Holocaust denier set to face court

The Corinthian

Freddie59 wrote:

Are you unable to articulate an argument without personal insults? Attack the post - not the poster.

I did attack the argument, or more correctly your lack thereof.

It seems to be a facet of your personality. You seem to have a problem with English.

LOL. You accuse me of a personal attack and then come out with this drivel.

I didn't say I agreed with it - just that if it's the law, and you break it, then you must pay for it. Is that clear enough for you?

You do agree with it though. You’ve already made your feelings clear on that point. Additionally your ‘argument’ was simply in glib response to someone else’s rational argument, hence my commentary.

Snickers Man

Wicknight wrote:

And to eliminate the Polish people ....

No. Only the Jewish community therein. You are exaggerating the intentions of the Nazis and amplifying their already scurrilous reputation.

Actually this raises an interesting point. If it's a crime to make a glib comment which seeks to diminish the guilt of the Nazis war crimes, does it follow that to make a statement which exaggerates their crimes is also against the law?

So could Wicknight be done for asserting that the Nazis wanted to eliminate the Polish people, which is not true, under the same legislation that Irving was convicted under?

Could be interesting.

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

No. Only the Jewish community therein. You are exaggerating the intentions of the Nazis and amplifying their already scurrilous reputation.

As far as I know the current understanding is that the Nazi party, and Hitler himself, had envisioned the elimination of all Poles (and races of strong Slav origin), as they were considered an inferer race. By the end of the war they had liked 20% of the population. They were not suitable for Germanisation so they were to be killed or deported, and the countries repopulated.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

As far as I know the current understanding is that the Nazi party, and Hitler himself, had envisioned the elimination of all Poles (and races of strong Slav origin), as they were considered an inferer race. By the end of the war they had liked 20% of the population. They were not suitable for Germanisation so they were to be killed or deported, and the countries repopulated.

The German occupation of Poland was a particularly brutal affair, with many non-Jewish Poles dieing as a result of forced labour and execution. The idea that the Nazi’s specifically chose to exterminate the non-Jewish Polish population though is largely based upon an alleged speech by Hitler, and so is disputed.

Regardless of this, it is highly unlikely that the Poles, or at least those that could not be accepted as Aryan, would have been welcome in the ‘Greater Germany’, so deportation of those non-Aryan Poles may have been a logical early solution to this, and it could have been quite likely that extermination may have been deemed more acceptable as the war - and its brutality - progressed.

Snickers Man

I do remember an entry in an old Guinness Book of Records which showed that the country that suffered most head for head in WWII was Poland with so many of its people killed. Of course the huge Polish Jewish community that was largely exterminated would have counted for some of this.

So too would be the fact that Poland was invaded by two armies neither of whom were famous for their kid gloves, namely the Germans and the Red Army. There was a famous massacre at Katyn of thousands of Polish army officers which the Soviet Union always said was done by the Nazis but the Poles were having none of it.

But can anyone shed light on my question: if you exaggerate the crimes of the Nazis, hard though it is to do that, can you be charged under the same laws that Irving was jailed for for falsifying the record?

ivan087

Snickers Man wrote:

But can anyone shed light on my question: if you exaggerate the crimes of the Nazis, hard though it is to do that, can you be charged under the same laws that Irving was jailed for for falsifying the record?

good question. i'd be interested in knowing an answer to this myself.
if you can get done for saying that instead of 6 million jews killed, that you believe 3 million jews were killed - wouldnt it be a crime to say 9 million were killed? its nearly like a crime against opinion.
how can people debate history when we are looking over our backs in case we say something against what is widely believed.
people who deny the holocaust should not be done for. they should be shown for the fools they are. however, if someone is denying the holocaust and are questioning some facts about it - i want to know. there is a lot that we dont know about WW2 and people shouldnt be afraid to reseach and express an opinion that goes against the grain.

Captain Trips

I wonder what would happen if say, you simply said you'd never heard of it.

Q: WHat is your belief on the holocaust, Mr. Irving?

A: Holocaust? What's that, I've never heard of it.

Q: Have you been living in a cave?

A: Yes apparently I have. So long chaps.

So, what would be the deal with not denying the holocaust, but denying you'd ever heard of the holocaust?

Is saying you've never heard of the holocaust also diminishing it? I haven't heard of a whole lot of things in history but it's not dminishing them...

Man this law is so f**ked up on so many levels. I am getting lost.

The Corinthian

Snickers Man wrote:

But can anyone shed light on my question: if you exaggerate the crimes of the Nazis, hard though it is to do that, can you be charged under the same laws that Irving was jailed for for falsifying the record?

My understanding is that the law surrounding this issue specifically concerns itself with the denial and diminishing of the accepted historical account of the Holocaust. So the answer is yes, you could say seven million but not five.

Captain Trips wrote:

So, what would be the deal with not denying the holocaust, but denying you'd ever heard of the holocaust?

Pleading ignorance is not the same as denying or even understating its existence, as it makes no claim of amendment to the accepted historical account of the Holocaust, so the scenario you propose would probably not have any relevance to the law in question.

Claiming that you’d heard of the Holocaust, but did not believe in it, as you are ignorant of the evidence may be an applicable scenario.

bonkey

ivan087 wrote:

good question. i'd be interested in knowing an answer to this myself.
if you can get done for saying that instead of 6 million jews killed, that you believe 3 million jews were killed - wouldnt it be a crime to say 9 million were killed?

I give up. Would it be?

I'm amazed at the number of people on this thread who are offering criticisms based on their opinion on what they think the law might say, rather than on what the law does say, on what it is intended to cover, and (in an ideal world) on how the courts to date have implemented it.

how can people debate history when we are looking over our backs in case we say something against what is widely believed.

Here's a challenge for you...and for all those others who seem to be indicating that this is what the law really means. Can you show one instance where a genuine scholarly discussion which has led to a conviction?

Irving is about as close as it comes, and lets not forget what it was he was arrested and tried (and soon to be imprisoned) for - claiming in a series of speeches in Vienna that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, there were no extermination camps in the Third Reich, and for calling Adolf Hitler a protector of Europe's Jews, amongst other things.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not entirely supportive of the laws in question, but this growing practice of billing them as some sort of tool of the thought-police strikes me as a touch hysterical.

In Ireland, we have laws against libel and slander. We have laws against incitement to hatred. Are these also trying to make opinions illegal? Or do we simply understand (a bit) better what slander and libel are, and that these laws are not there to make the expression of any negative opinion a punishable offence?

people who deny the holocaust should not be done for. they should be shown for the fools they are.

Nice idea, but how do you go about it?

See...here's the problem...

Who are revisionists trynig to convince? Its generally not those who already know of and believe in the established version of history. Just like IDers generally don't target scientists, revisionists aren't targetting those who know they are wrong.

They are targetting those they can convince they are right.

So imagine you know nothing about a subject. You have two people presenting well-worded, apparently-persuasive arguments. Both of them link to material of apparently well-respected and knowledgeable experts. They are presenting incompatible versions of what is going on. Which one is right?

If its so easy to show these people up as the fools they are, you should be able to just as easily tell me which of the two people I refer to in the previous paragraph is the fool, and which is telling the truth.

however, if someone is denying the holocaust and are questioning some facts about it - i want to know.

Its impossible to deny something and question facts about it at the same time.

Denial implies you have answers to the questions, and those answers don't match the established version of events causing you to reject said version.

The law, as I understand it, does not prevent anyone from questioning the established version of events. Its designed to allow intervention when someone is denying them.

there is a lot that we dont know about WW2 and people shouldnt be afraid to reseach and express an opinion that goes against the grain.

I'm not aware of a single case where the "denial laws" have been implemented to stifle such a discussion. The laws are invoked to stop people who have decided on a position and then done research to find the spin to support it.

I'm open to correction on that, but I really think we should take a moment and find out what this law has and has not been used for, rather than wildly speculating on same.

jc

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

Here's a challenge for you...and for all those others who seem to be indicating that this is what the law really means. Can you show one instance where a genuine scholarly discussion which has led to a conviction?

Isn’t that a bit like arguing that a law that can be used to erode civil liberties is all right because it hasn’t been abused yet?

In Ireland, we have laws against libel and slander. We have laws against incitement to hatred. Are these also trying to make opinions illegal? Or do we simply understand (a bit) better what slander and libel are, and that these laws are not there to make the expression of any negative opinion a punishable offence?

Then would it not be logical to treat the issue of Holocaust denial in terms of libel and incitement to hatred?

Nice idea, but how do you go about it?

The same way the debate between Intelligent Design and Darwinism has been conducted.

Its impossible to deny something and question facts about it at the same time.

But by questioning the facts your conclusions may come to a contradiction of a previously held view. Additionally questioning the facts can be legally considered implied denial.

The law, as I understand it, does not prevent anyone from questioning the established version of events. Its designed to allow intervention when someone is denying them.

So you can question the facts as long as you arrive at the conclusion we want you to come to?

Snickers Man

bonkey wrote:

I give up. Would it be?

I don;t know the answer. It's a genuine question. I'm hoping somebody can tell me

bonkey wrote:

I'm amazed at the number of people on this thread who are offering criticisms based on their opinion on what they think the law might say, rather than on what the law does say, on what it is intended to cover, and (in an ideal world) on how the courts to date have implemented it.

Well, vielleicht it's because wir wohnen nicht alles in Switzerland and consequently unser knowledge of the Deutsche language is ganz crap.

I would love to know the wording of the law and what you can or can't say. My question might have been hypothetical but I really do want to know what the law actually outlaws. Maybe you can enlighten us?

BONKEY wrote:

lets not forget what it was he was arrested and tried (and soon to be imprisoned) for - claiming in a series of speeches in Vienna that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz,

Well there weren't by the time the Russians got there AFAIK. We have to take there existence on faith.

bonkey wrote:

there were no extermination camps in the Third Reich,

Many concentration camps were not extermination camps. I have heard commentators and politicians throwing out the line that Dachau was an extermination centre. It wasn't. That's a lie. Or at least, it's a casual untruth that many people were completely uninhibited about uttering.

If it's an offence to exaggerate one way, why not the other?

bonkey wrote:

and for calling Adolf Hitler a protector of Europe's Jews, amongst other things.

Didn't I read in Conor Cruise O'Brien's very favourable history of Israel (the Siege) that there were some contacts between the Zionists in Palestine and the Nazis in the early days of the Third Reich? Paraphrase: 'You want the Jews out of Germany; we want them in Palestine. Let's talk'

Of course it didn't last, but maybe Irving played up that angle a bit.


Please don't get me wrong. There is no doubt that the Jews were scandalously treated and persecuted in Hitler's Germany and that millions of them were killed by a deliberate policy of genocide. Just in case there's any Austrian cops watching.

ivan087

bonkey wrote:

I give up. Would it be?

I'm amazed at the number of people on this thread who are offering criticisms based on their opinion on what they think the law might say, rather than on what the law does say, on what it is intended to cover, and (in an ideal world) on how the courts to date have implemented it.


Here's a challenge for you...and for all those others who seem to be indicating that this is what the law really means. Can you show one instance where a genuine scholarly discussion which has led to a conviction?

Irving is about as close as it comes, and lets not forget what it was he was arrested and tried (and soon to be imprisoned) for - claiming in a series of speeches in Vienna that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, there were no extermination camps in the Third Reich, and for calling Adolf Hitler a protector of Europe's Jews, amongst other things.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not entirely supportive of the laws in question, but this growing practice of billing them as some sort of tool of the thought-police strikes me as a touch hysterical.

In Ireland, we have laws against libel and slander. We have laws against incitement to hatred. Are these also trying to make opinions illegal? Or do we simply understand (a bit) better what slander and libel are, and that these laws are not there to make the expression of any negative opinion a punishable offence?


Nice idea, but how do you go about it?

See...here's the problem...

Who are revisionists trynig to convince? Its generally not those who already know of and believe in the established version of history. Just like IDers generally don't target scientists, revisionists aren't targetting those who know they are wrong.

They are targetting those they can convince they are right.

So imagine you know nothing about a subject. You have two people presenting well-worded, apparently-persuasive arguments. Both of them link to material of apparently well-respected and knowledgeable experts. They are presenting incompatible versions of what is going on. Which one is right?

If its so easy to show these people up as the fools they are, you should be able to just as easily tell me which of the two people I refer to in the previous paragraph is the fool, and which is telling the truth.



Its impossible to deny something and question facts about it at the same time.

Denial implies you have answers to the questions, and those answers don't match the established version of events causing you to reject said version.

The law, as I understand it, does not prevent anyone from questioning the established version of events. Its designed to allow intervention when someone is denying them.



I'm not aware of a single case where the "denial laws" have been implemented to stifle such a discussion. The laws are invoked to stop people who have decided on a position and then done research to find the spin to support it.

I'm open to correction on that, but I really think we should take a moment and find out what this law has and has not been used for, rather than wildly speculating on same.

jc

it still is his opinion that there were no gas chambers etc. if thats what he wants to believe - then so be it. he was lecturing in colleges around Austria. im sure the people who were listening to him could make up their own mind about him. he shouldnt get arrested for a belief he has. why is it only about the holocaust? there are many other incidents that have happened throughout history. if some english guy came over to ireland and said that oliver cromwell never came to ireland and sent irish peasents off their land. what do you think the reaction would be? laughter. maybe some debate. maybe people would learn a thing or two. if you cant deny the holocaust, then you shouldnt be able to deny anything. sounds stupid doesnt it. well that law is stupid. and that stupid man is going to jail.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Isn’t that a bit like arguing that a law that can be used to erode civil liberties is all right because it hasn’t been abused yet?

I haven't said its alright. I've questioned whether or not its the monster that people are making it out to be, or are we simply making assumptions about how monstrous it might be.

As I pointed out - we are able to understand that our libel laws in Ireland are not designed to clamp down on the holding an expressing of any negative opinion....but they could be interpreted that way especially if you take a ruling, an assumption of what the law might say, and generalise away like people have been doing in this thread.

I've not seen one quote of the law (German or English), nor a link to it, yet plenty of people willing to expound on what they know/think it means. Thats what I was really driving at...that many of the critics (and again - please note I've never suggested it is all the critics) should ask themselves how much of their condemnation is based on fact.

Then would it not be logical to treat the issue of Holocaust denial in terms of libel and incitement to hatred?

Well, thats what the Swiss penal code has done. It had to include Holocaust denial as a specific, seperate issue however, because it is used as a form of denigration without ever being directly denigrating.

In short, unless a nation rules that denying the Holocaust amounts to libel / incitement to hatred in and of itself, it has to legislate seperately to include it. In either case, you need legislation / case law to form the connection.

The same way the debate between Intelligent Design and Darwinism has been conducted.

But thats exactly my point...said debate has utterly failed to show to the public at large that ID is rubbish and its proponents are fools.

If it had, you wouldn't have the furore and controversy that we've seen in the last year about it. The public at large would have dismissed these people as cranks and moved on.

A significant minority have not dismissed (and/or has been taken in by) IDers. Same for deniers....a minority are willing to give them credence. Rightly or wrongly, this has been seen as an issue which needs to be dealt with in some European nations. Showing these people to be fools would have been a far easier solution....so why wasn't it done? Neither the informed public nor the government have shown the willingness or capability to do this, so I'm at a loss as to how anyone can suggest that its simple.

If its so simple to show them as fools, one has to ask why these fools have been so successful?

But by questioning the facts your conclusions may come to a contradiction of a previously held view.

Yes. Indeed they may. So questioning is not a problem. Concluding is.

Indeed, under Austrian law, even drawing conclusions is not a crime. The public airing of these conclusions may be.

Additionally questioning the facts can be legally considered implied denial.

Have you some basis on which to base this claim that doesn't rest on your own personal interpretation of Austrian law?

Given that you have said it is legally so, and not just your opinion I don't think its an unreasonable request....especially given that fact vs. assumption is exactly the issue I was highlighting and that you responded to.

Snickers Man wrote:

Well, vielleicht it's because wir wohnen nicht alles in Switzerland and consequently unser knowledge of the Deutsche language is ganz crap.

The point I'm making is that people are passing judgement on a law and its implications whilst at the same fairly clearly demonstrating that they simply do not actually know the law in question in detail.

If one doesn't speak German, hasn't found an English copy, and isn't simply revoicing the opinion of someone who does have some of these things, then I'm simply asking exactly what the condemnation is based on.

As I've said...we understand our libel laws are not intended as a general gag order, but one could easily conclude that from looking a case where the law has been criticised and deciding what the law says based on nothing but that criticism.

So how valid is it to criticize our libel laws as generic gag orders? Not very. This then calls into question how valid a similar one-case-and-no-text-of-the-law set of conclusions about this Austrian (or any other Holocaust-denial) law is.

We have to take there existence on faith

There is no testimony from inmates that they existed? No evidence of any kind? Nothing?

Someone came up with this idea out of the blue and with no supporting evidence whatsoever has managed to have their fairy tale included as fact?

Call me skeptical, but I don't believe you on that one. The evidence may not be incontrovertible, and you and I may agree that it is wrong that the existence cannot be questioned....but I do not believe that there is simply no evidence supporting the theory and it is something we have to simply take on faith.

Many concentration camps were not extermination camps.

Thats not what Irving said, nor what he was charged for saying, nor would saying it be in violation of the Austrian law.....so you'll hopefully forgive me if I don't really see this as a valid rebuttal of the point it appeared to be responding to.

Of course it didn't last, but maybe Irving played up that angle a bit.

And if he did, thats where he crossed the line. Its like taking the fact that "many concentration camps were not extermination camps, contrary to popular belief" and changing it to "despite what people believe, there were no extermination camps"....playing it up a bit, and thus changing from accurate statement of fact to fiction.

But again...if you're only speculating as to what Irving might have said, and adding that to what the law might mean, then again I come back to asking exactly what the condemnation of the law is based on?

Supposition and a willingness to believe something that may not be fact because - for one reason or another - you haven't researched the facts?

Funnily...its people willing to make strong judgements based on such a lack of evidence who are the prime targets for the likes of IDers and Holocaust deniers. Give them a convincing argument, add that they won't change the facts before coming to a conclusion, et voila.

But its simple to prevent this, right?

Thats why you and Corinthian are agreeing with me so strongly that we should inform ourselves properly about an issue before assuming conclusions that suit our general beliefs or believing said assumed conclusions from others.

jc

bonkey

ivan087 wrote:

it still is his opinion that there were no gas chambers etc.

Thats not what he said in teh court case we're discussing. Are you saying he lied under oath now?

if thats what he wants to believe - then so be it.

I've never suggested otherwise.

he shouldnt get arrested for a belief he has.

He wasn't. He was arrested for airing said view in public, in a place and time where the public airing of such views is a crime.

I haven't even said I agree that it should be a crime...

why is it only about the holocaust?

I don't know. In Switzerland, its about genocide. Given that the Swiss government recognised the Armenian Genocide in 2003, it means that Swiss law most certainly is not only about the Holocaust.

there are many other incidents that have happened throughout history.

No question. But how many of those issues have been cultivated into an indirect attack on a people, race or religion?

Just like ID, revisionism is such a successful issue because it can hide any number of agendas under a veneer of respectability. Funnily enough, there was this german chap who did something similar back in the 30s. He even had Gandhi singing his praises.

But there's nothing to fear from that reoccurring is there? Not with the rise of neo-nazism, neo-socialism, anti-semitism and the rest of it which (partly) prompted the introduction of these laws in the early-to-mid 90s. And its only co-incidence that one can see a strong correlation between the European nations which have passed such laws and those most affected by said german chap.

After all...its easy to show such people for the fools they are.

jc

The Corinthian

bonkey wrote:

I haven't said its alright. I've questioned whether or not its the monster that people are making it out to be, or are we simply making assumptions about how monstrous it might be.

A man has just been sent to prison for three years over said law. While most people seem happy enough to brand him a Nazi without any form of evidence, it would still be a pretty extreme penalty for a crime of dubious criminality and even more dubious exception.

I've not seen one quote of the law (German or English), nor a link to it, yet plenty of people willing to expound on what they know/think it means. Thats what I was really driving at...that many of the critics (and again - please note I've never suggested it is all the critics) should ask themselves how much of their condemnation is based on fact.

I think it’s pretty well understood what it entails given recent events and the coverage thereof. Do you believe that having greater in-depth legal knowledge would improve our understanding of the law to the point of our being qualified to discuss it?

Well, thats what the Swiss penal code has done. It had to include Holocaust denial as a specific, seperate issue however, because it is used as a form of denigration without ever being directly denigrating.

In short, unless a nation rules that denying the Holocaust amounts to libel / incitement to hatred in and of itself, it has to legislate seperately to include it. In either case, you need legislation / case law to form the connection.

However you also need a rational reason for that connection to begin with, otherwise any legislation will be arbitrary - which is what we have in the case of this type of law. It does not matter what the purpose of the historical revisionism is; whether it is designed to incite hatred or is a genuine academic reform. In either case the author is dammed.

This is not the case in defamation as it can (depending upon the country) be argued to be satire or even fair comment. Additionally in the case of defamation there is a clear tort (without it there is no defamation). Neither of these applies to the laws surrounding Holocaust Denial.

But thats exactly my point...said debate has utterly failed to show to the public at large that ID is rubbish and its proponents are fools.

Perhaps we should give up on democracy then, given the hoi polloi are to dumb to understand what’s good for them?

If it had, you wouldn't have the furore and controversy that we've seen in the last year about it. The public at large would have dismissed these people as cranks and moved on.

No, you’re jumping to conclusions. It is far more likely that the legal controversies has caused the furore rather than the historical theories themselves. After all, it has been one of the principle criticisms against the criminalization of Holocaust denial/revisionism that it feeds the controversy and conspiracy theories rather than deal with them.

Yes. Indeed they may. So questioning is not a problem. Concluding is.

Indeed, under Austrian law, even drawing conclusions is not a crime. The public airing of these conclusions may be.

So what’s your point?

Have you some basis on which to base this claim that doesn't rest on your own personal interpretation of Austrian law?

Yes, defamation law can work like this.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

A man has just been sent to prison for three years over said law. While most people seem happy enough to brand him a Nazi without any form of evidence, it would still be a pretty extreme penalty for a crime of dubious criminality and even more dubious exception.
...
So what’s your point?

My point is that there are plenty of valid reasons to challenge the law, focussing purely on what has transpired.

I got the feeling that many people (not just in this forum) are far too quick to make assumptive claims about how bad it might be, rather than criticising what it has been shown to be.

To me this weakens and detracts focus from the valid criticisms that can be levelled.

Perhaps we should give up on democracy then, given the hoi polloi are to dumb to understand what’s good for them?

I prefer to think of Churchill's comment that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

Democracy has it flaws and its failings. I am neither suggesting these problems be ignored, nor given in to. I am simply suggesting that getting carried away about the extremes that a bad law could conceivably be taken to, based on what is quite-often apparently insufficient information on the law in question only detracts from the more concrete criticisms of what has just transpired.

jc

Freddie59

The Corinthian wrote:

I did attack the argument, or more correctly your lack thereof.

Another personal attack.:rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

LOL. You accuse me of a personal attack and then come out with this drivel.

Sauce, goose, gander.;)

The Corinthian wrote:

You do agree with it though. You’ve already made your feelings clear on that point. Additionally your ‘argument’ was simply in glib response to someone else’s rational argument, hence my commentary.

Can you tell me where I did? And what you consider a 'glib response':rolleyes: is just that in your own eyes. Others (myself inluded) may consider your own contribution to be utter tripe. But that's just from our perspective.;)

The Corinthian

Freddie59 wrote:

Another personal attack.:rolleyes:

No, my point is you did not actually give an argument, simply a cliché. That is not a personal attack unless you consider speaking in clichés acceptable.

Sauce, goose, gander.;)

More drivel.

Can you tell me where I did? And what you consider a 'glib response':rolleyes: is just that in your own eyes. Others (myself inluded) may consider your own contribution to be utter tripe. But that's just from our perspective.;)

In your first post to this thread. As for what others consider of our posts, it’s appears painfully obvious from the response here that yours are held in low regard.

Snickers Man

bonkey wrote:

But again...if you're only speculating as to what Irving might have said, and adding that to what the law might mean, then again I come back to asking exactly what the condemnation of the law is based on?

bonkey wrote:

Thats why you and Corinthian are agreeing with me so strongly that we should inform ourselves properly about an issue before assuming conclusions that suit our general beliefs or believing said assumed conclusions from others.

jc

Every post I've made here is based on the premise that I DON'T know what the law says, that the journalistic shorthand of 'holocaust denier' probably loses a hell of a lot in translation and summarisation and that I would like to be better informed, so if anybody could tell me what exactly is outlawed I'd be grateful.

But nobody else seems to know either.

Imagine if we had a law here which said that complimentary revisions of certain passages of history were somehow to be outlawed.

We could throw Kevin Myers in the clink for what he's saying about 1916.
And as for that guy a few years back who said that Cromwell was 'an honourable enemy' based I think on the fact that he made his soldiers buy eggs rather than loot them.....

ISAW

Captain Trips wrote:

No, you are missing the point: History CANNOT be revised on this matter. And I am not suggesting at all that magical evidence will turn up and it will all have been a bad dream - not at all. The LAW is that you CANNOT introduce ANY QUESTION of ANY PART, REGARDLESS of the evidence you may have for only this one single episode of history.

that means that it is illegal (in Austria) to suggest revision - which is something I already stated I have a problem with. nobody can stop people believing the holocaust never happened. Nor can they stop them worshipping Satan, believing that we should eat all dead people, believing that the Moon is made of cheese etc.

However the fact of the holocaust could be revised if there was no evidence for the holocaust and there was ample evidence that the jews, gypsies slavs etc. made the whole story up. as it happens there is plenty of evidence that the holocaust did happen and the idea that it was all just made up (for example by the jews to get themselves their own country) is plainly unsupportable. I don't think people should be gaoled for insisting it but other countries do think that! If they want top pass laws on it who am I to tell them not to?

Also, anyone denying the holocaust happened is clearly showing no respect for the people who suffered in it. If they began by stating that jews slavs and gypsies etc. were all decent and respectable and admirable cultures then one might be prepared to listen further but no holocaust revisionist has ever expressed such feelings for the jews gypsies etc. One can conclude they are anti jew anti gypsy anti slav anth communist anti homosexual and their whole philosophy is linked to the idea of a "super race" with other "lesser" undermenchen.

There are so many different interpretations of history by thousands of scholars, and they are all free to do it,

I think perhaps ther are different histories. The past however did happen! There are not different pasts! There is no valid and credible history in which the holocaust did not happen. the Nazis planned the extermination of undermenchen. There is ample evidence to show that. If you deny that then the only alternative is that the whole thing was a made up conspiracy. There is no p[lethor of "other interpretations". Either it happened and was planned or it never happened. It is nonsensical to believe it didnt happen! But apart from that I migh even respect Irvine if he believed his own nonsence but by his own words he LIED about what he believed since he knew the holocaust happened but pretended he believed it didnt!

to think about things and to hopefully give us new perspectives on why e.g., things happened. This is a doctrine shoved down your throat by threat of imprisonment, and is an offence to what I would expect, every free thinking individual.

there are no new perspectives! Either it happened or it didnt! Are you saying it didnt?
Either you accept it happened or you think it didnt. Which are you? there is no "free thinking" alternative. It is not even a case of you believe it or you do not. ther is ample objective evidence that it happened. Any "free thinker" examining the evidence would accept it happened. To say one should "keep an open mind" is a silly a suggestion as to suggest WWII never happened or The Roman Empire never existed. One is not keeping an open mind by saying "maybe WWII didn't happen". One is plainly wrong to insist such nonsence!

IT IS STILL ILLEGAL is the point I am making. You cannot think about this part of history - everything else is fair game for historians.

As to it being illegal thts is a only in certain countries and that is for them to do. Even if it isnt illegal it is a stupid thing to disbelieve. Okay stupidity is not a crime but the people who deny the holocaust insist it is not a stupid argument. They also never indulge in denying anything else such as WWII. They also never praise the jews slavs etc. One can easily conculde their belief is insincere or rooted in racism.

The very crux of this issue is not that it's right or wrong, but that it is ILLEGAL to THINK.

No it isnt! Thought crime is neither existant nor enforcable by law. In order to break a law one muct be shown to do it! That means one muct act in such a way as to convince others that one is breaking a law. Criminal laws in addition involve harm (either to individuals or society) and punishment.

You *must* by force LAW and threat of imprisonment accept the official version of this one historical episode.

thats isnt true either! One must by logic and evidence accept the holocaust happened. By under law (in some countries) it is denial that is the crime. Should anyone ask "do you accept the holocaust happened" one is not under law compelled to reply (but I would wonder why one would not reply).

You can rewrite every single part of history, you can make a fortune off of the Bible and Da Vinci like Dan Brown,

Clearly incorrect interpretion of history! But whom is he harming?

you can say Ghengis Khan liked to cook lamb chops and didn't go on a rampage,

Why would you want to and who would you harm in doing so? Maybe in Mongolia there is a law against denying Gengis Kahn existed?

but you cannot ever ever amen say anything that could be interpreted as you not accepting any part of the Holocaust

What do you mean "any part of the holocaust"? Either you accept the p[lanned extermination of people or you dont. that is the holocaust!
Either you accept that it hap[pened or you dont! Do you?

- that is written in stone doctrine, and to even wonder about it, is illegal.

That it happened is written in stone yes! I mean do you actually believe it didnt? You cant really maintain such a silly line can you? To wonder or believe it didnt happen is not illegal. To insist to others that it didnt happen is illegal.

Where is free speech now?

Free speech is not absolute! I already stated I don't like holocausr denial catagorised as a crime but one cant shout FIRE in a crowded theatre!

Why is it not law that it is illegal to deny any other part of history?

It IS law!
In most countries It is illegal (teeasonous) to deny that the constitution of that country was written. I am sure there are more examples.

Woul you mind stating if you believe the holocaust happened for the record?

WHy is it not illegal to deny the 10 million Russians the Nazis killed? What about them? Does no-one care about them?

Actually people do since thay are part of the holocaust! Ever heard of Babi Yar? The holocaust was not just about Jews. It also involved gypsies slavs and others. Many were in Russia.

Why not the 5 million Christians? WHy no law for them?

This is news to me. Did hte Nazis actually plan to eliminate all the christians as well and actaully begin carrying that out? I am sure they would have got around to it and I know many Christians were killed but that was to my knowledge because they knew about the others being exterminated or because they protected them.

Captain Trips

I do believe "it" happened. The camps are there FFS. I don't know WHO did it, who ordered what, I don't know where the nazis got all the gas and trucks and trains from while fighting a war on two fronts to gas 6 million, but whatever. But, if someone wants to say they were ovens for cooking chicken, then let them. Isn't that what the idea for fighting the nazis was - to have free speech and free expression?

We get caught up in saying the editor of Jyllands Posten has freedom of expression but the same countries in the EU get pissed off when Iran says it want to go to Poland to see the camps and Poland refuses - we apparently think Iran is nuts.

Red Alert

it's deplorable that this man was jailed. free speech is probably the most important democratic right in any modern civilised country. why should the holocaust have such specific protection from informed debate? good discussion only can occur when all sides can be presented. i see no similar protections/special laws to deal with a few barbaric atrocities:

• the massacre of muslim men and boys in Strebornitza (sp?)
• the systematic abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison
• the systematic abuse of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay
• the ongoing killing of women and children and the burning of houses belonging to suspected terrorists by the Israeli state.

and rightly so. people are intelligent enough to make up their own mind based on the facts they have. why are the sympathisers of Israel which promotoes itself as a democracy saying that certain topics are off limits? personally i don't have much time for the revisionists' view. i certainly think an extermination of some kind went on of a huge proportion of people. just as it's my right to believe the holocaust did happen, it's their right to claim it didn't.

because of the holocaust, the Israeli state has disproportionte power. they are now abusing what was a really terrible atrocity by a brutal regime. the government views palestinians as a problem, and a palestinian life is not worth much to them it seems.

what will be the next 'untouchable' event is what I wonder?

The Corinthian

More sillyness.

ISAW

Captain Trips wrote:

I do believe "it" happened. The camps are there FFS. I don't know WHO did it, who ordered what, I don't know where the nazis got all the gas and trucks and trains from while fighting a war on two fronts to gas 6 million, but whatever. But, if someone wants to say they were ovens for cooking chicken, then let them. Isn't that what the idea for fighting the nazis was - to have free speech and free expression?

I already stated I am not in favour of denial being a crime. In my country it isnt. But the reason such laws were introduced elsewhere was not because they thought denial offended the jews (indeed a very small proportion of germany,Austria and Switzerland are jewish because of the holocaust but for two main reasons. First they had personal experience in those countries of a singular event - the planned extermination of the indigenous population for the purposes of resettling their land based on the belief the replacing people were a better sub species of human. In such a way denial constitutes non recognition of people for example jews having a right to a homeland - this is one reason the jews in particular have a problem with denial. Second, deniers want people to believe the whole thing is a big con and conspiracy (while at the same time not claiming any other such event was concocted as a con in history - they may well also believe Jesus Mohammed and a host of others were a conspiracy but they never push the issue do they?). This again like the first reason can only be linked to hatred of the people concerned as if they were a lesser species? So the people in those countries pass laws based on racial hatred as they see it. If you have any other reasons the deniers might want to revise only this part of history then please feel free to sthate them.

We get caught up in saying the editor of Jyllands Posten has freedom of expression but the same countries in the EU get pissed off when Iran says it want to go to Poland to see the camps and Poland refuses - we apparently think Iran is nuts.

Where is your evidence for this? As I understand it Poland has open access to camps.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

More sillyness.

I thought that case was ridiculous.

Reminds me of the civil servent in Washington who was forced to resign and then rehired for using the word "niggardly"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

I was at a Dara O'Brien show in Vicar St a few months ago and he said "niggardly" in a joke and a group of American women in front of us started frantically whispering to each other in the vain of "he didn't say that did he" ... People are dumb

Are they going to ban John Cleases "German walk" now .. :rolleyes:

Captain Trips

ISAW wrote:

So the people in those countries pass laws based on racial hatred as they see it. If you have any other reasons the deniers might want to revise only this part of history then please feel free to sthate them.

The laws are against freedom of expression - whether you agree or not with what is expressed. There's lots more these days that could be done to reduce racial hatred - banning the discussion of something 60 years ago isn't one of those things. My final opinion on the matter is that the laws should be removed and Irving released and he can go about his business and Jyllands Posten can go on stirring up racial hatred.

Irving has caused no one to be harmed. Jyllands Posten has caused many to be killed in protests. Irving goes to jail - he offends the protected group. JP staff don't go to jail and get cheered on as more and more people die in the name of free speech.

The laws stopping review of the holocaust are an attack on freedom of speech.

I'm sure Ken Livingstone isn't too impressed today either - he's been suspended for 4 weeks for insulting a jew. That one jewish reporter is obviously worth more than all those killed in protests after publishing cartoons of Mohammed.

Where is your evidence for this? As I understand it Poland has open access to camps.

http://www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=2/a/ix/210220061

Iran HAS been REFUSED permission to investigate.

Once again, it's not exactly front page news, but the museum has officially refused permission for Iran to investigate.

Who are the modern oppressors of free speech and free expression?
Careful what you answer, you might end up in jail.

ISAW

Captain Trips wrote:

The laws are against freedom of expression - whether you agree or not with what is expressed. There's lots more these days that could be done to reduce racial hatred - banning the discussion of something 60 years ago isn't one of those things.

but the Austrian people believe that it is

My final opinion on the matter is that the laws should be removed and Irving released and he can go about his business and Jyllands Posten can go on stirring up racial hatred.

Where is there any evedence that Posten had any intent to stir up racial hatred?

Irving has caused no one to be harmed.

yes he has. Under Austrian law he has. Otherwise he would not be in prision.

Jyllands Posten has caused many to be killed in protests.

how so?

The laws stopping review of the holocaust are an attack on freedom of speech.

yes but so what? that is not germane is it?

I'm sure Ken Livingstone isn't too impressed today either - he's been suspended for 4 weeks for insulting a jew. That one jewish reporter is obviously worth more than all those killed in protests after publishing cartoons of Mohammed.

How many were killed?

[url]http:///www.infoisrael.nett/cgi-local/text.pl?source=2/a/ix/210220061[/url]
Iran HAS been REFUSED permission to investigate.
Once again, it's not exactly front page news, but the museum has officially refused permission for Iran to investigate.
Who are the modern oppressors of free speech and free expression?
Careful what you answer, you might end up in jail.

Oh I am not worried about being in gaol for my beliefs. Who is Anthony David Marks and the IHC? the people behind the link you give above. Please care to give some details on them?

I cannot see how anyone has been denied access to Polish holocaust sites. Care to please expand on it?

Captain Trips

how so?
have Jyllands Posten has caused many to be killed in protests.

how so?

mmm....because dozens of people have been killed in protests since Jyllands Posten's editor or cartoonist made these cartoons? Or have you been living in a cave and missed the past 4 weeks? There have been many many protests and many many people have died. It happened - I will let you find out yourself if you don't already know. And it's these cartoons specifically, or you have missed the calls for peace by the Muslim group leaders, the discussions on BBC, Sky News.

Basically, many have been killed in protests due to the Jyllands Posten cartoonist or editor creating and publishing the cartoons.

ISAW wrote:

I cannot see how anyone has been denied access to Polish holocaust sites. Care to please expand on it?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1139395434222&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Here is another link from the Jerusalem Post showing that the Auschwitz Musem has refused access to the holocaust sites for the purposes of investigation.

I don't need to expand on this any further - the sites refuse access, and you say you "thought they had open access">. People are in jail or suspended for simply saying what they want which is limiting free speech FAR MORE than simple cartoons are by the JYllands Posten editor.

JYllands Posten editor (whoever he is) gets away with stirring racial tension.

Auschwitz museum director blocks access to holocaust sites (whoever he is).

Ken Livingstone is suspended for q quip

Irving in jail.

Muslims are told to lighten up and stop being religious zealots and accept freedom of speech
I think February should be called "In Memory of Free Speech Month".

Captain Trips

yes he has. Under Austrian law he has. Otherwise he would not be in prision.

No the law doesn't exist to punish those who have been harmed, as Irving was not involved in the carrying out of the holocaust, was he?

Irving is in jail for thinking something unsavoury, but which had no immediate or direct harm caused to anybody, other than feeling upset at him.

If Irving is in jail, then the Jyllands Posten editor and cartoonist should also be in jail - or else, we are back to double standards of free speech. They caused no "harm" per se, but many are upset (many more really, leading to deaths and protests and riots).

Surely the harm caused by Jyllands Posten's editor and cartoonist is worse than whatever harm Irving caused?

Freddie59

The Corinthian wrote:

No, my point is you did not actually give an argument, simply a cliché. That is not a personal attack unless you consider speaking in clichés acceptable.

More drivel.

In your first post to this thread. As for what others consider of our posts, it’s appears painfully obvious from the response here that yours are held in low regard.

More tripe. Have you ever considered that people might actually agree with the sentiments contained within them? I read many posts which I thoroughly agree with - but don't respond to them. You, on the other hand, seem to spend most of your time defending the indefensible. Very intelligent indeed.:o