Translated from the Dutch website De Dagelijkse Standaard

  Mark Rutte - VVD - Free Speech
  Mark Rutte - VVD - Free Speech
  Hans van Baalen, Holland - VVD + Ehud Olmert + ?
  Hans van Baalen + Ehud Olmert + ?


Debating the Holocaust - A New look at both sides

Thomas Dalton: This is a book about the Holocaust, and about two competing views of that event. On the one hand we have the traditional, orthodox view: the six million Jewish casualties, the gas chambers, the cremation ovens and mass graves. Traditional historians have thousands of surviving witnesses and the weight of history on their side. On the other hand there is a small, renegade band of writers and researchers who refuse to accept large parts of this story. These revisionists, as they call themselves, present counter-evidence and ask tough questions. They are beginning to outline a new and different narrative.

Thus there has emerged something of a debate -- a debate of historic significance. This is no peripheral clash between two arcane schools of thought, regarding some obscure details of World War II. It is about history, of course, but it also speaks to fundamental issues of our time: freedom of speech and press, the operation of mass media, manipulation of public opinion, political and economic power structures, and the coercive abilities of the State. It is an astonishingly rancorous and controversial debate, with far-reaching implications.

Debating The Holocaust - Buy at Amazon $35
Thomas Dalton - Homepage with excerpts



Denying the Holocaust. Since Mark Rutte, leader of the Dutch centre right party VVD let himself be tempted to say that he thinks that - in so far as it is not done within the context of incitement to violence, should not be a criminal offense [to deny the holocaust], politicians and opinion maker are competing to present their opinions.

Thus Prime Minister Jan Pieter Balkenende [Christian Democrat - CDA] says he thinks that it is not for no reason that it is a criminal offense, and Hans Van Baalen [Rutte's 'Israel first' fellow VVD party member] will do everything in order to keep the criminalization in place.

On the other side, Afshin Ellian [born in Iran - now a Dutch National, professor of law, philosopher, poet, and critic of Islam] thinks that it is not at all forbidden to deny the holocaust in Holland.

Joshua already wrote an article from which it appears that there is no criminalization of holocaust denial in Holland. Where do all these people get that idea?

In Holland denial of the Holocaust is - certainly under some circumstances a criminal offense.

I a 1987 verdict (NJ 1988, 538) the conviction of a distributor of the book 'Sechs Millionen?' [German for Six Million - What is meant is the book 'Did Six Million Really Die'] was kept upright on grounds of insulting Jews because of their race. From statements by the [female] distributor, it was deducted that she reasonably should have presumed that the book contained expressions which were offensive to Jews. The book contains no intended scientific arguments
and did not address historical scientific sources in a decent way, the court concluded. [Read the book for yourself and judge!]

Some years later a court in The Hague convicted the Belgian Siegfried Verbeke for distributing pamphlets in which amongst others the existence of concentration camps was disputed. The high court affirmed this judgment. In an appeal (NJ 1998, 261) the Supreme Court did not deliver judgment on the question if denial of the holocaust in clinical terms is to be seen as an offensive expression about Jews.

The most recent verdict in relation to denial of the holocaust is a 2004 ruling from the court in ’s-Hertogenbosch. In the ruling a man [Ivo Jansen from Schijndel, a pro Palestinian activist] was convicted for having published some chapters of the book 'Sechs Millionen?' which he himself had translated into Dutch.

The court:

Doing that, he amongst others things has called upon the right to free expression (artikel 10 EVRM). According to the judgment of the court the statements in question were not only by them selves, but also because of the context in which they were published unnecessarily offensive, and can not be seen as expressions with no other purpose than taking part in a public debate over a historical/social question.

When looking at this jurisprudence [applied law] Mr. A.J. Nieuwenhuis in his dissertation 'about the limits of freedom of expression', states that denying the holocaust can be seen as a group insult according to article 137c Sr. But, he continues, the fact that historical truth is not judicially protected right, points in another direction.


In Holland holocaust denial is not as such punishable by law. It is assumed that it can possibly be a punishable offense, as an insult to a group. In my view this can only be the case when denying the holocaust coincides with insult of Jews because of their race. Nothing points at the conclusion that denial of the holocaust in itself is to be regarded as an insult to a group.

The simple denial of the holocaust - without the in this connection commonly used expressions about the Jewish race, in my view is a classic example of indirect insult of a group.

That such an insult is not covered by article 137c Sr has been established very recently by the High Court.

Translated from:

De Dagelijkse Standaard May 30, 2009 - Ontkenning van de Holocaust: de juridische stand van zaken

Comments in square brackets [..] captions and images added by Balder

Here a proposal from Tineke Huizinga Heringa from the fundamentalist party Christen Unie for further amendments to legislation aiming at criminalizing 'holocaust denial' including the Armenian holocaust and other genocides. The § 137 b didn't make it though. Tekst wetsvoorstel negationisme 1 June 2006


VVD party leader Mark Rutte made headlines because he wanted to restore free speech in Holland, but most of the local as wel as the international media focussed entirely on his one short remark about the sacred cow of the western world, the holocaust. In the original TV broadcast Knevel & Van den Brink which gave rise to the disproportional commotion which once again unveiled the hypocracy that increasingly engulfs the western world, he touched on many more subjects though, such as the murder of Theo van Gogh, the political persecution of cartoonist Gregorius Nekschot, and Muslim hate preachers. Complete English translation of transscript of TV program which caused the commotion:
Balder Blog 5 juni 2009 - Holland: VVD’s Mark Rutte’s plea for more freedom of expression in the Netherlands - transscript   

Balder Blog June 3, 2009 - Holland - Holocaust controversy - former party leader Bolkestein supports Rutte’s free speech advocacy 

Balder Blog 31 maj 2009 - Mark Rutte, formand for det hollandske liberale VVD vil afskaffe holocaust-benægter-love (Den konservative EU-kandidat Peter Norsk ønsker indførelse af holocaustbenægter lovgivning! mm.)

Mark Rutte transscriptie interview Knevel & van den Brink - Holocaust ontkenning

De Telegraaf June 3, 2009 - Bolkestein steunt Rutte

De Telegraaf May 31, 2009 - Rutte spreekt met joden na ophef over Holocaust

De Telegraaf May 29, 2009 - Van Baalen: Holocaust ontkennen strafbaar

Haaretz 27 maj 2009 - Dutch liberal leader Mark Rutte: Holocaust denial should not be a crime

Did Six Million Really Die?| Stierven Er Werkelijk Zes Miljoen? | Døde Virkeligt Seks Millioner? | Starben Wirklich Sechs Millionen? - Danish holocaust researcher refutes claim of 6 million Jews killed during The Holocaust - Dänischer Holocaust Forscher weist Behauptung von sechs Millionen ermordeten Juden zurück - Deense holocaust onderzoeker ontkracht bewering van 6 miljoen joodse slachtoffers in 'De Holocaust' - Dansk holocaustforsker afviser påstanden om 6 millioner dræbte Jøder under Holocaust - De Complete Feiten Over De Holocaust June 10, 2008 - Jewish Involvement in Immigration and Hate Speech Legislation - Holland - Articles about Holocaust, Zionism, Judaism, Jewish Censorship, Israel Lobby, persecution, Revisionism, Holocaust-denial

Print Post