|
You say "No Holocaust" you goto jail. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
In what way is trying to limit people\\'s freedom of speech a way of preventing that history repeats itself?! :conf: |
it prevents dishonest revisionism. and thats what it is, as ive said, none of these \\\"historians\\\" are just that, theyre nazi apologists and i could care less if they choose to venture into countries whose laws they have broken.
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Anyway, perhaps I should start boycotting austria :p |
dont forget germany ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Dude, the kkk (to my understanding) and other racist writters etc hide behind the 1st Amendment, does that mean I want it to be repealed from the constitution?
Plus, if you read the article, this dude is questioning certain details not denying that the Holocaust ever happened altogether. |
yes, they do hide behind the constitution, but they dont always win. thats where hate laws have made their own impact.
also, i dont need to read that article to know who irving is and what he stands for and what he believes. he was a BLATANT denier. going as far as to say it was a jewish conspiracy.
imo his backtracking was more to appease the court than an honest change of heart. if im wrong, then i really do feel sorry for him.
fyi, not all countries need an all-powerful constitution to underpin liberal democratic freedoms for its citizens. the way the US worships its constitution, like its a perfect instrument, infallible or necessary for any nation to enjoy freedom is ridiculous. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
What does that have to do with freedom of speech? It's bad enough to not have it, but to get jailed for it? :wtf: Ask trancaholic & St_Andrew, I lend out my support to Denmark during the Muhammad cartoons incidident. Does that mean I liked all or some of the cartoons? Free speech is free speech. And once you criminalize saying anything, well, that's a sad day. ;) |
Honestly, though Holocaust Denial has no place in regards to free speech - it is not a political issue, there are no canidates running on a pro-Holocaust or anti-Holocaust platform... its a matter in the past.
There are laws against libel and defaming the dead and this is in an essence what David Irving was arrested on. Libel on the memory of million.
There are also laws against inciting racism.
Such laws like those against inciting racism, are quiet necessary as our societies have yet to progress and distance itself from the events in the past.
To bring some perspective into this debate, some quotes attributable to him:
| quote: |
Irving memorialized a poem he composed for his young daughter (which is, according to Irving, appropriate to use “when halfbreed children are wheeled past”):
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.
More prosaically, in 1992 Irving maintained:
I am not anti-colored, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station, or a seaport, and I see a colored family there — the black father, the black wife and the black children….When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy, and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy. [cheers and laughter] But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way…the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me.
Ridicule alone isn’t enough, you’ve got to be tasteless about it. You’ve got to say things like “More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.” [Applause] Now you think that’s tasteless, what about this? I’m forming an association especially dedicated to all these liars, the ones who try and kid people that they were in these concentration camps, it’s called the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can’t get more tasteless than that, but you’ve got to be tasteless because these people deserve our contempt.
From a libel case (he actually sued someone else who claimed he was a holocaust denier and lost):
I have found that in numerous respects, Irving has misstated historical evidence; adopted positions which run counter to the weight of the evidence; given credence to unreliable evidence and disregarded or dismissed credible evidence.…In my opinion there is a force in the opinion expressed by Evans that all Irving’s historiographical “errors” converge, in the sense that they all tend to exonerate Hitler or to reflect Irving’s partisanship for the Nazi leaders. If indeed they were genuine errors or mistakes, one would not expect to find this consistency….Mistakes and misconceptions such as these appear to be by their nature unlikely to have been innocent. They are more consistent with a willingness on Irving’s part to knowingly misrepresent or manipulate or put a “spin” on the evidence so as to make it conform with his own preconceptions.
...
Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.
sources: http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/irv...d=2&item=Irving
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
|
David Irving was also active in Neo-Nazi organization.
"Irving was barred from entering Austria because of his neo-Nazi ties and hate speech. In the early 1990s, a German court found him guilty of breaking laws forbidding the denial of the Nazi extermination of Jews, and he was subsequently fined and barred from entering Germany. Other governments followed suit. In 1992, he was barred from South Africa and Canada, where he was arrested in November 1992 and deported back to the United Kingdom.
Early in September 2004, Michael Cullen, the deputy prime minister of New Zealand, announced that Irving would not be permitted to visit the country. Irving had visited New Zealand twice before in the 1980s. His intended 2004 visit was refused on the grounds that he had been convicted of offences by a German court, and that at various times had been deported from, and/or refused entry to, Canada, the United States, Italy, and South Africa."
He really sounds quiet crazy when you read up on him and I am sure he is much tamer online than in person.
| quote: |
From the ADL again:
n his 1991 edition of Hitler’s War, he deleted all references to the extermination of the Jews “because it never occurred.” He was forced, therefore, to explain away thousands of pages of testimony at Nuremberg. Like many other deniers, he claimed, in Nuremberg: The Last Battle (1996), that the proceedings against Nazi war criminals were mere “show-trials” staged by the victorious Americans and British — themselves guilty of crimes against humanity. Using a method to which he resorts when treating evidence that disproves his conclusions, he claimed that Nuremberg prosecutors forged or tampered with incriminating documents used in the trials |
|
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
\"fire\" |
hmmm. looks like somebody has been programming a little too much!:p |
|
|
| Lepanto |
How can you honestly call him a historian if he denies it?
Yoepus is right, stupid people belong in jails...let's put Bush there as well :D
yeah this is so00o0o0 freedom of speech issue, even when in junion high schools teachers explain that freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to get up in the middle of the movie theater and scream "FIRE" :rolleyes: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
hmmm. looks like somebody has been programming a little too much!:p |
haha, nah its the proxy-dodger i use when im at work to allow me to post. for some reason it likes to put in a / when the inverted commas are used :conf: |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
it prevents dishonest revisionism. and thats what it is, as ive said, none of these \\\"historians\\\" are just that, theyre nazi apologists and i could care less if they choose to venture into countries whose laws they have broken. |
Yes, but you see, the stupid thing with that kind of censorship is that if the society on the whole doesn't feel antisemitic, that guy can be a nazi apologist all he wants and noone will listen to him, while if the society does become antisemitic, such laws will be removed anyway. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Yes, but you see, the stupid thing with that kind of censorship is that if the society on the whole doesn't feel antisemitic, that guy can be a nazi apologist all he wants and noone will listen to him, while if the society does become antisemitic, such laws will be removed anyway. |
or it can be used against those people that ferment social disharmony by preying on people's fears and ignorance. youve got to remember these laws arent punishing some local average citizen. essentially they punish so-called scholars that try and legitmise neo nazi sentiment by putting an academic facade over what is nothing more than obvious racism.
obviously germany and austria feel strongly enough about their haunted past to enshrine in law something that accepts responsibility and also says no one should ever forget the greatest crime in history. i dont support the law, i dont oppose the law. but i support the right of those countries to make that law.
and for all the US freedom of speech enthusiasts here, maybe if the US gave a a bit earlier in history there wouldnt be a need for this law in the first place? :p |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
and for all the US freedom of speech enthusiasts here, maybe if the US gave a a bit earlier in history there wouldnt be a need for this law in the first place? :p |
...oh they did...they just weren't official with it until later...;) |
|
|
| Lepanto |
While a few Holocaust deniers have training as historians, some of their most prominent representatives have been shown in court to have a pattern of falsifying historical documents (e.g. David Irving) or deliberately misrepresenting historical data (e.g. Ernst Zündel). This history of Holocaust deniers distorting, ignoring, or misusing historical records has led to almost universal condemnation of the techniques and conclusions of Holocaust denial, with organizations such as the American Historical Association, the largest society of historians in the United States, stating that Holocaust denial is "at best, a form of academic fraud."
Similarly, Public Opinion Quarterly, summarizing the work on the subject done by a range of historians including Jaroff, Lipstadt, Riech, Ryback, Shapiro, Vidal-Naquet, Weimann, and Winn concludes "No reputable historian questions the reality of the Holocaust, and those promoting Holocaust denial are overwhelmingly anti-Semites and/or neo-Nazis." (Vol. 59, p. 270)
lol what a bunch of rejects. oh i didn't get into accounting school, let's blame the jews.
Holocaust denial ignores or minimizes the tens of thousands of pages of documentation and photographs prepared by the Nazis themselves that survived the war. Pictured is a map titled "Jewish Executions Carried Out by Einsatzgruppe A" from the December 1941 report by the commander of a Nazi death squad. Marked "Secret Reich Matter," the map shows the number of Jews shot in the Baltic region, and reads at the bottom: "the estimated number of Jews still on hand is 128,000." The many Eisantzgruppen reports detail over 1.5 million people killed in open air executions alone.
back to the "freedom of speech" bull excuse
R. v. Keegstra
In 1984, James Keegstra, a Canadian high-school teacher was charged with denying the Holocaust and making anti-semitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie, argued that the section of the Criminal Code (now section319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme court of Canada, where it was decided that the law he was convicted under did infringe on his freedom of expression, but it was a justified infringement. Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job.
The Zündel trials
Former Canadian resident Ernst Zündel operated a small-press publishing house called Samisdat Publishing, which published and distributed Holocaust-denial material such as Did Six Million Really Die? by Richard Harwood (a/k/a Richard Verrall - a British neo-Nazi leader). In 1985, he was tried and convicted under a "false news" law and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment by an Ontario court for "disseminating and publishing material denying the Holocaust." Zündel gained considerable notoriety after this conviction, and a number of free-speech activists stepped forward to defend his right to publish his opinion. His conviction was overturned in 1992 when the Supreme Court of Canada declared the "false news" law unconstitutional.
Zündel established his own Web site to publicize his viewpoints. In January 2002, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal delivered a ruling in a complaint involving his website, found contravening the Canadian Human Rights Act. The court ordered Zündel to cease communicating hate messages. In February 2003, the INS arrested him in Tennessee on an immigration violations matter, and few days later, Zündel was sent back to Canada, where he tried to gain refugee status. Zündel remained in prison until March 1, 2005, when he was deported to Germany; under whose laws he could be prosecuted for disseminating hate propaganda.
Ken McVay and alt.revisionism
In the mid-1990s, the popularity of the Internet brought new international exposure to many organizations, including Holocaust deniers and other groups. A number of authority figures stated publicly that the Internet allowed hate groups to introduce their messages to a widespread audience, and it was feared that Holocaust denial would gain in popularity as a result. But this was not the case, largely due to the efforts of Ken McVay and the participants in the Usenet newsgroup alt.revisionism.
McVay, a Canadian resident, was disturbed by the efforts of organizations like the Simon Wiesenthal Center to suppress the speech of the Holocaust deniers. On alt.revisionism he began a campaign of "truth, fact, and evidence," working with other participants on the newsgroup to uncover factual information about the Holocaust and counter the arguments of the deniers by proving them to be based upon misleading evidence, false statements, and outright lies. He founded the Nizkor Project to expose the activities of the Holocaust deniers, who responded to McVay with personal attacks and slander. McVay received a number of death threats, and the Nizkor Project soon became the number-one online foe of many Holocaust deniers, some of whom were neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
yeah let's send death threats and personally attack and slander a man who defeats you by using a BRAIN. :)
The Lipstadt affair
In 1998, the best-selling British historian David Irving filed suit against American author Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books, claiming that Lipstadt had libeled him in her book Denying the Holocaust. The statements made by Lipstadt included the accusation that Irving deliberately twisted and misrepresented evidence to conform to his ideological viewpoint. Under English libel law, which seeks primarily to protect the reputation of an individual, Lipstadt and her publisher bore the full burden of demonstrating not only that they had not shown "reckless disregard" for the truth (as would be the case in America), but also that the statements made were true (that Irving had denied the Holocaust, and that the Holocaust had, in fact, happened).
Lipstadt and Penguin hired British lawyer Anthony Julius and Cambridge historian Richard J. Evans to present her case. Evans spent two years examining Irving's work, and presented evidence of Irving's misrepresentations, including that Irving had knowingly used forged documents as a source. One of the few witnesses called on Irving's behalf was American evolutionary psychology professor Kevin B. MacDonald. The presiding judge, Charles Gray, was persuaded by the evidence presented by Evans and others and wrote a long and decisive verdict in favor of Lipstadt, calling Irving a "right-wing pro-Nazi polemicist," and confirming the accusations of Lipstadt and Evans.
Some journalists called the verdict a blow to free speech, although others pointed out that it was Irving who had initiated legal action for damages from the publication of Lipstadt's work, and hence no one's speech was restricted.
it's funny how many times the words "lies, knowingly forged, purposely misinterpruted and misrepresnted" come up on the sides of the cretins and words like "research, documentation, evidence, hard news and in-print articles" come up on the side of REAL historians. pathetic fools. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| freedom of speech? |
|
|
| Lepanto |
When Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt counted Irving among those who deny the Holocaust, Irving sued Lipstadt for libel. Irving lost the highly publicised trial. [1] The judge upheld Lipstadt's claims about Irving "that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist".
haha ing idiot.
but hey mate look on the bright side, I'm sure all those neo-Nazis are gonna love your tight little white ass in the shower...don't drop the soap, little bloke :D |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
but hey mate look on the bright side, I'm sure all those neo-Nazis are gonna love your tight little white ass in the shower...don't drop the soap, little bloke :D |
i wonder how he'd feel if we denied he was raped whilst in prison, despite all the evidence to the contrary? ;) |
|
|
|
|
