Holocaust denier set to face court

ivan087 · 20-02-2006 03:47PM #1

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 · 20-02-2006 04:26PM

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 · 20-02-2006 04:30PM

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 · 20-02-2006 04:38PM

No you can't

Zombrex · 20-02-2006 04:51PM

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 · 20-02-2006 04:52PM

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 · 20-02-2006 05:13PM

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

ISAW · 20-02-2006 05:17PM

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 · 20-02-2006 06:15PM

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 · 20-02-2006 06:16PM

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

Mike.

Snickers Man · 20-02-2006 06:27PM

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 · 20-02-2006 06:41PM

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

Mike.

The Corinthian · 20-02-2006 06:53PM

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 · 20-02-2006 07:04PM

A bit over the top for having an opinion

ronbyrne2005 · 20-02-2006 07:10PM

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 · 20-02-2006 07:11PM

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 · 20-02-2006 07:15PM

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 · 20-02-2006 07:30PM

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 · 20-02-2006 07:37PM

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 · 20-02-2006 07:50PM

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 · 20-02-2006 07:58PM

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 · 20-02-2006 08:01PM

Then you have no idea what free speech is.

The Corinthian · 20-02-2006 08:10PM

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 · 20-02-2006 08:37PM

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 · 20-02-2006 08:51PM

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 · 20-02-2006 09:19PM

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 · 20-02-2006 10:27PM

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 · 20-02-2006 11:11PM

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 · 20-02-2006 11:50PM

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 · 20-02-2006 11:53PM

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 · 21-02-2006 12:02AM

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.

ronbyrne2005 · 21-02-2006 12:19AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3194360.stm

SeanW · 21-02-2006 12:50AM

Rotflmao

Can't believe they arreseted the guy for that. If it wasn't a case of PC censhorship gone too far, it would be just too funny.

And get the name of the animal welfare officer, Carola Ruff.

Man that was a hoot.

w66w66 · 21-02-2006 01:01AM

In an act of solidarity newspapers all over Europe deliberately insult Muslims in the name of free speech, and then Austria goes and throws a historian in jail because his opinions are deemed to be offensive to the Jewish people.

This blatant act of hypocrisy will surely add to the strain on community relations with Muslims.

Captain Trips · 21-02-2006 01:33AM

The Corinthian wrote:

Source?

Piper, F., "The Number of Victims," in Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp.,
Gutman, Yisrael, and Michael Berenbaum. Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994. (Published in association with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.)

Needless to say, just because it was revised downwards still didn't mean it didn't happen per se, but even that examination of history is enough to get you in jail, even if you say it was 5.9 million, you are "diminishing" the period. Irving was of the opinion I think that it was entirely fabricated.

I don't think any reasonable person could refute the photgraphs of the camps and so on, just as the US and UK cannot deny the torture committed by their armies in the Iraq invasion as we see the photographs of it happening - and once again, people say it's bad but no action is really taken. This makes me think that the Germans and so on have been made feel guilty when they were probably clueless of the events of the generals and soldiers doing the killing, just as Americans and British are today clueless or distant to their armies torturing and killing. (Off topic, but I find it a useful analogy). It's justified these days though, for the war on terror, because that's different.

bonkey · 21-02-2006 08:01AM

A number of people have suggested these laws need to be revoked.

As a matter of interest, does anyone know when these laws were first brought into Austrian law?

jc

Hobbes · 21-02-2006 08:24AM

bonkey wrote:

A number of people have suggested these laws need to be revoked.

As a matter of interest, does anyone know when these laws were first brought into Austrian law?

jc

Not sure about Austrian but wiki seems to suggest that Switzerland brought a similar law in 1995.

Sir Oxman · 21-02-2006 08:43AM

bonkey wrote:

A number of people have suggested these laws need to be revoked.

As a matter of interest, does anyone know when these laws were first brought into Austrian law?

jc

From http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2005/12/free-speech-and-laws-vs-holocaust_30.html

..."I pointed out that Austria's law was against minimization of the crimes of the Third Reich and had been instituted in the late 1940s. It was not, specifically a law against Holocaust denial."

I'll havre a further search later unless someone else finds another source.

Anyway, despite Irving's distasteful views (to me), I believe he should not have been jailed for an opinion. However, Austria and Germany were the two countries at the centre of the misdeeds of WWII so I can imagine they have 'mad' laws relating to the exterminations and open discussion of them.

But at the end of the day it's still a bad thing and is more ammo for extremist Islam.
Also, Austria is president of the EU at the moment...

fly_agaric · 21-02-2006 10:30AM

delah wrote:

But at the end of the day it's still a bad thing and is more ammo for extremist Islam...

Yeah, I can see it now...Behind the Evil West - THE JEW! - or did somebody use that one already?:rolleyes:

Zombrex · 21-02-2006 10:33AM

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.:(

Only if the cartoons don't effect you. And only if you feel very strongly about holocaust deniers.

There are a lot of people in the world who consider the cartoons very offensive, but couldn't give two hoots if some idiot wants to say the holocaust didn't happen.

Personally I don't care if someone wants to insult Muhammad or if they want to say the holocaust didn't happen, but I recongise that both statements are going to offend different people. Neither should be illegal though

Sir Oxman · 21-02-2006 10:43AM

fly_agaric wrote:

Yeah, I can see it now...Behind the Evil West - THE JEW! - or did somebody use that one already?:rolleyes:

It's more the perceived double standards in Europe, though as we know, Austrian law was broken - whether that law is a good one or not is up for debate.

Sir Oxman · 21-02-2006 10:46AM

Wicknight wrote:

Only if the cartoons don't effect you. And only if you feel very strongly about holocaust deniers.

There are a lot of people in the world who consider the cartoons very offensive, but couldn't give two hoots if some idiot wants to say the holocaust didn't happen.

Personally I don't care if someone wants to insult Muhammad or if they want to say the holocaust didn't happen, but I recongise that both statements are going to offend different people. Neither should be illegal though

I agree.

Snickers Man · 21-02-2006 11:07AM

mike65 wrote:

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

Don't cut the quote off at the knees. I said 'merely invaded Poland to get their own country back'

Most of what the Germans took from Poland had been Germany prior to the first world war. As I said, even the moderate German politicians between the wars refused to accept Germany's borders as they were in 1939.

ISAW · 21-02-2006 11:28AM

Captain Trips wrote:

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.

That is a stupid comment! Why? Because hiscory can indeed be revised. There is nothing wrong in rewriting it in the light of evidence. All the above comments about France America and the Conquistadores etc. can be disputed. Nobles were executed before the revolution so the revolution itself was not the genesis of executing them. No US government sat down and planned a final solution to the indian "problem" through mass execution. Some Spanish brought religion horses and good will to South america. All Romans were not anti Chriastian. Indeed within a few centuries christianity became the official religion of the empire.

I can accept that hte opinion of historians might differ based on interpretation of evidence but the court evidence is clear Irvine lied! He admitted he knew the holocaust had happened and he had accepted that in the early 1990s but he lied about it and continued to maintain it did not happen!

I can accept that some people believe the holocaust did not happen or that the earth was created 6000 years or so ago but when the evidence is looked into they have nowhere to stand. Even worse is when someone knows they are wrong but continues to lie about the truth. They are hypocrits! Irvine is one of them!

Furthermore Austria and Germany have law against holocaust denial. Irvine broke those laws!

Zombrex · 21-02-2006 11:29AM

Snickers Man wrote:

Don't cut the quote off at the knees. I said 'merely invaded Poland to get their own country back

And to eliminate the Polish people ....

HelterSkelter · 21-02-2006 11:39AM

Mike, are you going to add a similar banner to your signature now regarding this case as you seem so concerned with Denmark's laughable "struggle for freedom of speech"

ISAW · 21-02-2006 11:40AM

Captain Trips wrote:

Piper, F., "The Number of Victims," in Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp.,
Gutman, Yisrael, and Michael Berenbaum. Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994. (Published in association with the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.)

Needless to say, just because it was revised downwards still didn't mean it didn't happen per se, but even that examination of history is enough to get you in jail, even if you say it was 5.9 million, you are "diminishing" the period. Irving was of the opinion I think that it was entirely fabricated.

Yes Irvine denied the holocaust happened. But the first step is to revise the details and say something like "six million jews did not die" . Note it might be 7 or 5.9 but this is not stated. A negitive comment is.

I don't think any reasonable person could refute the photgraphs of the camps and so on, just as the US and UK cannot deny the torture committed by their armies in the Iraq invasion as we see the photographs of it happening - and once again, people say it's bad but no action is really taken.

the US/UK do not plan to kill the entire population of Iraq so that US and UK citizens can inhabit the country. Nor do they claim that all muslims or all Iraquis are evil and lesser people and must be exterminated!

Action is being taken! Many countries refused to take part in the invasion in the first place. Debate is ongoing about torture and the US and UK governments have had changes of position. Death camps however where not planned.

This makes me think that the Germans and so on have been made feel guilty when they were probably clueless of the events of the generals and soldiers doing the killing, just as Americans and British are today clueless or distant to their armies torturing and killing.

This isnt true either! The Nurnberg laws were passed before WWII. People were well aware of Hitlers position on the jews and gypsies and slavs. It was written in Mein Kampf. The knowledge of "undermenchen" and the actual legislation against them was there for Germans to know about.

Fair enough the Patriot Act is a similar type of infringement on people but it nowhere even approaches the sectarian institutionalisation of the Nurnberg laws.

(Off topic, but I find it a useful analogy). It's justified these days though, for the war on terror, because that's different.

It isnt justified but it also is not nearly as extreme.

The Corinthian · 21-02-2006 03:04PM

ISAW wrote:

That is a stupid comment! Why? Because hiscory can indeed be revised. There is nothing wrong in rewriting it in the light of evidence.

The problem with the issue of the historical Holocaust is that it actually cannot be rewritten even in the light of evidence. You even manage to contradict yourself by arguing the above point then criticizing it:

But the first step is to revise the details and say something like "six million jews did not die" . Note it might be 7 or 5.9 but this is not stated. A negitive comment is.

Leaving anyone with the audacity of questioning even part of the accepted history as being the thin edge of the wedge of Holocaust denial. It does not seem to matter if they have evidence or not.

The best example of how hysterical this sacred cow of the West has become is from a comment I heard during the commemorations of the liberation of Auschwitz. The Sky News commentator mentioned how the Holocaust claimed the lives of “six million Jews and five or six million others”. What would have happened to him had he said “five or six million Jews”? There’s no doubt that he would have lost his job and it is also possible that he would have been branded an anti-Semite. There’s something deeply fscked up in any Society that has become so irrational as that.

And then we accuse the Muslims of being irrational in their reaction to the Mohammed cartoons. Go figure.

Captain Trips · 21-02-2006 03:25PM

ISAW wrote:

That is a stupid comment! Why? Because hiscory can indeed be revised. There is nothing wrong in rewriting it in the light of evidence.

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.

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

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. The very crux of this issue is not that it's right or wrong, but that it is ILLEGAL to THINK. You *must* by force LAW and threat of imprisonment accept the official version of this one historical episode.

You can rewrite every single part of history, you can make a fortune off of the Bible and Da Vinci like Dan Brown, you can say Ghengis Khan liked to cook lamb chops and didn't go on a rampage, but you cannot ever ever amen say anything that could be interpreted as you not accepting any part of the Holocaust - that is written in stone doctrine, and to even wonder about it, is illegal.

Where is free speech now? Why is it not law that it is illegal to deny any other part of history? WHy is it not illegal to deny the 10 million Russians the Nazis killed? What about them? Does no-one care about them? Why not the 5 million Christians? WHy no law for them?

SpAcEd OuT · 21-02-2006 04:39PM

I don't agree with him but to be jailed for having an opnion is dangerously facist not matter how offensive.

mike65 · 21-02-2006 05:36PM

HelterSkelter wrote:

Mike, are you going to add a similar banner to your signature now regarding this case as you seem so concerned with Denmark's laughable "struggle for freedom of speech"

"Denmark's laughable "struggle for freedom of speech" eh? The Danish government did'nt start any campaign ordinary people did, freedom of speech means the right for Irving to spout clap-trap. Danes know that too. Is that laughable?

Mike.

Holocaust denier set to face court

Comments