On social media, a statement by Forum for Democracy Foreman Thierry Baudet has arisen. When answering a question from the public, the politician challenged the legitimacy of the historical process against Nazi leaders, after the Second World War in Nuremberg.
The question raised from the public was whether politicians should be tried before “some kind of tribunal” for the corona measures they have taken.
Baudet replied that he was not in favour of retroactive criminal law. I also regard the Nuremberg Tribunal as illegal,” said the Forum leader. “You should not try people retroactively. What you just have to do is vote out of this regime by democratic means. We have to do that, so they can apply for a benefit because we will abolish the waiting fee.”
On Twitter, many speak of a wrong and sensitive example of the politician. The Centre for Information and Documentation Israel is shocked that Baudet brought in the Nuremberg Processes.
Baudet has responded extensively on Twitter tonight to the fuss that has arisen. He says he just wanted to say that you should not condemn people with laws written after the facts, and that he set the example to reflect the legal basis of the Nuremberg Tribunal.
“ This is called the principle of legality and forms the basis of a rule of law,” writes Baudet. And, “Murder is and has always been illegal. The indescribable genocidal crimes of the Germans could and should have been punished under regular national law.”
fact that international lawyers take a critical look at the Nuremberg Tribunal is not controversial, says Marieke de Hoon, professor of international criminal law at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. “But this is more about whether setting up a supranational tribunal by the victors was a form of victory right, not whether the crimes committed against the Jews and others were not of the most serious form for which the Nazis had to be punished.”
“ The vast majority of international law scholars will say that crimes against humanity, which were, in a sense, the first persecuted by the Nuremberg Tribunal, were already sufficiently enshrined in international law to prosecute it. Even though there are other points to be found at this first tribunal, which was set up in haste at the time and in a short time, tried very complex cases.”
According to De Hoon, Baudet suggests that those crimes were not committed. “But,” she stressed, “that‘s not what he says. He says that at the time international criminal law was not so far advanced to prosecute supranational staff rights, which you can indeed discuss, although he represents a minority position. So what he’s saying is legally and scientifically not as exciting as such. But it raises the question of why he says this at all and what exactly suggestion he is trying to arouse.”