Holocaust Supremacism Chills Dissent Bazyler

Law and the Holocaust: U. S. Cases and Materials, by Michael J. Bazyler, Robert M. Jarvis. 2018

Implications of Genocide Recognition Inequality, So-Called Hate Crimes Legislation, and Ongoing German Culpability For WWII Crimes Against Poland

This work is densely packed with interesting information. One learns, for example, the fact that the Germans (Nazis) stole 600,000 paintings and sculptures, representing about 20% of all art in Europe. 100,000 pieces remain missing. (p. 276). This book reviews the Nuremberg Trials, and then discusses many little-known court cases. I mention a few salient ones.

THE HOLOCAUST: EXCLUSIVE-JUDEOCENTRIC VERSUS INCLUSIVE NAZI-VICTIM DEFINITIONS

Bazyler and Jarvis write, “Because the war-time totals are merely estimates and different sources use different figures, it has become commonplace to say that six million Jews (of whom 25% were children) perished in ‘the Holocaust’ (from the Greek words ‘whole’ and ‘burnt’). Likewise, because some commentators use the term ‘Holocaust’ to refer to all of the Nazis’ victims (an estimated 20 million people), Jews (and others) often instead refer to the ‘Shoah,’ the Hebrew word for ‘calamity’.” (p. 4).

A RARE—BUT UNSUCCESSFUL—CHALLENGE TO WHAT I CALL HOLOCAUST SUPREMACISM

The authors comment, “In GRIMES EX REL. GRIMES v. SOBOL, 832 F. Supp. 704 (S. D. N. Y. 1993), AFF’D, 37 F. 3d 857 (2d Cir. 1994), New York’s Holocaust Education law was found not to discriminate against the plaintiffs, a group of African-Americans who complained that it favored Jews over others.” (p. 534).

THE CHILLING OF DISSENT AGAINST HOLOCAUST INDOCTRINATION IN SCHOOLS

Authors Bazyler and Jarvis relate the following, “In WARNER v. St. BERNARD PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, 1998 WL 50016 (E. D. La. 1998), the plaintiff wrote a letter to her son’s middle school teacher advising her that she did not want her son to participate in an upcoming field trip to the U. S. Holocaust Memorial Museum [USHMM] because she did not want him exposed to ‘propaganda’. The plaintiff also insisted that the Holocaust was ‘grossly exaggerated’ and that ‘[e]ntire generations of Americans are [being] put on a guilt trip regarding the suffering of the Jewish people’. When the letter later became public, costing the plaintiff her job as well as a possible seat on the parish council, she sued the school board, the teacher, and her principal. After the district court twice refused to dismiss the case, see id. And 99 F. Supp. 2d 748 (E. D. La 2000), the parties settled for $150,000.” (p. 535).

EXPANSIVE ONGOING ATTEMPTS TO SATURATE THE ENTIRE U. S. EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM WITH THE JEWS’ HOLOCAUST

Evidently, to some, the already-existing dominance of the Holocaust, over the genocides of all other peoples, in the United States educational system, is still not enough. Along these lines, Bazyler and Jarvis comment, “Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, the Netherlands, Poland, and Switzerland all have laws requiring Holocaust instruction. In the United States, such laws exist in seven states: California (since 1985), Florida (1994), Illinois (1989), Michigan (2016), New Jersey (1991), New York (1994), and Rhode Island (2016)…[conditionally] Pennsylvania (2014)…In April 2017, the New York-based Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect unveiled its ‘50 State Genocide Education Project.’ The project’s goal is to convince the 42 states (and the District of Columbia) that currently do not require Holocaust education to enact such legislation.” (p. 534).

————-

HATE-CRIMES LEGISLATION: IDENTITY POLITICS, SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR SOME, AND FORCED IDEOLOGICAL CONFORMITY

Authors Bazyler and Jarvis quote from Briana Alongi’s article, THE NEGATIVE RAMIFICATIONS OF HATE CRIME LEGISLATION, as follows, “‘The main objective of hate crime legislation is to promote social stability and equality. However, in reality, these laws promote inequality and exacerbate societal divisions and identity politics. Hate crime legislation pits protected and unprotected groups against each other by declaring that certain groups of people are more deserving of legal protection than others. Hate crime legislation may cause reverse discrimination, creating another negative unintended circumstance. Why is it acceptable for an offender to suffer less serious consequences if they assault a person who is not protected under hate crime statutes?’” (p. 622).

Briana Alongi alludes to the agenda-driven nature of hate crimes legislation, “‘There may be underlying motives for the enactment of this type of legislation, and the media and politics may have played a disproportionate role in the passage of these laws…A political leader’s opposing view on hate crime legislation should be candidly voiced and heard without the fear of being labeled a bigot.’” (pp. 622-623).

UNEQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW: SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR JEWS

Let us pursue the foregoing implications of so-called hate crimes legislation. In discussing the context for prosecution of hate crimes against Jews, authors Bazyler and Jarvis point out that, “As Judge Karas mentions, the U. S. Supreme Court has held that Jews are a protected class under federal civil rights laws. See SHAARE TEFILA CONGREGATION v. COBB, 481 U. S. 615 (1987)”.

———-

WHY POLAND CAN TODAY VALIDLY PURSUE WWII-RELATED RESTITUTION FROM GERMANY

In recent news, Germany has tried to escape her responsibility to Poland based on the “fact” that a 1953 agreement had closed the door to Polish restitution claims. It did not: The 1953 agreement was something forced on a subjugated Poland by the USSR. The authors recognize as much as they comment, “In 1953 the Soviet Union imposed treaties on the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) and Poland which recognized the end of the punitive nature of reparations against Germany. The Soviet Union agreed to end the physical seizure of German property and disclaimed further reparations.” (p. 334).

DEBUNKING THE GERMAN VERSAILLES EXCULPATION FOR HITLER

The “onerous” reparations demanded of Weimer Germany are often made into an excuse for the German people supporting Nazism. The authors cite the book of scholar Jurgen Tampke, A PERFIDIOUS DISTORTION OF HISTORY”. He shows that, far from being crippled by reparations, Germany ended up paying only 2% of its mandated reparations. (p. 19).