Can you be extradited for holocaust denial

[Cyclone 10]

It depends on what you mean by 'could', legally you could be, but if the government doesn't allow it (as it has said it won't and has so far not done) then you couldn't.

[Cyclone 10]

Oh, I don't remember being tried prior to the speeding fine I got.

Indeed, so how would not being tried be relevant to a discussion about extradition?

[splodgeyAl 10]

Indeed, so how would not being tried be relevant to a discussion about extradition?

Not sure. You brought up speeding.

[Cyclone 10]

Yes, speeding being a crime for which you can be tried.

 

And given what we were discussing I thought it obvious that the case where you were being tried was the relevant example, the fact that the UK court system gives you the option to plead guilty is irrelevant really, as if the French allow the same and you paid your fine through the post then extradition wouldn't matter would it.

 

I guess I could spell out the example more clearly, for the obtuse amongst us though, but the fact remains that you asked why they might need to extradite and that was a simple example of a crime whereby you might have left the country before the prosecution occurred.

Replace it with any example you like. Make it holocaust denial if you like, stood on the border in Germany, and you leap across the border to a country where it isn't a crime before the police can arrest you.

The defendant would surely be tried locally if a local crime was committed?

I can't believe I even had to explain how it might be that you had left the country before they got their hands on you!

[Thunzi 10]

It depends on what you mean by 'could', legally you could be, but if the government doesn't allow it (as it has said it won't and has so far not done) then you couldn't.

As you said yourself legally you could be extradited. Just because you won't be at the moment doesn't really matter in the wider context of your question. You asked for proof that you were wrong and esme was right. I think that's been provided.

[splodgeyAl 10]

Yes, speeding being a crime for which you can be tried.

 

And given what we were discussing I thought it obvious that the case where you were being tried was the relevant example, the fact that the UK court system gives you the option to plead guilty is irrelevant really, as if the French allow the same and you paid your fine through the post then extradition wouldn't matter would it.

 

I guess I could spell out the example more clearly, for the obtuse amongst us though, but the fact remains that you asked why they might need to extradite and that was a simple example of a crime whereby you might have left the country before the prosecution occurred.

Replace it with any example you like. Make it holocaust denial if you like, stood on the border in Germany, and you leap across the border to a country where it isn't a crime before the police can arrest you.

 

I can't believe I even had to explain how it might be that you had left the country before they got their hands on you!

oh, I see. Thanks. Personally, I would have thought that if our government has signed up to the thing that allows for a simplified extradition process, what they want is an, erm, simplified extradition process, which would make the whole thread an exercise in futility.

[Cyclone 10]

As you said yourself legally you could be extradited. Just because you won't be at the moment doesn't really matter in the wider context of your question. You asked for proof that you were wrong and esme was right. I think that's been provided.

 

True. Legally you could be... However it appears extremely unlikely to happen as the government have said they won't allow it, and in one instance so far have stuck to their word.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

True. Legally you could be... However it appears extremely unlikely to happen as the government have said they won't allow it, and in one instance so far have stuck to their word.

Problem: what the UK Government says/wants is capable of being overridden by power-crazy European bureaucrats/judiciaries.

[Cyclone 10]

They succeeded in not allowing Tobin to be extradited.

[Cyclone 10]

The German authorities later withdrew their appeal, after the Crown Prosecution Service advised them that in the light of further information they had provided about the location of the alleged offence, it would not have been possible to satisfy the courts that the offence was extraditable. This is because under common law it is not an offence to express an opinion, as is the case in countries where Holocaust denial is criminalized.[18] The German authorities later stated their intention to attempt to extradite Töben from other jurisdictions in the future.[19]

 

The case caused some controversy in the United Kingdom, with the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne expressing concerns that the extradition would amount to an infringement on the freedom of speech.[20] Also British historian Geoffrey Alderman criticised Töben's arrest and the tendency "to enforce particular interpretations of history under the guise of combating racism and xenophobia". According to Alderman, "the task of the historian is to investigate, confront, challenge and, if necessary, correct society's collective memory. In this process, the state ought to have no role whatever, none at all. Certainly not in the UK, which delights in presenting itself as a bastion of academic freedom." [21]

 

It doesn't seem like the UK courts would ever be sympathetic to such a request.

[splodgeyAl 10]

According to the wikipedia article you linked, it was the courts that quashed the extradition.

The arrest warrant was dismissed by Westminster Magistrates' Court on 29 October 2008, with the judge stating that the details it contained were "sparse". According to Ben Watson, Töben's barrister instructed by extradition solicitor Kevin Lowry-Mullins, the court was unable to decide whether the warrant was valid because it did not specify whether any part of the crime took part in the United Kingdom and there was not sufficient information about the nature of Töben's alleged crime.[15] The warrant spoke of "worldwide Internet publications" but for it to be valid, it would have been necessary for the German authorities to have shown that the offence not only took place in Germany but that it did not take place in the United Kingdom.[16]

The German authorities later withdrew their appeal, after the Crown Prosecution Service advised them that in the light of further information they had provided about the location of the alleged offence, it would not have been possible to satisfy the courts that the offence was extraditable.

So not a lot to do with the government's rhetoric.

[Cyclone 10]

it would not have been possible to satisfy the courts that the offence was extraditable.

 

Maybe I should change my mind again. The courts have told Germany that the offence (of holocaust denial) would not be extraditable. So that would seem to be a clear and unequivocal statement that a UK court will not extradite someone for something that is not a crime here unless they can be shown to have committed the crime in Germany.