Austrian bakery sells Nazi-cakes, owner faces prison

[Gustaf]

Before everyone goes all libertarian on this issue you might want to remember that this is Austria's way of saying they would very much like to kill their Jews again if given the chance.

I mean, technically, the Hutu radio hosts calling for the extermination of Tutsi cockroaches were also exercising their right to free speech, but on the other hand...

[Gustaf]

Before everyone goes all libertarian on this issue you might want to remember that this is Austria's way of saying they would very much like to kill their Jews again if given the chance.

It's not like we don't understand that, but unless there's some indication that they're actually going to do it then taking this kind of action is going overboard.

Also, it's not like this kind of ban is all that effective - this kind of behavior has been banned in Europe for decades and yet these people still do it. It in no way solves the problem and only makes martyrs out of the ones that get caught, so the ban ends up only encouraging the rest of them and making them go underground. I would much prefer to let them do it openly so we can just point out their ignorance and bigotry and so that law enforcement could keep tabs on these potentially violent people so that they're more likely to catch them in the event that they do act.

I don't believe in someone's right to bake Nazi cakes, sorry. Some things should never be trivialized or dealed with lightly. Freedom of speech is on my priority scale way less important than to make sure that something like that could never happen again and that it will never be forgotten.

Again, decades of this being banned has quite obviously not solved the problem.

No offense, but I don't think you have any idea what it is like to be a Jew in Austria, either back then or now.

I'm not in favour of bans of this kind, generally speaking, but in certain countries viewing it as being only about freedom of speech sort of misses the bigger picture.

[Gustaf]

Do none of the libertarians see a problem with the fact that this was subjected to a lawsuit from a survivor organization? I mean, beyond the fact that it goes against free speech and all that?

[Gustaf]

I was going to hang around this thread until I saw a post indicating that someone got it. So, thank you - I really need to sleep, since I have to stand on a tennis court in 7 hours.

I'll leave the libertarians with a little quiz: my grandmother left Austria in 1938. She never returned to live there. Why do you think that is and how do you think it might be related to this story?

[Gustaf]

I'll leave the libertarians with a little quiz:

I know full well the answer to your quiz: we've discussed it before in a rather similar context. It is remarkable, how such different lessons may be received from the same history. The lesson I get here is, precisely, that mere speech should not be banned. Despise it, fight it - but don't ban it.

BTW, one of my grandfathers had a dosen uncles and aunts (w/ families) killed in Uman. The entire family clan in Lithuania disappeared without a trace. And I very well remember another uncle who sruvived by escaping from a ghetto (twice).

But, on the other hand, once we are at it, Communists killed two of my great-grandfathers, and a brother of a third one.  Would you advocate banning Communist  symbols as well, to spare MY feelings?

And, of course, to reiterate, I am not at all libertarian

I'm not actually advocating a ban of Nazi symbols (nor Communist symbols).

People taking the libertarian position on free speech will often say something similar to what you just said "this is disgusting I agree, so boycott it" But that is exactly my problem with this case. Apparently, this bakery had this in a brochure. Completely public. And, apparently, the only way it will disappear is through a law process, initiated by some Holocaust-survivor group.

In other words, this shows that Austria is a society where it is fine to hint that it would be better if all the Jews were wiped out. And this is the answer to why my grandmother would never go back to Austria. Not simply that there are bad memories or anything. But the fact that she knows she is still not welcome there.

Now, my Rwanda example was taking this to the extreme. It's pretty obvious that trying to protect free speech while the machetes get sharpened is ludicrous and irrelevant. Of course, Austria is nowhere near that, but I still thought it would be interesting to illustrate the problem here. There is a point where a society becomes sufficiently hostile and oppressive towards a minority that protecting the majority's right to threaten and verbally persecute the minority becomes unreasonable.

For instance, I would have no problem with this kind of bakery operating in Sweden, simply because it wouldn't be tolerated by society, regardless of the legal situation.

(btw, I assume you won't mind if I finish every post by asserting that your position on this issue puts you on the same moral level as Adolf Hitler?)

[Gustaf]

To behave as these people behave is intolerable. You think there's no damage being done here? I can't think of a crime more heinous (so to speak). The things that are being trivialized here are  among the most pivotal events of the whole of human history. You say that this is not an act but 'just' speech. I must confess that I'm always baffled at how banal libertarians seem to think 'speech' and 'ideas' are. Why bother having free speech if it doesn't even have any consequences anyway? And if it does have consequences, how is this not an act? How is this not a direct insult to the 5.5 million victims of the Holocaust? How is this not an insult to the very core of humanity?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's intolerable that the righteous should always be out there to prevent this evil from finding a place to grow. The only correct response is to destroy it systematically when it pops up and be as harsh as humanely possible in doing so.

     Why should people not be allowed to insult "the very core of humanity"? It's called free speech for a reason, after all.

Why shouldn't I go round drowning kittens? Some moral imperatives are of a nature that exceeds my capacities to give them arational foundation. I don't think murder is okay because of that. WHy should it be okay to play pretend the Holocaust wasn't a big deal? I don'tv see how some petty little idea like 'freedom of speech' weighs up against the trivialization of pure evil.

     Possibly because I do not think that the government should be in the business of deciding what expressions are alright & what ones aren't. Begging the government to protect you from people glorifying past wrong-doing constitutes a sign of weakness, IMO. If people would actually try to argue against & protest fascism (or any other idea) rather than just banning it, they would find significant success in keeping it at bay. Don't people learn anything from the United States Republican Party?

Who are these "people" arguing against fascism? What if they don't exist?

[Gustaf]

No offense, but I don't think you have any idea what it is like to be a Jew in Austria, either back then or now.

I'm not in favour of bans of this kind, generally speaking, but in certain countries viewing it as being only about freedom of speech sort of misses the bigger picture.

No, I don't have an idea of what it's like. I don't think you do either. What I do have an idea of is being an atheist in a country with lots of evangelical nuts, many of whom who do not think I'm a real citizen of this country simply because I hold different beliefs than they do and who want the government to officially endorse their ideology. Not to say that it's the same thing, but it's not like I'm completely unaffected by the prejudices of ignorant bigots so I do have some perspective. As offended as I might be by those people I would still fight to the death for their right to advocate those things by peaceful means, because it's the same right that allows me to openly state my earnest beliefs that so offend their sensibilities.

Do none of the libertarians see a problem with the fact that this was subjected to a lawsuit from a survivor organization? I mean, beyond the fact that it goes against free speech and all that?

I noticed. I don't particularly find that relevant. If Anne Frank herself were to descend from the sky wrapped in divine light I'd still hold this position.

To behave as these people behave is intolerable. You think there's no damage being done here? I can't think of a crime more heinous (so to speak).

I can - actually killing people. Seems worse than baking an offensive cake to me.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Too bad - if you haven't figured it out by now then let me inform you that life isn't fair. You may not like it that the righteous actually have to work at keeping the world sane, but that's the way it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't view it as humane to throw someone in jail for baking an offensive cake.

Suppose a gang would kill your entire family in the most gruesome way imaginable. Now suppose that when you return to your hometown some years later you find some people 'tagging' your house (or their own house across the street from yours) with the logo of the gang in question. Does speech really not constitute action here?

It would constitute action, because it would be an outright act of intimidation and/or harassment against a person (in addition to damage of private property) and not just an expression of a thought or belief.

In the context of this situation, if a Nazi orders an offensive cake for him and his Nazi buddies to enjoy at one of their meetings, then no harm is done to anyone. On the other hand, if a Nazi were to order such a cake and send it to a Jewish person with the intent of intimidation and/or harassment you would have an actionable offense.

The problem is: banning speech makes it more, not less likely that something like this would ever happen again.

Various restrictions on Nazi activity have been in place in certain countries since the 1940s and yet there has been a curious lack of resurgent fascist regimes in these countries. Extreme racist behavior and rhetoric has been illegal in Britain since the 1960s, yet the people who break the relevant laws are not regarded as martyrs.

The KKK have always been able to legally hold open rallies in the USA, but racism against blacks seems to have been in steady decline. The laws banning the behavior aren't why minds have changed. They may have had some effect but it's not the biggest part. Minds have changed because good, rational people have been constantly fighting this kind of bigotry by expressing their ideas and showing how the bigots are wrong.

And yes, the people who get arrested for this kind of thing do get regarded as martyrs. They are regarded as such by the people who agree with them, just as suicide bombers are regarded as martyrs by the people who agree with them. It only serves to make them more zealous and insular - that's not something we should want.

I know a lot of Austrians, some of them Jews, so I think I do have an idea of what it's like.

And your answer about Anne Frank misses my point completely. I'm not going after sentimentality points here. But I'll be more blunt. Why didn't anyone else, beside, you know, the Jews themselves, react to this? How could this guy run this bakery with no one but the Jews minding it?

And should we interpret your last comment to say that suicide bombing should be legalized?

[Gustaf]

If you want to end genocide with 100% certainty, then abolish the state, of which genocide is an innovation.

I just wanted to add that this is a really stupid post.

[Gustaf]

But I'll be more blunt. Why didn't anyone else, beside, you know, the Jews themselves, react to this? How could this guy run this bakery with no one but the Jews minding it?

I don't have enough information to answer that question. It's unknown to me for how long he had these cakes in his catalog, how many people had viewed the catalog, who had viewed the catalog, etc. His bakery is in a village, so I don't assume there's a big population. Maybe the village is full of Nazis and they like it. Maybe others thought the cakes were in jest. Perhaps the people in the village just aren't very observant. Perhaps they have the similar views on free speech and don't think a cake is something to get upset enough about to raise a fuss. Or perhaps a non-Jew saw it and reported it to the Jewish group, which means that non-Jews do mind. Again, lots of possibilities, but not enough information to draw a conclusion.

Apparently the bolded one may be it. (not sure if it was a non-Jew though)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iljDxZ9bT3FXbNwk1ShXjDd9ykvw?docId=CNG.923b2cd5041443c093c66218d623c411.811

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Also people not noticing might have had to do with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The exact details of this case wasn't really my point. Since I have relatives and friends in Austria and have been there numerous times I know a little about the country. And I know this is rather symptomatic of a country that has not sufficiently dealt with its history of national socialism.

As the old joke goes, Austrians are great marketers: they made Hitler German and Mozart Austrian.

[Gustaf]

Apparently, this bakery had this in a brochure. Completely public.

I appreciate your frank opinion that speech should only be protected, when it is private. I guess, you'd be ok w/ this, if he only served this cake to his wife in their private kitchen. Would it be ok if he also let his mistress taste it, or would that be too public?

I'm not going to bother with repeating that I don't favour the ban of Nazi symbols, since you never seem particularly interested in what people debating you actually think.

If I can strawman you back though, I'll say that I appreciate your frank opinion that Hitler was right about the Jews. I can play the silly game of making up positions for someone too, you see.

[Gustaf]

1. If you don't advocate a ban of Nazi symbols, what are you advocating? Should this guy be prosecuted or not? If not, then I don't see what was all this discussion about: you could have made that point in 7 words. If yes, and he should not be free to say publically whatever the hateful bullsh**t he'd like to publicize, you are advocating a ban. Choose one or the other, please.

2. I am afraid, that the point here is, that I am not longer sure that you indeed fundamentally disagree w/, say,  Hitler on freedom of speech and democracy. And I am not making this as a stupid game: it is just that I increasingly see ideological totalitarianism in your publically stated views, be it on freedom of speech, or on treatment of minorities.

1. I believe I did make my point in rather few words the first time around. Which was basically that too many people on here were too busy putting this issue in their ideological box to see what was interesting about the case. Turns out you were all to busy staying in the box to listen to what I was saying. The problem is that just like last time we debated something you seem to prefer ignoring what I say. For instance, I've stated 2 or 3 times that I do not advocate the ban of Nazi symbols, yet you are still accusing me of it.

2. Lol. You're accusing me of being Hitler again? It's not a particularly strong debate tactic to equate your opponent on every issue which arises with Adolf Hitler, though I must admit that it's impressive to manage to do so on this one. I guess I'll retort by asking if you're a libertarian?

[Gustaf]

2. I am not accusing you of being Hitler - you used that name first, if I recall correctly. What I am saying is, that your views are quite illiberal. You are, obviously, no Hitler. But voting for some sort of nasties, that would later turn out to be abominable, might come naturally: you don't have much immunity against such views.

1. You've said many things once again, but I still don't understand what is it that you are saying. It seems something like: Nazi symbols shouldn't be banned - but the government should do something about this guy. What?

I have a strong feeling you are a bit afraid of yourself, of your own intolerance. "Something should be done about what I think is evil - but let me not specify what, because that doesn't smell good". Try being honest with yourself.

I'm curious - do you think there is any way one can disagree with your position and still be a liberal democrat? Or is the world eternally divided into crypto-Nazis and people who agree with you?

I used Hitler sarcastically, because I was predicting you would equate me with Hitler once again. Turns out I was more right than I thought.

And I think I'm a lot less intolerant than you are, to be honest. I don't feel the need to label everyone who disagrees with me on every issue as an evil person secretly wanting a new Third Reich. And there is nothing in my views I'm afraid of. That's why I can listen to the opinions of arguments of others without resorting to petty insinuations and ad hominems about what their "real" views are.

For example, I would not typically accuse someone of wanting to ban Nazi symbols if they explicitly said they didn't. Or, for that matter, claiming that someone thinks the government should do something about someone when I never said anything like that.

Once you demonstrate a willingness to actually listen to what I'm saying and not just look for ways of twisting my words to allow you to label me a Nazi I'd be happy to explain my position. But I'm afraid your track record in that department isn't particularly good. If all you want out of the discussion is to say I want a second Hitler, then there isn't really much left, is there?

[Gustaf]

'Nazi' pie maker gets death threats

A confectioner has received murder threats for offering cakes showing banned Nazi propaganda symbols and slogans.

The Austrian Mauthausen Committee (MKÖ) – a Holocaust awareness group – informed police and prosecutors about Manfred Klaschka’s controversial business activities earlier this week. The MKÖ was tipped off by horrified customers of the confectioner. A catalogue of previously created products on display at his shop in Maria Enzersdorf, Lower Austria, includes a cake with swastika icing and a pie on which an uniformed arm bursts through to give the Hitler salute.

Klaschka has been threatened with murder in several anonymous postings on various internet discussion platforms since the story broke.

"People are calling me a Nazi swine on the phone. I’m not a fan of (late Third Reich dictator Adolf) Hitler," he said today (Fri).

The confectioner added: "I made these cakes eight years ago. I don’t know what’s so special about fulfilling extraordinary requests of customers."

Klaschka infuriated anti-Nazi mindset activists, politicians, non-government organisations (NGO) and readers all over the world earlier this week by arguing:  "It’s impossible for me to trace back who ordered the cakes in question as they were requested by walk-in customers around eight or nine years ago. Furthermore, and this applies to all trades: the customer is always right!"

He was also quoted as saying: "If someone orders it, I’ll create a pie showing (Libyan leader Muammar al-) Gaddafi."

Spreading Nazi propaganda is a breach of law in Austria. The country’s juridical framework also prohibits the possession and trade of any kind of objects depicting symbols associated with Nazi Germany. The number of violations of this section of the federal law rose by 39.5 per cent from 2009 to 2010 to 741.

http://austrianindependent.com/news/General_News/2011-04-08/7062/%27Nazi%27_pie_maker_gets_death_threats

I like the late Third Reich dictator bit. If one doesn't know who Hitler is how would the Third Reich be any help?