Holocaust Denial
The Czech Republic is one of those European countries where the thesis “the Nazi genocide and communist regime are equivalent” is highly popular, including support from the government. Despite its incorrectness (from 1938 to 1945 240 000 people were destroyed by the Nazis in the Czech Republic, while from 1948 to 1989 the total number of executions in Czechoslovakia was 284), criminal liability (Article 405 of the Penal Code of the Czech Republic ) is foreseen for the denial of this thesis. Such historical revisionism indirectly leads to the rehabilitation of Nazi crimes and directly diminishes their historical significance for post-war Europe.
Tomio Okamura, known for his populist statements against Roma and foreigners said on August 4, 2014, that Roma camp in Lety near Pisek is not a concentration camp, but a labour one. According to him, it was designed for gypsies who refused to work. “Nobody was killed in the camp, people died from old age and disease from the traveller lifestyle. The myth about a Roma concentration camp, according to available sources, is a lie.” Politician stated that those who died in Lety were not victims of Nazi politics and comparing them to actual victims of concentration camps is insulting to the latter.
On August 5, Okamura stressed that he rejects any form of violence and his statement was not related to those who were sent from Lety to concentration camps.
June 30, 2022, the Court of First Instance in Ždar nad Sazavou found Bodyart Press and its CEO Gedvika Fiksova guilty of the crime of denying, challenging, approving and/or trying to justify genocide. The reason was the publication in Czech translation of David L. Hoggan's The Myth of the Six Million, which denied the existence of the Holocaust, as well as the distribution of this very book.
Fiksova was fined CZK 15,000 [EUR 600] and the company fined CZK 45,000 [EUR 1,800]. The book was published in 2016 with a circulation of 600 to 800 copies, Fiksova told the court yesterday. Most have sold. The CEO claimed to have published it for "study" purposes. The court did not agree with this conclusion.
