papon would have slipped quietly into retirement after President Giscard's
defeat in 1981 were it not for the perseverance of Bordeaux historian
Michel Slitinsky, who narrowly escaped a Papon-ordered roundup.

Slitinsky, whose father perished in Auschwitz, stumbled on documents
revealing Papon's role and gave them to a newspaper for publication.
Klarsfeld, the Nazi hunter, then fought to bring Papon to trial.

Because of Papon's impeccable credentials, and efforts at the highest
levels to shield him, the case dragged through France's complex legal
system.

In 1994, President Francois Mitterrand admitted in a television interview
that he had intervened to stall the case.

Following his conviction, Papon was stripped of his prestigious Legion of
Honor award. He nevertheless wore the Legion of Honor decoration, and was
photographed wearing it, in a 2004 interview with newsmagazine Le Point.
He was later fined for donning the decoration.

Another shadow from France's past haunted Papon even after his conviction
with the publication of a book charging that he had been behind the
drowning of perhaps several hundred Algerians in Paris.

Algeria was fighting a brutal independence war with France at the time.
During an Oct. 17, 1961, demonstration, Algerians were beaten, shot and
thrown into the Seine River. The incident was evoked at Papon's trial, but
he blamed infighting among Algerians.

However, an Interior Ministry study concluded that French authorities hid
the scope of the crackdown and said Papon issued a memo saying flagrant
offenders "should be shot on sight."

Papon filed a defamation suit in 1999 against the book's author, Jean-Luc
Einaudi, but a court dismissed it.

Papon is survived by his three children. His wife died in March 1998
during his trial.

(source: Associated Press)





EUROPEAN UNION:

EU divided over holocaust denial


European Union countries remained divided over how to deal with claims
the Holocaust never happened, diplomats said today.

The bloc has struggled for almost six years over proposals for an EU-wide,
anti-racism law which would include harmonised rules on helping punish
Holocaust denial.

EU president Germany has said it has a historic duty to harmonise EU rules
for dealing with claims the massacre of Jews by Nazi Germany never took
place, as well as racism in general.

"If you want an agreement on this, there is really a lot of work to do,"
one of the diplomats said.

Long-standing differences between countries that champion freedom of
expression and those that sanction Holocaust denial emerged during
Thursday's meeting of justice and interior ministers.

Countries like France have laws to punish those who deny 6 million Jews
were killed by the Nazis during World War Two, while others such as
Denmark favour freedom of speech.

New EU states from the former communist bloc also want the text of any
agreement to ban the denial of Stalinist crimes.


Germany wants EU states to be free to decide not to make denial of the
Holocaust a crime, as long it does not incite violence or hatred.

"We would really have problems with arresting one of our citizens and
handing him over to another country for denying the Holocaust," another
diplomat said.

But all countries would have to help states that punish Holocaust denial
carry out their investigations, the main point of disagreement, diplomats
said.

"All states feel that ... Europe must give a clear message that we will
not tolerate, and want to combat racism and xenophobia," German Justice
Minister Brigitte Zypries told a news conference.

She acknowledged that there were differences, but declined to say how she
planned to reach a deal.

(source: Reuters)


******************


Europe diary: Denying war crimes


BBC Europe editor Mark Mardell on a German attempt to criminalise
Holocaust-denial across Europe, and the next steps to be taken in the life
cycle of the proposed EU law limiting CO2 emissions from cars.


AN IMPRISONABLE OFFENCE
The Germans, who are the current holders of the EU presidency, are very
keen to bring in a Europe-wide law making it an imprisonable offence to
deny genocide or war crimes. So, it would become a crime to deny the fact
of the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide or the Yugoslav war crimes. Or
would it?

Each member state shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the
following intentional conduct is punishable: 'publicly condoning, denying
or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and
war crimes...'

On first reading, it is clear enough: the proposed law says "publicly
condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes
against humanity and war crimes" must be punished. But there is a "but". A
key clause says that a crime is only committed if there is a threat to
public order. The British government hopes to use this to avoid bringing
in a new law.

Diplomats argue that Britain's tough rules against crimes motivated by
racial hatred would cover such offences.


WHITER THAN WHITE
One who will be celebrating is the man who was sentenced to three years in
prison by an Austrian court for genocide-denial.


David Irving: Having second thoughts about the Holocaust

Historian David Irving now thinks he might have been wrong about the
Holocaust, but told me: "Germany... is trying to dictate terms but it's
really a political tactic. It's what Germans call a Persilschein, which is
a Persil certificate to prove that they are thinking decently now.

"And they can't do that at the expense of the other European nations and
they can't do that at the expense of free speech. I will be the first
person in this country to go out into the street and try to break the law.
Because I think it's a silly law and silly laws need to be exposed as
such."


A NEW SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES
Most Jewish organisations in the UK don't want a new law. A panel of
lawyers and distinguished experts, which looked into the question of
introducing a holocaust-denial law in the UK in 1999 agreed with the
government line that what we had was enough.

But now the man who chaired the panel, the lawyer Anthony Julius, has had
second thoughts.


Anthony Julius: Second thoughts about Holocaust-denial law
"Times have changed. At that time Holocaust denial was the plaything of
cranks, impotent cranks. People who could represent no real threats to
Jews or others," he tells me.

He goes on: "Since then, the president of Iran has made a series of
potentially lethal interventions into global political life, both
sponsoring Holocaust-denial and calling for the destruction of the state
of Israel. Now that combination creates an entirely new set of
circumstances - meaning that the German proposal should be taken very
seriously.

"The legal tradition in this country has been very heavily biased in
favour of free speech, and that is a good thing, but I think that we need
to recognise the changed political circumstances and give much more
consideration to the German proposal than we might otherwise be inclined
to."

It's the European Commission's third bash at getting some sort of law on
racism on the books and it's been weakened along the way, dropping for
instance, plans to outlaw the swastika everywhere in the EU.

There are doubtless pros and cons of having what amounts to a Europe-wide
law, but what is the point of having such laws that member states can
ignore?


I believe that the Holocaust did occur. However, it does seem ironic to me
that the courts will turn down requests to ban political parties with
paedophile agendas - as was recently the case in the Netherlands - on the
grounds of Freedom of Speech ? and yet people?s right to deny historical
events, even if they are based on misinformed information, seems to takes
precedence. It seems to me that Society has its priorities all mixed up ?
we should be focussing our energies on protecting our children!
Peter V, UK

I'm a Jew, with no family left in Europe after the war. A law restricting
free speech is *wrong*. The best way to fight lies is with facts and
truth. Let the deniers speak, and be there to correct them and call their
lies as they are.
Dave Weingart, Levittown, NY, USA

My grandather was in the ground troops that liberated Bergen-Belsen camp
so he saw what the Nazi's did. Holocaust denial offends me personally from
the point of having Jewish ancestry. However to criminalise this would
probably give those with these stupid uneducated views the opportunity to
use arguments of free speech to support their ridiculous cause. Let them
have their rants. It is their right just as much as it is mine to decry
their ignorance.
Bree, ST Peter Port, Guernsey

Your analysis reduces the german proposition in two ways. First, it is
worth noting that the first part of the two-part draft deals with "Public
incitement to hatred and violence for reasons of racism or xenophobia..."
And only in this context the cited qualification of "conduct that is apt
to disturb the public peace" is mentioned. (Press release "Outlawing
Racism and Xenophobia Throughout Europe", German Ministry of Justice, Jan
29th 2007) Second, and that has consequences for a number of commentaries
published here, the definition of genocide is further qualified: "The
Framework Decision...refers to the Statute of the International Criminal
Court and the International Military Tribunal of 1945...Whether a concrete
historic crime falls within these definitions would be decided by a court
in each concrete and specific case." (Same source)
CC, Berlin, Germany

You quote D.Irving: "Germany... is trying to dictate terms but it's really
a political tactic. It's what Germans call a Persilschein, which is a
Persil certificate to prove that they are thinking decently now." Is there
any further prove needed that this man has a mental problem? There are
some 80 Mio. Germans. Are they all thinking the same way? Even under the
Nazis, only 10% of the population were party members. Some 600.000 Germans
fled the country, and the first and the last victims of the Nazis were
Germans. It is comfortable to put entire nations into a box, but it
doesn't bring us closer to the truth. What would you say if I claimed that
all British men wear women's underwear just because some are known to do
so?
Ronald Grnebaum, Brussels, Belgium

The most worrying aspect is how Germany wants to impose this law. One can
understand that the Germans need such a law because the Holocaust is
uniquely tied up with their history. So for a German to deny the Holocaust
means something very different from an Englishman (or an Iranian for that
matter) who does the same thing. One can't help wondering if this is more
about "guilt fatigue" on Germany's part. As for Bosnia, in 2005 officials
from the Hague Tribunal published a paper estimating that 102,000 people
died, on all sides. But one still sees 200,000 or 250,000 quoted, figures
whose provenance the paper revealed are not based on rigorously checked
data. Would this paper have been published if the proposed law had been in
place? The question of why a scientific figure is ignored is the flip side
of "genocide denial" - should it be called "genocide inflation" - which
can equally result in hate mongering against the "baddies", in that case
the Serbs.
Brian Pocock, London, UK

I think the law is absurd. At no point should thought be legislated. I
personally find it incomprehensible that someone could deny one of the
greatest tragedies in modern history. However, if denial or refusal to
believe is made illegal we are surrendering tremendous power to the state;
the power to tell us what to believe or disbelieve. I think we all know
that once power is surrendered it is rarely, if ever, retrievable. In my
mind this is one very scary step towards state thought control. We should
never allow the state to tell anyone what to believe or disbelive.
Truthfully, we all know that these laws will not change anyone's mind on
the subject. It will only make it illegal for them to speak their mind.
Andrew, Chicago, USA

It won't be long before there's criminalization of climate change denial!
Reggie Lawson-Tims, Manchester

Freedom of speech IS the freedom to speak ones mind however different from
another?s point of view and a measure of its application is the
ability/freedom to do so. There are holocaust and evolution deniers, multi
nationals who state that their product does not have a harmful effect
(Smoking, etc.,), groups who believe the British Royal Family are really
Alien Lizards!! The narrow, odd, ill, or simply uninformed as to the
complexity of some issues are expressing their opinions. Having the
freedom to debate or speak, informs human knowledge on the individual and
the group level, moving us forward to a greater understanding. There is
always reality - robust data that does exist and can be accessed by
millions.
Jon, UK

Approx 12 million died in Hitlers camps. 30 million died in Stalins
Gulags. Its a crime to display the swastika in many european nations but
not the hammer & sickle... I think many in Poland or Latvia would see
little difference between the symbols. This proposed law is very
unbalanced.
Peter, Nottingham

Let's all support this law. Then can we arrest Tony Blair for denying that
the Darfur genocide was genocide?
Paul Anderson, London

Its easy and cheap for the media to portray other peoples views in a
completely different manner particularly when they are hated.The president
of Iran asked a few good questions that everyone should ask. Did holocaust
happen? Who committed the holocaust? Who should really pay the price but
who is paying the price?
sharif razai, london


Sharif, it is perfectly acceptable to have the freedom to ask the
question, so long as we give the answer as much thought as we give the
question. It intrigues me that the arguments so quickly deployed to
justify holocaust-denial are the same as are so quickly rejected when it
comes to questioning religious shibboleths. It's a matter of
consideration, compassion and respect.
James, London


Personally I am afraid that this wouldn't so much be a law against Holocaust
denial, it will be a law against saying things that just aren't true! How
can one be imprisoned for saying something that is plain and simply
incorrect? Is there a difference between being criminally wrong on the one
hand, and just plain stupid on the other? If there is, who defines that
fine line? Should claiming that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom
fighter be criminalised too? Its a slippery slope indeed.
Patrick Davidson, Copenhagen, Denmark

I think it may be a good law but I would also like to see a more inclusive
law punishing anyone who speaks well of Stalin or Mao, since they were
responsible for many more deaths of Human Beings than the Germans.
Richard, Los Angeles, USA

This Genocide Denial thing is absurd. People are allowed to think whatever
they want, even if they are completely wrong. The truth will always remain
no matter what anyone does or thinks. Whatever happened to freedom of
press and freedom of speech, anyway? People try so hard to these days to
control what everyone does and thinks sadly enough, as a supporter of free
speech and freedom of press, I must back these people even though they are
wrong about what they think. You can't send them to detention camps to
re-educate them, thats what the nazis and soviets did, does anyone
remember? You people in the EU need to wake up a little bit.
Kevin Ross, Kiev, Ukraine

The Holocaust did happen. It is European history, not Middle Eastern or
Islamic history. Why are the Palestinians paying the price for what the
Jews of Europe went through? Its no wonder why The Holocaust is a taboo
subject in Europe and that there are many laws against its denail.
Farzand Ahmed, Bangkok, Thailand

For the first time I can recall I find myself agreeing with David Irving,
if other countries wish to have such a law either from sincere belief or
from some PR motive fine, but I am completely opposed to a further
stripping away of long-held british norms on freedom of speech.
Unfortunately I suspect that the current government are likely to let it
through partly to prove their European credentials and partly because of
their fanatical desire to remove every trace of British/English culture
and norms. I really can't see that the passing of such a law by the EU or
individual state is going to have any impact so what ever on the Iranians
so that justification is pure nonsense.
Peter Mason, Chelmsford, England

Are there not already laws against activities that are a threat to public
order? And could it become a criminal offence to deny a holocaust or war
crime that had not, in fact, happened?
Bill Young, Switzerland

The need to pass legislation punishing denial of genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes is rather worrysome. Will this really make a
difference to those who were at some point, directly or indirectly,
involved in the commission of such crimes? There is no doubt that the idea
is morally symbolic, but if they were capable of committing the crimes, no
legislation can help them feel bad about it, and no legislation can help
the victims feel better. I believe the European states that are keen on
making it an imprisonable offence to deny genocide should properly
recognise that they are passing laws on what they failed to prevent a long
time ago, and learn the lesson to act on time in the future. "The Yugoslav
war crimes" the expression used in the first parapraph of this diary, is
somewhat a denial in itself, at least in the eyes of the Bosnia and
Herzegovina citizens. Please see the August 2001 ICTY Conviction of
Radislav Krstic, a Serb General in Bosnia, for the crimes of genocide.
Ermin Gacanovic, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

This type of legislation is going to prove counter-productive. It's going
to polarise factions even further. Perhaps this is indeed the hidden
intent of the German government. If parents favour one child over another
they will be sure to to reap the results of resentment and eventual
rejection by their children. In this day and age we should be thinking
more in terms of reconcilliation and peace rather than provocatively,
openly favouring a particular group/groups with needless new laws.
Furthermore introducing new laws puts a thought in some communities' minds
which otherwise may never have occured to them. I think very few British
and European Moslems truly believe the Holocaust is a myth. They're going
to wonder why governments are stirring up the issue. Incidently, my
ancestors were Eastern European Jews, victims of the Pogroms.
P James, Leeds UK

So because Iran has stated it wants to wipe Israel off the map, we need to
implement a law limiting freedom of speech? If some crackpot wants to deny
the holocaust took place, then they will be derided for the plonker they
clearly are. However, this law has a very broad scope and clearly limits
freedom of speech that should be the foundation of any decent democracy.
The Terrorism Act already has limited our speech enough, we should not
allow the German Presidency to push through yet more restrictions.
Interestingly, as EU correspondent, perhaps you could highlight how the
Presidency of the EU is meant to be neutral in its position vis-a-vis
regulation and is not meant to use the opportunity to push through laws it
wants enacted throughout Europe. Why hasn't anyone made anymore of such a
blatant disregard for EU principles?
John Middleton,

I find prior constraint laws pertaining to speech to be highly
objectionable. This is the government's attempt to limit what people can
think. Anyone is free to think or believe what s/he wants to. The
limitation is on one's right to act on one's beliefs. Government should
not be in the business of enforcing dogma. Rather, government is the
business of facilitating the peaceful coexistence of people with all
points of view, no matter how ill-informed or stupid they appear to be.
Eran Fraenkel, Jakarta, Indonesia

i think one should be able to say what that individual thinks freely and
without fear of prosecution, let me give you an example, i think george w
bush is fat and ugly and he is the worst president ever, now not everyone
will gree with me(at least the fat and ugly part) but it is esential that
one can express whats in your mind freely, if some one wishes to deny the
holocaust then so be it, if you dont agree with what that individual
thinks well.. simply dont agree, come on its a basic human right FREEDOM
OF SPEECH!
armando, las vegas USA

I am studying for a year in Germany to learn German. On Tuesday there was
an anti-nazi march and I was there in the front lines. I was talking to
many of the marchers, many people came and hug me and they were very
courageous and angry. Yes, angry some even crying for having to march for
democracy. They could not believe the ghost of 'nazism' was back in their
country. We met the neonazi mob outside the synagoge here in Dresden and
all these young people run very angry at them braking the wall of
policemen. I was very proud of their courage and felt very sure that this
culturally rich and beautiful country of Germany has to offer much more
than Holocaust deniers.
Nico Fekete , Dresden, Germany

Maybe previous comments suggest that these people should be allowed to
express their opinion, or to simply ask questions about history. The
problem is Holocaust Deniers are 99% of the time anti-semites, and their
hatred of the Jews is what drives them to deny that the Holocaust
happened. They are not simply expressing an opinion, but attempting to
turn peole against Jews, and in today's Europe where anti-semitism is on
the raise, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe this is very
dangerous. The internet is full of Holocaust deniers spreading their
'theories' about influencing impressionable minds. As time passes and
Holocaust survivors pass away, it will become easier and easier for doubt
to be cast on what is one of the most widely documented and evidence
supported events of recent history.
Greg, London

I'm afraid the problem isn't just one of free speech. When Holocaust
denial was just the preserve of a few nutters, there was no problem in
letting such people say what they wanted. But increasingly Holocaust
denial is becoming part of a wider political agenda. To take an example
from another correspondent: if I say "George Bush is a deeply stupid,
arrogant and dangerous man", then that's my opinion and I have a right to
say it. If I then carry on and say "and I demand that anyone who thinks
George Bush is right and good should be herded up, forced through giant
mincing machines and spread on the land as fertiliser", then I should be
stopped from promoting that idea or trying to get others to agree with me
or act on that idea. And if that restricts my right to free speech, then
that's tough. Remember, didn't Mr Spock say "the needs of the many
outweigh the needs of the few"? And for "needs", substitute "rights".
Robert Day, Coventry, UK

(source: BBC News)