To give context so that my question may be better understood and not just disregarded as trolling, I have just read "Germany must Perish!" by author Theodore N. Kaufman. It's a very well-written book, which I'd recommend to anyone, that dates back to WW2 where the author makes the case that to stop Germany from creating more suffering, we should sterilize all German people and then put them into slavery.

Obviously, it is a pretty dated book and the world has changed a lot since then. But it got me thinking. Let's say that hypothetically there was someone who believed that a particular nation in Europe was about to go down that route again. For the sake of argument, let's say this nation is Germany (chose it randomly, no relation with the previous paragraph). Could this person legally create a peaceful political movement that would have as a goal to pass a law that would carry out the punishment outlined in Kaufman's book? The sterilization of, in this hypothetical case, Germany? Does EU law prohibit someone from advocating for that kind of position?

A second question would be: Let's say that this hypothetical person really believed Germany is about to be a threat again and thus puts his all into this movement until eventually, it has great popular support. Could the EU, within its systems, legally pass a law that says "We will sterilize all German citizens"? Or would that be illegal? Also, if it is illegal, I'd like to know which laws would have to be changed to make it legal. Just to see how this hypothetical political movement would have to operate in order to achieve Kaufman's goal.

Thank you in advance to any EU law expert who wishes to assist me to answer this hypothetical question.

**Edit 1: ** It has been pointed out that this kind of law would first be blocked by human rights courts and that finding out how to remove human rights is a political issue. Therefore to stay on-topic and not get into politics please assume that the necessary rights have been removed.

  • 6
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's trolling. – BlueDogRanch Aug 16 '19 at 21:20
  • @BlueDogRanch I believe my question is very much in line with questions like law.stackexchange.com/questions/32875/… Which you have even answered and gotten praise for giving a serious answer. Please do not close your mind just because you do not like the subject. It is an honest question about EU law. – anonimasu Aug 16 '19 at 21:23
  • Any such law would be ripped to shreds under human rights protections in the courts shortly afterward. – user4210 Aug 16 '19 at 21:41
  • 1
    Even if the EU could (it can't), the German Supreme Court made it very clear that the EU only has power because and as long as their human rights policy matches that of Germany. – MSalters Aug 17 '19 at 1:10
  • 2
    No one reading your question believes that Germany was randomly selected as your example. – George White Aug 17 '19 at 2:15

This is pretty trivial.

The proposed action is a flagrant violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is a declaration, not a treaty or a law. Treaties and laws can be revoked, but Human Rights are universal - that's the point. The Declaration merely spells them out

| improve this answer | |
  • Okay I take it from your answer and some of the other comments that I first need to find a way to change/remove some human rights. As it was pointed out by Greendrake this is politics so please assume that I have already managed to take away human rights (I'll inquire in political forums). Would it now be legal to carry out Kaufman's plan? Or are there other barriers specifically within the EU's legal system? – anonimasu Aug 17 '19 at 1:40
  • Your answer fully misses the difference between formal legally binding fundamental/human rights (in constitutions, ECHR, CFR) and the mostly political/moral international human rights (Declaration of the UN). At least in some sense it can be perfectly legal to have laws against the latter (but not the former). There are discussions on this in the philosophy of law, but I don't think this is asked here. – K-HB Aug 22 '19 at 15:20
  • @K-HBk: one of the key points of the Neurenberg trjals was that no, you cant hide behind laws that violate fundamental human rights. It didnt even matter that these had not yet been codified. The rights are fundamental and exist without writing them down. – MSalters Aug 22 '19 at 21:46

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.