Holocaust denier set to face court

ivan087

we are getting into a right panic about free-speech, and the fact that we should be able to say what we like anywhere in europe. and here's this guy who could get 10 years in jail for saying "Auschwitz was as much a legend as the Turin Shroud". if we want free speach then so be it, but we shouldnt pick and choose.
besides i think he was making a point that, over time, things from history become blurred and exaggerated. we shouldnt take everything from history as fact.
anyway, he was promoting his book:rolleyes: (he brought it to court with him - under his arms so everyone could get a good pic!!!)
probably should just throw him in jail for the cheek of self-promotion!!!

Zombrex

ivan087 wrote:

probably should just throw him in jail for the cheek of self-promotion!!!

Agreed.. I think the entire "holocaust laws" are ridiculous, and in fact only strengthen the neo-Nazi image of the Jews (that they control power and re-write history).

It is easy to support free speach when the speech is insulting Muslims and Muslims are fire bombing embassies around the world.

It is harder, but equally important, to support free speach when it is allowing neo-Nazis and other groups to print a "revived" (ie nonsense) view of history that supports their own distasteful view point on the world.

People shouldn't be thrown in jail for having incorrect views, different views, unpopular opinions, or simply being idiots.

Sponge Bob

Wicknight wrote:

People shouldn't be thrown in jail for having incorrect views, different views, unpopular opinions, or simply being idiots.

Funny that but in Germany you can be thrown in jail for calling someone an idiot

FX Meister

No you can't

Zombrex

Sponge Bob wrote:

Funny that but in Germany you can be thrown in jail for calling someone an idiot

No wonder they keep starting wars ...

SeanW

Wicknight wrote:

Agreed.. I think the entire "holocaust laws" are ridiculous, and in fact only strengthen the neo-Nazi image of the Jews (that they control power and re-write history).

It is easy to support free speach when the speech is insulting Muslims and Muslims are fire bombing embassies around the world.

It is harder, but equally important, to support free speach when it is allowing neo-Nazis and other groups to print a "revived" (ie nonsense) view of history that supports their own distasteful view point on the world.

People shouldn't be thrown in jail for having incorrect views, different views, unpopular opinions, or simply being idiots.

Well said.

shuushh

good thread had the exact same feelings when reading about it this morning

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

Agreed.. I think the entire "holocaust laws" are ridiculous, and in fact only strengthen the neo-Nazi image of the Jews (that they control power and re-write history).

It is easy to support free speach when the speech is insulting Muslims and Muslims are fire bombing embassies around the world.

It is harder, but equally important, to support free speach when it is allowing neo-Nazis and other groups to print a "revived" (ie nonsense) view of history that supports their own distasteful view point on the world.

People shouldn't be thrown in jail for having incorrect views, different views, unpopular opinions, or simply being idiots.

yes. the strength of democracy and free speech is not just in allowing people to believe and have access to what they like e.g. pornagraphy. It is much more concerned in allowinf them access to what you dont like e.g abortion information, nazi literature, anarchists cookbook.

Another related issue is the so called "public interest". The media appeal to this when it is something in which the public are interested. But the "public interest" is really concerned with the "public purse" and not just tabloid tittilation.

Sand

I think the holocaust laws need to be removed - unfortunately people have the right to be morons.

I can understand why they came in though. Something like the Holocaust needs to be recognised on an objective level. It did happen. It was premeditated policy. Millions were murdered on a conveyor belt system. These are facts that people do not wish to be undermined or discredited because it allows the possibility of the lessons of the holocaust being forgotten and the same thing happening all over again. Theres also the sheer annoyance idiocy can provoke.

Presented with people and groups attempting to persuade people that the Holocaust wasnt all that big a deal, or wasnt odd compared to the standards of the time, or even that it didnt happen at all - its understandable people would pass a law to ensure that the objective truths above would not be challenged by twits, given Germanys, and other countries that collaborated (to a lesser degree), desire to distance themselves from the Holocaust. Nothing would be more embarrassing for post-war Germany than some political figure writing off the Holocaust as a minor historical detail.

Still though, its served its purpose. Removing the legislation would encourage idiots to venture their views and then they can be lynched in the court of public opinion/ have their arguments demolished. Much like Irving was before when he lost his last court battle, the crux of which he had to prove his views on the holocaust were based on reasonable evidence. He couldnt.

mike65

I take it this is the David Irving case? He pleaded guilty so I guess he's liar too.

Mike.

Snickers Man

Wicknight wrote:

No wonder they keep starting wars ...

Actually, compared with most other traditional European powers, they don't really.

They didn't start World War One. That was The First Great War on Terror. They only joined in with their ally Austria, the victim of 1914's equivalent of 9/11, in the fight on terror when that ally was threatened by a much larger power ie Russia.

Then knowing that sooner or later France and Britain would be dragged in through membership of the Triple Entente with Russia they decided on their traditional plan to attack France by taking the unprotected route through Belgium. Call it an Extraordinary Rendition. .

It was then that Britain started poking its nose in and complaining about 'the defence of small nations'. Whooops!!! there goes a large cup of coffee through my nose.

To start World War Two they merely invaded Poland to get their own country back. Much of Poland had been Germany before WWI. Between the war, no German politician not even Stresseman who won the Nobel Peace Prize for patching things up with France, accepted Germany's eastern borders.
So anyway, they invade Poland not wanting any more of it than they used to have anyway and then Britain and France get all holier than thou again.

Oops!. I think I see the Austrian police coming to get me.

mike65

"Merely invaded Poland..." it sounds almost benign. Ask the Poles about that.

Mike.

The Corinthian

mike65 wrote:

I take it this is the David Irving case? He pleaded guilty so I guess he's liar too.

Perhaps. Or perhaps he simply admitted he had been wrong. Do you perhaps know something we don’t?

Free speech does have limits and there are few who would deny that there is good reason for this. Free speech does not extend to libel or slander, for example; neither does it cover what Society would consider obscene - otherwise it would be acceptable to show child pornography or snuff movies on primetime television; and often it is curtailed where it is considered that it would corrupt members of Society - which is the argument, whether valid or not, used in the case of racist or pornographic media. Finally, national security is also sometimes cited as a valid reason for censorship.

The question of Holocaust denial in the West differs to all of these, however. We can generally point to it being an issue of respect for those who died in the Holocaust, as well as a need to keep its memory alive, lest it happen again; however this does not explain the almost religious hysteria in which the matter is considered a sacred cow, with the laws that exist in countries such as Germany and Austria are simply the most extreme example of this hysteria.

Personally I think this has come about as a result of the revulsion felt after World War II and kept alive due to various vested interests - both commercial and political. That in giving this opinion could well brand me as anti-Semitic too, ironically, goes to prove my point.

Unfortunately, Irving’s trial couldn’t come at a worse time as it give even greater credence to the Muslim belief that the West is hypocritical when it speaks of free speech. Similarly, those who may be either tending towards holocaust denial or even undecided on the subject will now have further reason to be suspicious of the orthodox interpretation of history.

Congratz. The West scores another own-goal.

A Dub in Glasgo

A bit over the top for having an opinion

ronbyrne2005

a joke.reminds me of the german man imprisoned for teaching his dog to salute like a nazi-which is also banned in germany with jail for offenders.

SeanW

Way over the top IMO.

This, like the Danish cartoons, reminds me of a quote from my favourite Stallone movie, where the bad guy, Wesely Snipes says

"Hey man, you can't take away people's right to be assholes"

That's really what it boils down to.

The_Minister

The problem with restricting holocaust speech is that the full storey is not known. Russia admitted that it boosted the original figure of the dead at Aushwitz for propaganda purposes. Maybe there are other details that need correcting? (I am not a denier)

mike65

Or perhaps he simply admitted he had been wrong.

I imagine he did'nt fancy spending many years in jail as an old-ish man, no doubt the appeal with be partly successful and he'll be relased pretty quickly.

David Irvins current positon as far as I can tell is that bad things happened but there was no Holocaust. Yes the camps were the site of unspeakable brutality and conditions but there were no gas chambers/ovens is the Irving view. He uses the recollections of Adolf Eichmann as the basis of his position. Eichman talks of a frankly barking notion of packing off europes Jewery to Madagascar.

Neo-Nazis like to say that becuase Churchill would'nt "back-down" from confronting Hilter the prolonging of the war meant the Nazis had to gas the Jews rather than exile them. Great logic there guys.

Mike.

The Corinthian

mike65 wrote:

I imagine he did'nt fancy spending many years in jail as an old-ish man, no doubt the appeal with be partly successful and he'll be relased pretty quickly.

Did a Sky News reader’s poll tell you this?

David Irvins current positon as far as I can tell is that bad things happened but there was no Holocaust.

Does this mean you don’t actually know what his position is?

Yes the camps were the site of unspeakable brutality and conditions but there were no gas chambers/ovens is the Irving view. He uses the recollections of Adolf Eichmann as the basis of his position. Eichman talks of a frankly barking notion of packing off europes Jewery to Madagascar.

Have you sources for his arguments or is this hearsay?

Neo-Nazis like to say that becuase Churchill would'nt "back-down" from confronting Hilter the prolonging of the war meant the Nazis had to gas the Jews rather than exile them. Great logic there guys.

Are you saying that Irving said this?

mike65

Sky News may well have run a txt poll I dont know or care and as I have'nt seen TV yet today.

Irvings postion changes like the wind or as and when it suits him, depending his audience.

Its not heasay its nuts go do some googling.

No I'm not saying Irving has this view other far rights types have said it. Irving may belive it but then you never know with Irving see above.

Now stop trolling.

Mike.

Freddie59

mike65 wrote:

Sky News may well have run a txt poll I dont know or care and as I have'nt seen TV yet today.

Irvings postion changes like the wind or as and when it suits him, depending his audience.

Its not heasay its nuts go do some googling.

No I'm not saying Irving has this view other far rights types have said it. Irving may belive it but then you never know with Irving see above.

Now stop trolling.

Mike.

Channel Four news has just announced that he's been given a three-year jail sentence. While I support the fundamental of free speech, there is a huge gulf between a set of cartoons about a human being (not a God) and the premeditated deaths of six million people.:(

Hobbes

Then you have no idea what free speech is.

The Corinthian

mike65 wrote:

Sky News may well have run a txt poll I dont know or care and as I have'nt seen TV yet today.

So it was simply your opinion stated as fact?

Irvings postion changes like the wind or as and when it suits him, depending his audience.

Source?

Its not heasay its nuts go do some googling.

No, you made the accusation. The onus is on you to supply evidence, not me.

No I'm not saying Irving has this view other far rights types have said it. Irving may belive it but then you never know with Irving see above.

That is simply conjecture or possibly even libel. Perhaps both.

Now stop trolling.

I’m not trolling, simply poking at the thin membrane of logic that hysterically surrounds this particular taboo, which was the point of my original post.

Freddie59 wrote:

While I support the fundamental of free speech, there is a huge gulf between a set of cartoons about a human being (not a God) and the premeditated deaths of six million people.:(

Then why do we not have the same reaction to the millions who died in the Soviet GULAG, for example?

Captain Trips

Firespinner wrote:

The problem with restricting holocaust speech is that the full storey is not known. Russia admitted that it boosted the original figure of the dead at Aushwitz for propaganda purposes. Maybe there are other details that need correcting? (I am not a denier)

Yeah, they officially revised the figure downward by 2.5 million (it used to read outside that 4 million died there, then they revised it 1.5 I think) (whatever it was, saying it in public as a citizen would be grounds for arrest that it was 1.5!)

Captain Trips

Freddie59 wrote:

Channel Four news has just announced that he's been given a three-year jail sentence. While I support the fundamental of free speech, there is a huge gulf between a set of cartoons about a human being (not a God) and the premeditated deaths of six million people.:(

One incites racial hatred between relgious and political groups, leading to deaths of dozens of people the world over in our supposed modern and enlightened time: causes problems here and now.

The other is some guy who wants to say the holocaust didn't happen 6 decades ago: causes no problems at all?

The French Revolution didn't result in the execution of nobles!
There was no systematic slaughter of native americans!
The SPanish COnqistadores didn't pillage South America!
The ROmans didn't throw Christians to the Lions in the Coliseum!!

I am obviously a dangerous criminal and should be jailed!!! I am a "SERIAL FALSIFYER OF HISTORY" (that's what they called Irving).

If anything, he is a martyr to the cause of reducing idiocy in law and government.

As an aside, I can obviously walk down a street in Vienna saying Allah is Homosexual, as that is freedom of speech in modern media terms and is far less of a problem for society as it stands now, that saying the Holocaust didn't happen.

Sir Oxman

But the author and academic Deborah Lipstadt, who Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel in the UK in 2000 over claims that he was a Holocaust denier, said she was dismayed.

"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth," she told the BBC News website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm

mike65

Just for the record I think Irving falling foul of this law was wrong as it should'nt exist. Though he maybe should have checked that it did exist back in '89.

The laws in Austria were framed with thier history in mind and the law in question is a very particular one- denying a truth which was under attack from those who would approve of the slaughter of a religious group.

But as mentioned I don't think the law should be. A democracy should be strong enough to deal with neo nazis and facists without jailing those who speak 'out of turn'.

Mike.

The Corinthian

Captain Trips wrote:

Yeah, they officially revised the figure downward by 2.5 million (it used to read outside that 4 million died there, then they revised it 1.5 I think) (whatever it was, saying it in public as a citizen would be grounds for arrest that it was 1.5!)

Source?

mike65 wrote:

Just for the record I think Irving falling foul of this law was wrong as it should'nt exist.

I agree and I think it’s being phased out anyhow.

Though he maybe should have checked that it did exist back in '89.

Awe, you just couldn’t resist, could you?

Nevada

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/

Guess Iranian president whatshisface going to have to curtail trips to Europe then lest he gets banged up.

samb

Freddie59 wrote:

Channel Four news has just announced that he's been given a three-year jail sentence. While I support the fundamental of free speech, there is a huge gulf between a set of cartoons about a human being (not a God) and the premeditated deaths of six million people.:(

IMO it is ridiculus jailing someone for saying anything, sticks and stones...and all that.
premeditated deaths of six million people very rich coming form someone with the banner ''Iran+Nukes, what could go wrong?''

samb

Has anyone read that Iain Banks book 'Dead Air'. The main character, a journalist, has a televised debate with a holocaust denier. As soon as it starts he runs over and punchs the denier in the face in front of all the cameras. He then denied that it happened. The hoolocaust denier cannot prosecute because, if succesful, he would lose the argument. Very clever I thought.