Holocaust Deniers

The Saint

brianthebard wrote: »

We can't allow people to deny that the holocaust happened, or that millions and millions of people existed and then didn't, because of Nazism. People cannot pick and choose which historical events they believe happened at will. Further, holocaust denial laws are very important pieces of legislation, which should in time be a way of putting pressure on Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide for example.

While by and large I agree with everything you have said I'm not convinced on this aspect for a number of reasons. The first point is about freedom of speech. Holocaust denial laws have been rejected in numerous countries for this reason and I think it sets a dangerous precident. Who is to decide who can deny what. Are all atrocities to be included? At what point does revisionism become denial and who deterines where this line is?

On another point I believe that banning holocaust denial gives these lunatics a greater percieved legitmacy in their claims of conspiracy theories seeking to hide the "truth". This gives them more oxygen to air their greviences.

Also I think the best way to counter these people is through facts. Their arguement is easily discredited with facts whereas their assertions are based on selective interpretations of "information". By having the dabate these people can be publically discredited and their lies be shown for what they are. Silencing them gives credence in some circles for their assertions of a conpiracy against them.

Mr.Micro

We can't allow people to deny that the holocaust happened, or that millions and millions of people existed and then didn't, because of Nazism. People cannot pick and choose which historical events they believe happened at will. Further, holocaust denial laws are very important pieces of legislation, which should in time be a way of putting pressure on Turkey to acknowledge the Armenian genocide for example.

I do not agree with holocaust denial laws. If people do not believe it happened then that's their belief/opinion. No law will change that. Hopefully such people are in the minority in society.

brianthebard

The Saint wrote: »

While by and large I agree with everything you have said I'm not convinced on this aspect for a number of reasons. The first point is about freedom of speech. Holocaust denial laws have been rejected in numerous countries for this reason and I think it sets a dangerous precident. Who is to decide who can deny what. Are all atrocities to be included? At what point does revisionism become denial and who deterines where this line is?

On another point I believe that banning holocaust denial gives these lunatics a greater percieved legitmacy in their claims of conspiracy theories seeking to hide the "truth". This gives them more oxygen to air their greviences.

Freedom of speech is not absolute, and there are limits on it already, just check the constitution. I don't believe that freedom of speech as an individual right should outweigh the denial of many millions of people's right to life in the holocaust.

Why should other atrocities not be included? Is denial not clear enough? revisionism and denial are clearly different, the bishop who recently said that only 300, 000 people died and none were gassed was not a revisionist but a negationist, there's no issue there.

Also I think the best way to counter these people is through facts. Their arguement is easily discredited with facts whereas their assertions are based on selective interpretations of "information". By having the dabate these people can be publically discredited and their lies be shown for what they are. Silencing them gives credence in some circles for their assertions of a conpiracy against them.

Well this has been proven already to be untrue, Irving was discredited years ago and yet he is still around, still spreading his message, even working on new books and receiving funding from various people despite having declared bankruptcy. Debating him is only giving him further publicity.

uberwolf

afaik the term holocaust was first coined in relation to the Armenian genocide.

Israeli cabinet members have denied that there was even a genocide, because it's politically inconvenient for them http://www.anca.org/action_alerts/actionalerts.php?aaid=23

Winston Churchill "In 1915 the Turkish Government began and ruthlessly carried out the infamous general massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia Minor," Churchill wrote in his magisterial volume four of The Great War. "... the clearance of the race from Asia Minor was about as complete as such an act, on a scale so great, could well be ... There is no reasonable doubt that this crime was planned and executed for political reasons." Churchill referred to the Turks as "war criminals" and wrote of their "massacring uncounted thousands of helpless Armenians -- men, women and children together; whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust -- these were beyond human redress."

so whilst the Armenian holocaust doesn't apparently merit a capital H, Israel deny its occurence.

Kama

Meh, thanks for the link, uber. That's precisely whats sick about it. If the Shoah has any primacy imo, its as an example of a continuum of brutality and horror, rather than as a singular instance. Rather than embrace the common humanity of those who suffered beyond reason, they reject the commonality to claim the incomparable nature of their specific experience.

Its a short-sighted, and I think self-undermining, approach. There's no monopoly on suffering or victimhood...

brianthebard

Yes its sickening that people are allowed deny the Armenian holocaust, which is precisely why the holocaust denial laws that exist need to be expanded to include this event, and perhaps others.

The Saint

brianthebard wrote: »

Freedom of speech is not absolute, and there are limits on it already, just check the constitution. I don't believe that freedom of speech as an individual right should outweigh the denial of many millions of people's right to life in the holocaust.

I'm aware that freedom of speech is not absolute. However who is to determine whether something should be allowed are not. Holocaust denial is not a crime in this country as well as most others. It has therefore determined in these countries that freedom of speech supercedes other considerations. This is the case due to considerations of freedom of speech. Saying that holocaust denial is going to cause the death of millions of people seems a bit sensationalist.

brianthebard wrote: »

Why should other atrocities not be included? Is denial not clear enough? revisionism and denial are clearly different, the bishop who recently said that only 300, 000 people died and none were gassed was not a revisionist but a negationist, there's no issue there.

My point is if you are going to legislate for such a thing who is to determine on a case by case basis which atrocities are to be included. It can easily become an area of political expediency such as the French bill saying that Armenian genocide denial was illeagal. This was seen by many as a political act to placate the French public due to their objection to Turkish membership of the EU as well as seeking to gain the 500,000 Armenian vote the following year.

brianthebard wrote: »

Well this has been proven already to be untrue, Irving was discredited years ago and yet he is still around, still spreading his message, even working on new books and receiving funding from various people despite having declared bankruptcy. Debating him is only giving him further publicity.

Well it's not as if he's not recieved plenty of free publicity with the angry protests against him everywhere he goes and his arrest and imprisonment in Austria. Surely all this publicity gave him a much higher profile and let more people know about him and his beliefs than he otherwise would have gotten if he had been ignored or debated rationally.

I understand this area is always going to be based on person judgement and different people are going to have different opinions on how this should be dealt with. i can see the logic behind holocaust denial legislation however I just don't think it's the best solution to the problem.

Kama

Meh, I don't think that necessarily follows. While I know it might be unreasonable to think that these things are answered rationally (values are notoriously unamenable to facts, or as Homer says: 'facts? you can use facts to prove anything you like', I don't think denying speech rights is a ethical or effective avenue for this, for a host of reasons.

Lets work with it...lets say we take the German model. Should this only apply to genocide, or to anything else? Are certain events to be beyond denial? Which events, and why? What are the limits on this?

It's imo a minefield going down the route of legislating questions of fact as beyond question...unless your the Pope, ofc...

brianthebard

The Saint wrote: »

I'm aware that freedom of speech is not absolute. However who is to determine whether something should be allowed are not. Holocaust denial is not a crime in this country as well as most others. It has therefore determined in these countries that freedom of speech supercedes other considerations. This is the case due to considerations of freedom of speech. Saying that holocaust denial is going to cause the death of millions of people seems a bit sensationalist.

Who decides any sort of laws?? I don't think I've claimed that holocaust denial will cause the deaths of millions of people? But I will state that it is an incitement to hatred.

My point is if you are going to legislate for such a thing who is to determine on a case by case basis which atrocities are to be included. It can easily become an area of political expediency such as the French bill saying that Armenian genocide denial was illeagal. This was seen by many as a political act to placate the French public due to their objection to Turkish membership of the EU as well as seeking to gain the 500,000 Armenian vote the following year.

Well there's no getting away from the fact that holocaust denial is a political matter no matter what. Can it be used for political gain? Perhaps. Can just about everything else that is legislated on? Yes. Should be abolish the ability to legislate because of that? yes. Oops, I mean no.

Well it's not as if he's not recieved plenty of free publicity with the angry protests against him everywhere he goes and his arrest and imprisonment in Austria. Surely all this publicity gave him a much higher profile and let more people know about him and his beliefs than he otherwise would have gotten if he had been ignored or debated rationally.

I understand this area is always going to be based on person judgement and different people are going to have different opinions on how this should be dealt with. i can see the logic behind holocaust denial legislation however I just don't think it's the best solution to the problem.

Which caused which though? If he was not allowed to speak at all, if all oxygen to his argument was cut off, then there would be no further publications, no more tv interviews, no "controversial" lit and deb societies trying to be radical by inviting him, and there would be no protests.

There's no one easy solution to the holocaust denial issue, that much is obvious. But allowing nazis to spread their message isn't a solution either.

Kama

The basic litmus test of free speech is whether you would allow someone who you disagree with, think is wrong, dangerous etc, to speak. You can't be a sunshine supporter of free speech, to my mind. I know this gets problematic, as you say, with incitement to hatred.

I had this argument with some of my 'libertarian' anarchist m8s, who were of the AntiFas persuasion, who were against Irving speaking. The irony is the same logics could be, and historically were, used against them.

The Saint

brianthebard wrote: »

Who decides any sort of laws?? I don't think I've claimed that holocaust denial will cause the deaths of millions of people? But I will state that it is an incitement to hatred.

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted what you said. I have no problem with incitement to racial hatred legislation. However I don't think Holocaust denial can directly be interpreted as racial hatred even though that is the clear undercurrent. It is denying an historical event. Also implementing such laws to make them effective would be nigh on impossible. A minority of states have holocaust denial laws. Information on holocaust denial is readily available online or Irving books can be ordered on Amazon. The logistics of making it in any way relaistically effective would be immense. I also think the interpretation of what should be included would become very contentious.

brianthebard wrote: »

Well there's no getting away from the fact that holocaust denial is a political matter no matter what. Can it be used for political gain? Perhaps. Can just about everything else that is legislated on? Yes. Should be abolish the ability to legislate because of that? yes. Oops, I mean no.

Of course legislation is used for political gain. However, I think being selective in the application of legislation for political gain. Of course governments can legislate on anything they want. It doesn't mean that they should. Most countries don't have these laws for good reasons based on freedom of speech.

brianthebard wrote: »

Which caused which though? If he was not allowed to speak at all, if all oxygen to his argument was cut off, then there would be no further publications, no more tv interviews, no "controversial" lit and deb societies trying to be radical by inviting him, and there would be no protests.

As I stated above it would be near impossible to cut of all oxygen unless Holocaust denial laws are introduced by every country in the world and that the internet is regulated. This isn't going to happen.

brianthebard

The Saint wrote: »

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted what you said. I have no problem with incitement to racial hatred legislation. However I don't think Holocaust denial can directly be interpreted as racial hatred even though that is the clear undercurrent. It is denying an historical event. Also implementing such laws to make them effective would be nigh on impossible. A minority of states have holocaust denial laws. Information on holocaust denial is readily available online or Irving books can be ordered on Amazon. The logistics of making it in any way relaistically effective would be immense. I also think the interpretation of what should be included would become very contentious.

Ok well just to clarify what I meant was that millions upon millions had their right to life denied by the actions of Nazi Germany. By upholding the freedom of speech of a holocaust denier you are putting this single man's right to free speech on the same level or higher than the right to life of those millions who had their right taken from them. Holocaust denial also depends on the idea that the jews and other ethnicities who died in the holocaust are lying- is that not a argument of hate? Besides, who is Irving to deny a historical event? What puts him above history?? History is full of things we would be happy to forget if we could, but that's not how it works.

Of course legislation is used for political gain. However, I think being selective in the application of legislation for political gain. Of course governments can legislate on anything they want. It doesn't mean that they should. Most countries don't have these laws for good reasons based on freedom of speech.
As I stated above it would be near impossible to cut of all oxygen unless Holocaust denial laws are introduced by every country in the world and that the internet is regulated. This isn't going to happen.

As previously stated freedom of speech is not absolute. One could easily use the present constitution which states;

Freedom of speech: Guaranteed by Article 40.6.1. However this may not be used to undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence.

(source: http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Constitution_of_Ireland) to ban holocaust denial. So holocaust denial laws and freedom of speech are not incompatible I feel. Each country that introduces these laws makes it harder for Irving to spread this hate. The internet doesn't have to be even nearly fully regulated to get amazon to stop selling irving's books. Besides it would start at the source; he would not be able to publish. No publishing contract, no need to regulate amazon. Do I believe that denial can be totally stamped out? No, but it can be made less and less acceptable.

Kama

Interesting that the section of the Constitution mentioned is one of the more reactionary parts, which justified the censorship we had in this country (such as Life of Brian :eek:)

Who will establish the 'true and accurate' account of human history? How will this be policed? What will be the boundaries of legal discussion? Which topics are 'indecent'? What gods of correctness are blasphemed against?

And sure, we don't got free speech in this country, libel laws ftw hehe. Not even here, as each and every forum attests in its sticky.

brianthebard

I'll establish that account! Come now is there really need for these slippery slope arguments? "If we stop one nut from denying history, is all history going to have to be legislated on??" Em, no I don't accept that argument for a minute.

Kama

One nut? Notice that argument seems to minimise what you are proposing, as I understand it, which is universal illegality to dispute the factual nature of 'Holocausts', which presents tricky definitional issues in and of itself, besides the ethical and pragmatic arguments.

If its more specific, lets say just 'one nut', Irving, or just the Shoah, then there is a problem of selectivity and privilege, tiers of suffering, which is a non-starter for me.

Now, is the issue whether we should be allowed assert a falsehood, or that we'd rather the world contained less folks of National-Socialist inclination? If the second, I'd suggest this approach isn't skilful means to accomplish that. If the first, I couldn't disagree more.

brianthebard

My argument is illegality to deny holocausts, not dispute their nature. Tricky definitonal issues can and have been overcome in the past, I see no reason why humanity might suddenly lose its capacity to verbalise.

I agree that there isn't such a thing as tiers of suffering. I believe I stated that earlier in the thread.

To me the issue is whether we allow people to deny that millions of people actually existed, and that they were murdered, and that that mattered. I'm sure you are capable of seeing the distinction between negationism and revisionism, is there a reason you are ignoring it?

Kama

Hmph, think this is agree to disagree territory. I don't think illegalising a view (however reprehensible we find it) is pragmatically workable, or a healthy approach to history, and I consider it a woeful precedent. Espousing negationism (in the case of the Shoah) is already socially unacceptable, would lose you a job or career, and is the sole territory of people who are generally considered bat**** crazy. I don't see how jailing them for their trouble is going to improve matters; there's no neo-Nazis in Germany, are there? >.< It could produce some fine martyrs, though...

Contra to the 'starve them of air' metaphor, I'd quote Brandeis, that 'sunshine is the best disinfectant'.

marcsignal

deadhead13 wrote: »

What exactly, is a "holocaust bandwagon"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BaJCRXsgt4

everyone knows the holocaust happened, the only arguement is just a question of degree, and historical accuracy.

jmayo wrote: »

I believe people like Irving should not be allowed to try and spout his drivel, because today we say yeah it might not have been so bad, tomorrow we say it definetly wasn't that bad and before long we say it is all ancient history and sure what's all the fuss about.

and when the holocaust is used as a 'yard stick' other genocides look 'not so bad' right ??

jmayo wrote: »

Remember how the UN and world said "Never Again".
Obviously that didn't apply to Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur :mad:

or Gaza

Bren1609

Kama wrote: »

The basic litmus test of free speech is whether you would allow someone who you disagree with, think is wrong, dangerous etc, to speak. You can't be a sunshine supporter of free speech, to my mind. I know this gets problematic, as you say, with incitement to hatred.

I had this argument with some of my 'libertarian' anarchist m8s, who were of the AntiFas persuasion, who were against Irving speaking. The irony is the same logics could be, and historically were, used against them.

I have to agree with this. How can we say that it's ok for these prople to speak because we know it's true but we're not allowing these people to speak because we know they're wrong, we wont let them speak but we know they're wrong.

What about creationists? Should they not be allowed to preach because scientifically we know that they are wrong?

Kama

Yar, this is the 'slippery slope' argument; I'm not a fan of it as a rhetorical jump, but this case seems to beg it, we shift quickly into 'politically legitimate truth', which is a wonderful thing when one agrees with it, but seems less palatable when ya don't. Taking another unpleasant issue (its the thread for it), assume after 911 the USA declared questioning the narrative to be illegal. Would anyone think that this would stop the (generally unpleasant) conspiracy theories? Would it feck...

On Creationism/ID, I'd be annoying stickler; I don't think we know they are wrong, the problem is that the facts of the matter are inamenable to the scientific method; to my mind, the correct attitude in the God wars is not a self-certain atheism fronted as scientific, but an agnostic ignoring of the question as unscientific and irrelevant.

Problem is that in an argument, we get the Yeats Effect: 'the best are lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity'. Worst > Best in convincing peeps, imo. Which I admit I find a problem, but not one that can be solved by gagging the worst; the cure seems worse than the disease.

jmayo

marcsignal wrote: »

and when the holocaust is used as a 'yard stick' other genocides look 'not so bad' right ??

or Gaza

I don't think Gaza ranks up there with Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia.
Not sure what is now happening in Darfur at the moment but it is really a genocide in all but name.
If Gaza was on the level of some of the above then the Israelies would would have wiped out hundreds of thousands as technically they could with their firepower.

Also are the Israelies not just hemming the Palestinians into an area (sadly very much like the Jewish Ghettos of WWII), but you can't say what they are doing is genocide.

Much as I don't like a lot of Israel's actions I don't ever remember them setting up killing fields, butchering Palestinians with machettes or having death camps.

As pointed out by some other posters we can go down the American route where freespeech is paramount or we can try and continue to keep a lid on people who spout hatred or try and provide a quasi intellectual cover for someone else who spouts hatred.

Personally I think Irving's arguments are trying to cover the worst excesses of a hateful regime and thus allow current day supporters of that regime more legitimacy.

marcsignal

jmayo wrote: »

Personally I think Irving's arguments are trying to cover the worst excesses of a hateful regime and thus allow current day supporters of that regime more legitimacy.

I have to agree that I have my suspicions about David Irvings motives. However I do think Norman Finkelstien has revealed some very unsavoury issues regarding Holcaust rememberance though.

The series of 7 short clips on youtube Here are interesting too. Called 'Cole in Auschwitz' They were put together by a Jewish Revisionist doing his own research in Auschwitz, and he reveals some interesting inaccuracies. He does however cite the Leuchter Report which has always been treated with some suspicion.

Serenity Now!

marcsignal wrote: »

The series of 7 short clips on youtube Here are interesting too. Called 'Cole in Auschwitz' They were put together by a Jewish Revisionist doing his own research in Auschwitz, and he reveals some interesting inaccuracies. He does however cite the Leuchter Report which has always been treated with some suspicion.

I don't want to have to post a big long reply but that fella's 'findings' have been scratched apart one-by-one.
I've even seen clips in similar pieces to his trying to use the propagandic Teresienstadt footage or incorrect claims that photographic evidence of einsatzgruppen death squads in action were not einsatzgruppen at all.

39 members of my mother's immediate family perished either at Treblinka or in transit. Only she, my gran and three others survived. All the rest gone. There was only one survivor from her father's side (who passed away peacefully two years ago actually).

When I hear what the likes of David Irving, Nick Griffin or David Cole have to say, I say let it be heard. If it wasn't for their own ignorance, they'd either be embarrassed or ashamed. I doubt they'd be apologetic but feck it, who cares.

On the subject of cashing in on the Shoah or using to one's advantage, Auschwitz is perfect example. I don't think it should ever be demolished. However the hotdog stands, the souvenir stores and the exclusive tours are all run by locals and making a damn good penny (well, zloty really) in the proceedings.
On top of the inescapable atmosphere at the place for obvious reasons, you have this surreal tourist attraction addition on it. Its very weird to describe.

Kama

continue to keep a lid on people who spout hatred or try and provide a quasi intellectual cover for someone else who spouts hatred

Ban Kevin Myers?

I notice Cole retracted all his assertions.

I also note that he did not refute them, and add my definite distaste that a reward was offered for his location by the JDL, which casts a definite pall over his retraction.

marcsignal

Serenity Now! wrote: »

I don't want to have to post a big long reply but that fella's 'findings' have been scratched apart one-by-one.

Oh don't get me wrong Serenity Now! as I've already said, everybody knows the Holocaust happened, the only issue imo, are some aspects of historical accuracy. Personally I've always found the Gas Chamber building in Auschwitz I a bit shaky, and the original Soviet claim of 4 million deaths there has been revised down to 1.1million. This is generally accepted to be true now. I don't know how that affects the total figure for Holocaust deaths. Having said that, even if it were only 600 or 6000 people as opposed to 6 milion Jews or the 11 million total, it would still be an abomination.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

39 members of my mother's immediate family perished either at Treblinka or in transit. Only she, my gran and three others survived. All the rest gone. There was only one survivor from her father's side (who passed away peacefully two years ago actually).

Very sorry to hear that.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

When I hear what the likes of David Irving, Nick Griffin or David Cole have to say, I say let it be heard. If it wasn't for their own ignorance, they'd either be embarrassed or ashamed. I doubt they'd be apologetic but feck it, who cares.

Like I said, I've always questioned Irvings motives, and Nick Griffins opinions wouldn't even register the slightest interest in me either, for the same reason, questionable motives. I've still yet to determine what David Coles motives are though, it's a bit odd, his being Jewish, he should post that stuff up on the web.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

On the subject of cashing in on the Shoah or using to one's advantage, Auschwitz is perfect example. I don't think it should ever be demolished.

Agreed, it should stay there forever.

Serenity Now! wrote: »

However the hotdog stands, the souvenir stores and the exclusive tours are all run by locals and making a damn good penny (well, zloty really) in the proceedings.
On top of the inescapable atmosphere at the place for obvious reasons, you have this surreal tourist attraction addition on it. Its very weird to describe.

They should not be allowed to peddle any of that crap inside the camp complex. It's in very bad taste imo.

Kama wrote: »

I notice Cole retracted all his assertions.

interesting language in that confession

Kama wrote: »

I also note that he did not refute them, and add my definite distaste that a reward was offered for his location by the JDL, which casts a definite pall over his retraction.

has to be considered i suppose

Kama

Yup, I has spent last half-hour looking for refutations, or god forbid a non-partisan source. Cole went off the map after the JDL retraction, and yes the language is highly interesting, and without what I'd call 'content'. He could do a lot more for anti-denialism, or his own conscience, if he refuted the issues he raised personally, rather than making a staged-sounding retraction then disappearing...

The JDL article is actually quite sickening tbh, its only reposted on WN sites as far as I can see, but its attribution isn't denied on JDL. If anyone has something specific on Coles findings/'findings', I'm interested...

kowloon

Holocaust denial laws are very, very wrong at the most fundamental level.
There's a saying in historiography that no argument is wrong if you can back up your case. If someone can make a case that stands up to scrutiny than there is no reason it should not be considered valid. This is one of the tenets of historical writing.

If you take a trip to Germany or Austria, countries with Holocaust denial laws, you will find some ardent neo-nazi groups whose cause is propped up by what they see as persecution. After all, why would anyone need to enforce a view of history if it is entirely proven and immune from challenge? If the issue was open to debate, like everything else, these groups would given enough rope to expose themselves as the ill informed idiots they are.

Holocaust denial laws are unwelcome government interference in areas that should be well outside of their sphere of influence in any free country. Social engineering akin to the 'official' Soviet histories.

This 'special case', reserved for the Holocaust only, leads to further paranoid speculation, something much more dangerous than informed debate out in the public eye, and out of the shadows in the hands of groups with sinister agendas.

marcsignal

Kama wrote: »

The JDL article is actually quite sickening tbh, its only reposted on WN sites as far as I can see, but its attribution isn't denied on JDL. If anyone has something specific on Coles findings/'findings', I'm interested...

I know where your coming from there Kama. You see when people like Irving come here to give a talk, and there are groups of activists screaming from the rooftops trying to prevent him from doing so, that automatically gets me more interested. Not so much in what he has to say, but why are these people so determined to shut him up?

In fact I absolutely resent being told by the looney left, or anyone else, who I can or cannot listen to regarding this matter, and that would make me want to attend just to spite them, as a matter of principle, and to exercise my right to attend if i wanted to.

However I have to reiterate that I do find Irvings motives 'suspect'. I simply want the chance to decide that for myself, on the basis of what he 'claims'

It's interesting to read about the millitant opposition Norman Finkelstein has had to put up with too, in his quest to get rightful financial restitution for his own parents, from large Jewish organisations in the US.

Kama

Agree completely, on my trawl through the WN and negationistic sites, this censorship itself is offered repeatedly as 'proof' of their claims, with accompanying list of 'martyrs' and so on.

It seems to me to be an inherently counter-productive strategy, and against what I consider to be how historical practice works. Also any ideas about how open society and discourse and argument work. While I find motives to be suspect, I regard this as something seperable from arguments of fact, and find the impulse to close down discussion more dangerous than the discussion itself.

Tony EH

brianthebard wrote: »

My argument is illegality to deny holocausts, not dispute their nature.

But this is the problem Brian; NOBODY has ever said that the holocaust as a series of events never happened. In my years of studying the Second World War, I have yet to hear anyone say this. At least anyone that should be taken even remotely seriously. Even the likes of Ernst Zundel has never disputed the fact that Jews were targeted by the nazis and subjected to appalling treatment, even if his does say he doesn't believe in the 6 mil, of the gas chamber method in some concentration camps.

Even the most adamant so-called "holocaust denier" would never venture such a ridiculous proposition as to say that the "holocaust" never happened at all.

Pet hate figures, like Irving, are targeted because they simply don't follow the line and that's it. He has "disputes" with the "nature" of the holocaust and it doesn't sit well with the holocaust establishment who seek to silence him. In fact, Irving, out of all the holocaust establishment's targets is probably the least of the Revisonists as his opinions to a great extent coincide with the established view. In fact, his only "crime" as I see it it is his disagreement with the 6 million figure, the Hitler order/knowledge and opinions on gas chambers.

The holocaust denial laws that you so champion Brian are as nonsensical as the very term they were borne from. Do you really find it reasonable that someone, who, if they believe at a given time that the holocaust never happened should face jail. Also, where will these "laws" stop? Holocaust denial laws are more fascist than the people they allege to be against.

Of course, the term "holocaust denier" is a clever elastic label that can be reduced or expanded to include a large number of things while never actually meaning what it says on the tin. As I said, I have yet to hear ANYONE say that the holocaust per se never happened, but have heard many say they don't buy the 6 million figure or believe that there were gas chambers in Auschwitz, which quite frankly is fine by me. It doesn't float my boat if someone wants to dispute any event or series of events in history. The problem is what constitutes "holocaust denial" and who gets to decide that definition. At the Lipstadt trial, Richard Evans was paid a huge amount of money to conjure up as big a tally of catch-all tenets in order to justify Lipstadt's made up term. One of those tenets was that reducing the figure of 6 million was enough to brandish somebody as a "holocaust denier". Of course, the problem here is that a great many WWII scholars have different opinions of what the death toll was supposed to be, including Raul Hilberg who stated that around 5 million could have died at the hands of the nazis. Other non-Revisionist historians give a range of figures from Reitlinger's 4.1 upwards. Taken to its absurd conclusion then, Raul Hilberg and Gerarld Reitlinger are "holocaust deniers" as they believe in a significantly lower death toll than the untouchable 6 million.

The situation in Germany at the moment is even more absurd. In that Country the Hakenkruez is banned in all forms. I was in Berlin last year and visited a model shop. I picked up some decals for a WWII aircraft and noticed that all the swastikas (Hakenkruez) were cut out from the sheet. I asked the shop owner about this and he confirmed for me that that he could face jail time if he left them intact.

Now, I ask anyone here, does that sound like a reasonable law to you? And at the end of the day, who does that benefit and who does that actually "protect". In fact, banning the Swastika (to use the common parlance) is more of a denial of the existence of something than so-called "holocaust denial" and far more dangerous to the well-being of an unsuspecting citizen than any of the millions of "holocaust deniers" than some special interest groups would have you believe exist.