"Beat me to death"

[Oliver]

In light of the Should the UK extradite Holocaust denier? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125636) thread I will tell
you people a story my Grandma is telling me for years now:

My German ancestors lived in White Russia near Odessa during the Nazi-
Regime - and in 1941, the town was occupied by German forces.

My Grandma told me that she never feared anything during her childhood
until this happened:

Across the River they used to live, the occupying Nazi's burned Jews in
mass graves using caustic lime (http://zenstoves.net/MSDS/CALCIUMCARBIDE.htm). One day, a neighbor of my Grandmothers
family came to their house and reported this:

"Last night I went outside after hearing some strange noises coming from
outside. I was shocked when I realized what was going on. A heavily
burned Jew was lying in front of me and he asked me to beat him to death
to stop the pain he was going through."

I don't know what happened to this jewish Man [I can only imagine], but
my Grandma told me that at this point, she knew what fear is about.

And I tell you this story because you should know that freedom of speech
is one thing, but preventing those things from happening again, is more
important than allowing the same kind of hate-speech that led to the
things that I just mentioned.

[Oliver]

I apologize if I posted that in the wrong forum. I posted it in here because
the other thread in here I mentioned - while at the same time, I didn't want
to derail the other thread.

[Rasmus]

And I tell you this story because you should know that freedom of speech
is one thing, but preventing those things from happening again, is more
important than allowing the same kind of hate-speech that led to the
things that I just mentioned.

How does outlawing speech accomplish that goal?

How does outlawing holocaust denial, specifically, accomplish that goal?

Even if I could convince the world that the holocaust never happened, I wouldn't need to suggest in the slightest that something like the holocaust would be permissible or a good thing.

Likewise, I can still be an antisemite even if I acknowledge the holocaust. (I might consider it a good thing, and that's - unfortunately- not too rare a thing.)

[Oliver]

There is no "Holocaust Denial Law". What about that don't you understand???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

Seriously: What part don't you understand?

[Oliver]

How does outlawing speech accomplish that goal?

How does outlawing holocaust denial, specifically, accomplish that goal?

Even if I could convince the world that the holocaust never happened, I wouldn't need to suggest in the slightest that something like the holocaust would be permissible or a good thing.

Likewise, I can still be an antisemite even if I acknowledge the holocaust. (I might consider it a good thing, and that's - unfortunately- not too rare a thing.)


It's simple. If the Holocaust never happened, there is no need whatsoever
to prevent any hate speech. Therefore "hate speech isn't bad since the
holocaust never happened and therefore hatespeech doesn't have any
negative consequences".

But as I said: There is no specific "Holocaust denial law" in Germany - in
contrast to the "§ 189 Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased
Persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial)"-law - which of course, does include the Victims of the Holocaust.

[Rasmus]

It's simple. If the Holocaust never happened, there is no need whatsoever
to prevent any hate speech.

Oh bull. Are you saying that the holocaust was the only negative result that ever came from one group of people hating another?

Therefore "hate speech isn't bad since the
holocaust never happened and therefore hatespeech doesn't have any
negative consequences".

Apparently, you do. :jaw-dropp

But as I said: There is no specific "Holocaust denial law" in Germany - in
contrast to the "§ 189 Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased
Persons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial)"-law - which of course, does include the Victims of the Holocaust.

There isn't?

Try § 130.2 - it's on the same page you're quoting!

[Oliver]

Oh bull. Are you saying that the holocaust was the only negative result that ever came from one group of people hating another?

Apparently, you do. :jaw-dropp
There isn't?
Try § 130.2 - it's on the same page you're quoting!


Look, Rasmus - it's quite simple:

Libel and Slander is illegal in ALL western societies. Also crying "Fire" in
a crowded theater or saying: "Kill the president" is illegal in your country.
The reason for that is that Free Speech is one thing - and Speech endangering
citizens is a different issue.

By that I mean you also have limited Free speech in the cases I mentioned.
So why do you think that German laws are different to the very laws you have
as well concerning the limitation of free speech? [Despite the different historical
backgrounds]

[Rasmus]

Look, Rasmus - it's quite simple:

Libel and Slander is illegal in ALL western societies. Also crying "Fire" in
a crowded theater or saying: "Kill the president" is illegal in your country.
The reason for that is that Free Speech is one thing - and Speech endangering
citizens is a different issue.

By that I mean you also have limited Free speech in the cases I mentioned.
So why do you think that German laws are different to the very laws you have
as well concerning the limitation of free speech? [Despite the different historical
backgrounds]

a) You pressure too much
b) You fail to address anything I've said

EOD.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The problem of abridgment of freedom of speech because of some individual or group's sensibilities always winds up being whose sensibilities are we talking about?

Sure, it starts of all chocolate cake and Earl Grey, but regimes change and, next thing you know, it's illegal to alarm people by talking about the Second Amendment, or Equal Rights!

Freedom of speech exists so that you CAN offend the offense-worthy.

Pull its teeth, and you leave the business of deciding what's offensive to the government, which is often the very agency which requires the most offending.

[Oliver]

a) You pressure too much
b) You fail to address anything I've said

EOD.


Your points don't contradict the fact that you also don't have free
speech without limitations. So everything you're trying to make a
point is invalid in the first place.

So let me ask: Do you have "unlimited Free Speech" in your country,
or not?

And if you don't: Why don't you have unlimited free speech? :confused:

[PingOfPong]

Boy, those Nazis sure did do alot of censorship. AmIRite?

[Oliver]

Boy, those Nazis sure did do alot of censorship. AmIRite?


Other than killing those who oppose "German family values", they didn't
censor anything.

[PingOfPong]

Ahem, the Nazi war machine was powered by burning books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings).

[Giggywig]

So why do you think that German laws are different to the very laws you have as well concerning the limitation of free speech? [Despite the different historical backgrounds]
How about the law regarding "Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons."

[Polaris]

Did this forum warp its way into the Twilight Zone while I was asleep last night?

Oliver, you do realize that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater does pose a genuine risk of causing physical harm by the result right?

Saying "I hate X" is not risking anyone any physical harm (except maybe the person who says it). Saying "let's go kill some Xs" is incitement to commit violence, which to my knowledge is already illegal.

There's nothing a "hate speech" law can prevent that an "incitement to commit violence" law cannot. But what the latter can't do that the former can is outlaw speech that cannot be considered to be any more harmful than causing offense to someone, not to mention pushing that same speech out of the sunlight where it is more likely to become incitement to violence, because it generates a persecution complex among the same bigots who use it.

It also creates a slippery slope for the outlawing of satire and possibly even simple discussion of the subject.





Was I the only one who saw the thread title and thought of a man with a gun on a plane?

[Oliver]

How about the law regarding "Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons."


How is this a bad law in light of our history? :confused:

[Oliver]

Oliver, you do realize that shouting "fire" in a crowded theater does pose a genuine risk of causing physical harm by the result right?


Yes. Just like the German laws are trying to prevent a "panicking crowd".
Same threat, different circumstances. No?

[Giggywig]

How is this a bad law in light of our history? :confused:
I'll take this step by step, because you seem confused.
1) You asked: "So why do you think that German laws are different to the very laws you have as well concerning the limitation of free speech?"
2) I responded: "How about the law regarding 'Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons.' "
3) I at no point stated that the law was good or bad. It was not my intention, nor does it relate to what you asked. You asked about a law that was different, as libel and slander in most US Staes does not cover the deceased.
Are you still confused? Should I use smaller words?

[Oliver]

I'll take this step by step, because you seem confused.
1) You asked: "So why do you think that German laws are different to the very laws you have as well concerning the limitation of free speech?"
2) I responded: "How about the law regarding 'Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons.' "
3) I at no point stated that the law was good or bad. It was not my intention, nor does it relate to what you asked. You asked about a law that was different, as libel and slander in most US Staes does not cover the deceased.
Are you still confused? Should I use smaller words?

No, no. You're confusing my point: You also have limitations of speech,
wrong?

Wrong???

[Giggywig]

No, no. You're confusing my point: You also have limitations of speech,
wrong?

Wrong???
I have at no point argued against that point. I pointed that you have certain limitations different to those here. Agreed?

[Oliver]

I have at no point argued against that point. I pointed that you have certain limitations different to those here. Agreed?


Yes, Germany does have extended laws concerning already existing laws
in other western societies, based on historical experiences being made.
What's bad about that in light of what happened over here? :confused:

[Giggywig]

Yes, Germany does have extended laws concerning already existing laws
in other western societies, based on historical experiences being made.
What's bad about that in light of what happened over here? :confused:
Glad you finally agreed to my point. Now, on to your next point. By "what happened over here" I assume you mean the Holocaust?

[RandFan]

...is more important than allowing the same kind of hate-speech that led to the things that I just mentioned. Most Jews that are murdered are killed by Muslims. Most anti-Jewish hate speech is spoken by Muslims.

You've got your assignment now. Get to work.

[RandFan]

Hitchens: Why limits to free speech are a very bad idea.

Linky. (http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0703/hitchensfreespeech.mov)

[Oliver]

Most Jews that are murdered are killed by Muslims. Most anti-Jewish hate speech is spoken by Muslims.

You've got your assignment now. Get to work.


Oh, so now the Muslims sparked the 6-million holocaust??? :boggled:
That's even sadder.

[RandFan]

Fallacy: Appeal to emotion. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html)

[RandFan]

Oh, so now the Muslims sparked the 6-million holocaust??? :boggled: No. Muslims are NOW engaging in rhetoric against Jews. Muslims are NOW killing Jews. Get up to speed.

Germans are not so much of threat at the moment.

[Oliver]

Fallacy: Appeal to emotion. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html)


It's a fact. So while it may also appeal to emotions, the circumstances
at the time are real. Which is a moral issue as well. And I understand,
that moral issues are nothing but "appeal to emotions", are they NOT?

[RandFan]

It's a fact.That hasn't been established.

So while it may also appeal to emotions, the circumstances at the time are real. Which is a moral issue as well. And I understand, that moral issues are nothing but "appeal to emotions", are they NOT? No, morals are reasoned. Otherwise mob rule and vigilante justice would be appropriate. It's true that our morality is rooted in emotion but a rapist can't justify his actions because it made him feel good or a father killing his child's killer because of emotion.

[Oliver]

That hasn't been established.



So the evidence concerning the Holocaust is flawed? :(

No, morals are reasoned. Otherwise mob rule and vigilante justice would be appropriate. It's true that our morality is rooted in emotion but a rapist can't justify his actions because it made him feel good or a father killing his child's killer because of emotion.


And I agree. So do you agree that "skapegoating" may do harm in light
if Germanies history despite the argument that free speech should have
a higher priority than citizens/human life? :boggled:

[Oliver]

I should add that the German laws in question are primarily meant to
protect Citizens.

Not to limit freedom of speech.

That should be quite obvious to those who read and understood the
German laws. To say that Germany is about limiting "Freedom of Speech"
is dishonest at best. And I assume that Darat does understand that from
what I read so far.

[RandFan]

So the evidence concerning the Holocaust is flawed?No, your example of the "beat me to death" victim.





And I agree. So do you agree that "skapegoating" may do harm in light if Germanies history despite the argument that free speech should have a higher priority than citizens/human life? You are not making any sense. This thread (your thread) is about restricting anti-Jewish rhetoric.
Anti-Jewish rhetoric should be restricted.
Anti-Jewish rhetoric should not be restricted.
Please make up your mind, which is it?

[Oliver]

No, your example of the "beat me to death" victim.


You are not making any sense.

Anti-Jewish rhetoric should be restricted.
Anti-Jewish rhetoric should not be restricted.

Please pick one, which is it?


So you're saying that my Grandma lied to make Jews look good? :(
Why should she do that?

Anti-Jewish opinions are part of "Freedom of expression". Denying
the Holocaust despite the overwhelming evidence is slander. So
what's the difference between the laws in your system in contrast
to the laws in the German system?

[RandFan]

So you're saying that my Grandma lied to make Jews look good? I don't know that your gradma even made such a claim.

Anti-Jewish opinions are part of "Freedom of expression". Denying the Holocaust despite the overwhelming evidence is slander. One is linked directly to contemporary killing of Jews. The other isn't.

It's your job to figure out which is which.

Or is that you don't really care about the death of Jews.

[Oliver]

I don't know that your gradma even made such a claim.

One is linked directly to contemporary killing of Jews. The other isn't.

It's your job to figure out which is which.

Or is that you don't really care about the death of Jews.



My point is quite clear:

I think that endangering citizens does have a higher priority than
"free speech".

You disagree, because...

[RandFan]

I think that endangering citizens does have a higher priority than "free speech". So you agree that Muslim anti-Jewish rhetoric should be restricted?

You disagree, because...

Christopher Hitchens on free speech (http://heliologue.com/2007/02/16/christopher-hitchens-on-free-speech/)

I don't normaly argue via link but this one is simply too good to miss. It should be required of every school student.

[Oliver]

So you agree that Muslim anti-Jewish rhetoric should be restricted?


In Germany? Yes ... Including anti-Muslim rhetoric. ;)

{one moment}


Mhmmkay.

[Wolfman]

Oliver,

Apparently, your argument is that Germans are somehow different than the rest of the world. In the rest of the world -- or at least, in the vast majority of free, western nations -- we are quite able to provide people with the right to freedom of speech, including racism and holocaust denial, without having our countries turn into fascist regimes.

It is, in fact, quite amazing just how much you sound like the Americans whom you criticize here so regularly.

The United States government, under the "leadership" of George Bush, used fear as a means of limiting peoples' freedoms. They repeated story after story about the atrocities committed by terrorists, and said, "It is necessary to take away some of your freedoms in order to prevent this from ever happening again." And what does Oliver do? Oliver goes and tells us a tragic story, and uses that in exactly the same manner, to argue that freedoms that are enjoyed in the majority of other democratic western nations should be denied to the German people.

And skip the whole thing about this being the same as libel or slander laws, or nonsense like that. The laws in many other nations very clearly differentiate between libel and slander, and what you are talking about. For example, libel and slander does not include claiming that someone did not do something bad that someone else claims they did (a prime example...it is not either libelous or slanderous to claim that it was not Muslims who flew planes into the WTC. Nor is it libelous or slanderous to claim that the U.S. gov't, or Jews, or anyone else was behind it. Nor would it be libelous or slanderous to entirely deny that the event happened, or to argue that not as many people died as the authorities claim).

I despise the way that the U.S. gov't used fear tactics to justify limiting the freedoms of American people; and I similarly dislike Germans using fear tactics to justify limiting the fredoms of German people. I particularly dislike it when Americans/Germans/anyone not only restrict such freedoms, but then insist that other nations must cooperate with them in restricting those freedoms.

Don't get me wrong -- Gerald Toben is a despicable man, and below contempt. But holding beliefs that I find despicable does not make a person a criminal. Nor does explaining those beliefs to others. Now, if the man actually encouraged/incited people towards acts of violence against people based on their race, or engaged in such acts himself, I'd fully support arresting and imprisoning him. But so far as I can see, he has not done that. Simply telling people what you believe does not constitute incitement. If it did, then every time I explained my atheist beliefs, and why I believe no god exists, I'd be "guilty" of religious attacks, and likewise subject to prosecution and imprisonment.

Bush & Oliver -- same tactics, same arguments. Repression/denial of basic democratic freedoms justified through use of fear tactics and vague claims that such repression is necessary to "prevent" the same tragedies from happening again.

[RandFan]

Mhmmkay. I fixed the link.

[RandFan]

Bush & Oliver -- same tactics, same arguments. Repression/denial of basic democratic freedoms justified through use of fear tactics and vague claims that such repression is necessary to "prevent" the same tragedies from happening again. Good post.

[Wolfman]

Good post.
That's the only kind I do ;)

[Ausmerican]

Oliver has anyone mentioned that you starting a thread titled "beat me to death" may be considered by some to be too inviting? :D

[KingMerv00]

I should add that the German laws in question are primarily meant to
protect Citizens.

Not to limit freedom of speech.

Everyone here agrees that restrictions on free speech exist.

Everyone here agrees that sometimes it is necessary.

We disagree because we think that hate speech is not always dangerous enough to justify its restriction.

BTW for speech to be slander, it must have a specific target (in America at least). Badmouthing "teh Jews" is too general.

[Bob Blaylock]

How about the law regarding "Disparagement of the Memory of Deceased Persons."

How is this a bad law in light of our history? :confused:


By any fair and objective application of such a law, it would be illegal to disparage the memory of Adolf Hitler.

[Pardalis]

nvmd

[Pardalis]

And I tell you this story because you should know that freedom of speech is one thing, but preventing those things from happening again, is more important than allowing the same kind of hate-speech that led to the things that I just mentioned.

Funny that you say that, considering you keep defending the Iranian government's clear anti-semitic rhetoric, especially here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4115739&postcount=357), and defended MaGZ' right to post hate propaganda here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4103603&postcount=56), here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4103735&postcount=59) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4100997&postcount=23).

Even if I don't share MagZ's POV, I actually consider that he once in
a while may have a valid argument - and I challenge him if I suspect
that there is more to what he says.Kind of contradictory, isn't it?

You are completely oblivious that these are clearly hate-speech, these are equivalents of Holocaust denial, and yet you refuse one and accept the other.

Although Hitchens in Randfan's link does have a good point, that letting these crackpots speak can only further our resolve and deepen and strengthen our knowledge of the real history, but I don't agree as far as what these people say can also influence fools (useful idiots), and people without proper critical thinking skills, and this can lead to alot of harm, since alot of people can be swayed this way without realizing it, so I can't say I'm a 100% in favor of freedom of speech for these cases. I still think hate speech is nothing more than that, hate speech, it doesn't bring anything constructive to the table. Holocaust deniers I suspect don't really believe what they claim, they just want to incite fear and hatred towards the Jewish people, and that is not constructive, that is not debating, it's simply blind propaganda.

As I said in response to your post:

Their entire claims are based on bigotry and hatred, not fact and reason. They have no point to make but to push their agenda of hate. The only way they could have a point would be by pure luck, like throwing a rock in the sky, they could eventually hit something. This doesn't mean that they are right, or that they have a valid argument.But I am also aware that we can't really do anything about it, that freedom of speech either is or isn't, either we have it or we don't, and this is where Hitchens hits the mark, ultimately we have to live with these people, and their hate, but we don't haev to like it, I certainly don't. Freedom of speech is a gift, and a curse.

[Oliver]

No, it's not contradictory, "Pardalis": "Different place, different Rules".
Anyway, I agree to disagree about that topic. With Guantanamo and
similar speech-limiting rights right around the corner, the arguments
against German hate-speech laws are rather lousy.

[WildCat]

How is this a bad law in light of our history? :confused:
Its a fine law if one assumes that Germans are so uncivilized and barbaric that a few demented loons/neo-Nazis denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities will cause deaths, riots, and destruction. In that case, it is tantamount to incitement.

Are Germans really this uncivilized and barbaric Oliver?

eta: Is another Kristallnacht really a Holocaust denial away from happening again in Germany?

[Tailgater]

With Guantanamo and
similar speech-limiting rights right around the corner, the arguments
against German hate-speech laws are rather lousy.

1. What does Guantanamo have to do with speech-limiting rights?

2. What speech limiting rights are around the corner?

3. What is a speech-limiting right?

[Oliver]

Its a fine law if one assumes that Germans are so uncivilized and barbaric that a few demented loons/neo-Nazis denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities will cause deaths, riots, and destruction. In that case, it is tantamount to incitement.

Are Germans really this uncivilized and barbaric Oliver?

eta: Is another Kristallnacht really a Holocaust denial away from happening again in Germany?


Yes, according to history, Caucasians are still barbaric - especially in
times when they search for scapegoats. As an American, you should
be familiar with the two-party-scapegoat-mentality.

However: The Reichskristallnacht was the free pass to express all
the anger people had during pretty tough times. So even if the current
status of the society over here surely wouldn't lead to another Reichs-
kristallnacht over night, it could happen again in really tough circumstances.

Now you surely agree that the Reichskristallnacht was a bad thing.
So why would you think that the prevention of such an event would
be even more evil than the event itself?

This sounds ridiculous to me - and I'm sure you understand my point.

[Matthew Best]

Bush & Oliver -- same tactics, same arguments.

Oliver for President?

[Chaos]

By any fair and objective application of such a law, it would be illegal to disparage the memory of Adolf Hitler.

I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that, in order for it to be disparagement, it has to be untrue.

So, if somebody made public speeches denouning Hitler as a pedophile, for example... But simply recounting facts for which historical evidence exists, no.

Plus of course you would have to find someone willing to sue - not even the Neo-Nazis are that stupid.

[Tailgater]

Yes, according to history, Caucasians are still barbaric.

According to one of your weakest threads ever. Humans can be barbaric. In further news, the society with the more advanced technology usually has the upper hand in history.

[Cuddles]

Yes, Germany does have extended laws concerning already existing laws
in other western societies, based on historical experiences being made.
What's bad about that in light of what happened over here? :confused:

So you think that Germany is special and that nothing bad has ever happened anywhere else? This seems an appropriate place to copy a post I made just recently, that I know you've already seen:
Well, to start with, during the holocaust when around 5.3 million Jews were killed, almost twice that number of Slavs were killed.

In Burundi, around 600,000 Hutus and Tutsis were killed in two separate genocides, and hundreds of thousands more were driven out of the country.

In Rwanda, almost 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed in just 100 days.

During the 1800s, the Chinese killed something like 10 million people, mainly Muslims and Miao, in three separate genocides.

The Great Irish Famine was almost certainly a direct result of deliberate action by the British, and resulted in between 1-1.5 million deaths and around 1 million emigrations.

The Ottoman empire committed genocide against the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks, probably killing around 500,000 of each, although estimates vary from around 300,000 to 1.5 million.

The Soviet Union killed or deported around 500,000 Don Cossacks.

The Soviet Union also deliberately caused severe famine in 1933 by confiscating food supplies in Ukraine and parts of Russia and Kazakhstan, resulting in around 6 million deaths.

During the Bangladesh Liberation war, 3 million people were killed.

The Khmer Rouge killed around 1.7 million people in Cambodia.

In Ethiopia in the 1970s, up to 500,000 people were killed.

In 1860, there were 4 million black slaves in the USA, and plenty more in other countries. As far as I know, no-one knows the total number of black people taken as slaves or the number that died being captured and transported, and we will probably never know. It was a lot.

Details of a lot more examples of genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass murder can be found here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history).

Once again, Jews are not special. Germany is not special. Any claims to the contrary are just plain wrong. There is hardly a country in the world that does not have, at some point in its history, episodes of extreme bigotry, intolerance and violence.

And the thing is, even if Germany were somehow special in its history, your argument still would not make sense. If restricting freedom of speech in a certain way is a good thing, then it would be good everywhere, regardless of local history. What you are effectively arguing is that not only is Germany unique in having oppressed people in the past, but also that the German people are unique in being unable to control themselves and that all people everywhere are extremely stupid and unable to learn from mistakes unless they, or their ancestors, made them personally.

[Tailgater]

not even the Neo-Nazis are that stupid.


After watching the KKK on Jerry Springer one morning, I'm not so sure about that.

[Darth Rotor]

"Beat me to death"
Don't have the plane fare necessary to establish arm's length proximity.

Oliver, I am highly skeptical of your claim, that this story was a direct experience of your grandmother. Why? Your past history of dishonesty, inaccuracy, and general BS. (By the way, I've heard this grisly scenario you presented before.)

Thus you pay the price of crying wolf too often, since your grandma may indeed have told you that tale.

[ddt]

I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that, in order for it to be disparagement, it has to be untrue.

So, if somebody made public speeches denouning Hitler as a pedophile, for example... But simply recounting facts for which historical evidence exists, no.
Wrong example :). From TheAge.au (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/30/1027926884501.html):
It was a tell-all exclusive written by a well-placed insider, the German socialite Karl von Schneider. Among the saucy revelations were Hitler's predilection for "young and naive" women. His first proper relationship, for example, according to the piece, was with a 16-year-old shopgirl named Mitzi, whom he met while walking his dog.



Plus of course you would have to find someone willing to sue - not even the Neo-Nazis are that stupid.
I guess, as a crime, that the public prosecutor had to sue.

[chillzero]

In light of the Should the UK extradite Holocaust denier? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125636) thread I will tell
you people a story my Grandma is telling me for years now:

My German ancestors lived in White Russia near Odessa during the Nazi-
Regime - and in 1941, the town was occupied by German forces.

My Grandma told me that she never feared anything during her childhood
until this happened:

Across the River they used to live, the occupying Nazi's burned Jews in
mass graves using caustic lime (http://zenstoves.net/MSDS/CALCIUMCARBIDE.htm). One day, a neighbor of my Grandmothers
family came to their house and reported this:

"Last night I went outside after hearing some strange noises coming from
outside. I was shocked when I realized what was going on. A heavily
burned Jew was lying in front of me and he asked me to beat him to death
to stop the pain he was going through."

I don't know what happened to this jewish Man [I can only imagine], but
my Grandma told me that at this point, she knew what fear is about.

And I tell you this story because you should know that freedom of speech
is one thing, but preventing those things from happening again, is more
important than allowing the same kind of hate-speech that led to the
things that I just mentioned.

Firstly, who tells a story like that and doesn't explain what they did / didn't do about the man and his pain? That makes your story suspect to me.

Secondly, you do realise, don't you, that words did not burn the man? Freedom of speech is important. I dont' really understand your method for trying to make a point here - what point are you trying to make, exactly?

[Pardalis]

No, it's not contradictory, "Pardalis": "Different place, different Rules".
Anyway, I agree to disagree about that topic. With Guantanamo and
similar speech-limiting rights right around the corner, the arguments
against German hate-speech laws are rather lousy.

Again, you're completely missing the point. Did you at least watch the Christopher Hitchens video Randfan has linked to?

[Wolfman]

I'm just wondering why it is that, every time I ask Oliver a question in these threads, he'll respond to everyone else, but ignore me? Again, just in case he somehow missed it, you can find my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117718&postcount=38), Oliver.

[Tailgater]

I'm just wondering why it is that, every time I ask Oliver a question in these threads, he'll respond to everyone else, but ignore me? Again, just in case he somehow missed it, you can find my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117718&postcount=38), Oliver.

It's nothing personal. You made too much sense. Oliver usually avoids that....or changes the subject. Your plea for a response will be followed by a strawman, goalpost move, or abandonment of thread. Of course, there will be what I would like to call the "Palin response" (I will be the first to take credit for it) which is non-sensical gibberish followed by a smilie to make you feel like you should understand even though you're really just scratching your head and muttering "wth..huh"?

[Chaos]

So you think that Germany is special and that nothing bad has ever happened anywhere else? This seems an appropriate place to copy a post I made just recently, that I know you've already seen:

Then tell me, smart ass, which religious, cultural or ethnic group, other than the jews...

... has been the focus of demonization by a world religion for about 2,000 years, as well as the designated chew toy for many generations of pious bullies?
... has been stuck into ghettos, subjected to humiliating special laws, used as a scapegoat, and targetted by pogroms over and over again for all that time?
... has been extorted by the people whose theoretical duty it should have been to protect their lives in return for the promise to provide this protection, which of course was conveniently forgotten at any opportune moment?
... was the target one of the most thorough and intentional campaigns of genocide in history, and THE main victim of one of the vilest regimes in history?
... has then had insult added to injury by having the intellectual heirs of said regime (among others) turn around and claim victim status, stating that the abovementioned extinction event was a hoax perpetrated by the group in order to extort money and a country from the rest of the world?

No, really, tell me. I´m curious.

[chillzero]

*sigh*

[Darth Rotor]

Then tell me, smart ass, which religious, cultural or ethnic group, other than the jews...

... has been the focus of demonization by a world religion for about 2,000 years, as well as the designated chew toy for many generations of pious bullies?
What world religion? If you are referring to Christianity, it took some centuries for it to grow into a regional religion, then an imperial religion, and then some more centuries for it to spread over the world, in which case it stuck, and didn't stick, unevenly.

Or do you refer to Islam?

Do you actually understand what you are asking?
... has been stuck into ghettos, subjected to humiliating special laws, used as a scapegoat, and targetted by pogroms over and over again for all that time?
More overstatement "for all that time" which ignores the actual time line which is NOT your posited 2000 years. I give the Jews a lot of credit for surviving as a culture when their homeland was overrun by the Romans. They ate whatever crap they had to, with locals, and put up with second class citizen status as a survival skill. There are plenty of peoples who didn't, and either disappeared or were assimilated, over your same two thousand years.
... has been extorted by the people whose theoretical duty it should have been to protect their lives in return for the promise to provide this protection, which of course was conveniently forgotten at any opportune moment?
What are you referring to, in detail?
... was the target one of the most thorough and intentional campaigns of genocide in history, and THE main victim of one of the vilest regimes in history?
Do you refer to the Russian Kulaks here? ;) The Formosans? The non Han Chinese?
... has then had insult added to injury by having the intellectual heirs of said regime (among others) turn around and claim victim status, stating that the abovementioned extinction event was a hoax perpetrated by the group in order to extort money and a country from the rest of the world?
That one I get.
No, really, tell me. I´m curious.
I am wondering if using hyperbole to frame the question will get you the answer you desire. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I find the way you are trying to make it overly emotional, and in so being crafted less deserving of a serious response by the target of your disdain.

[KingMerv00]

I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that, in order for it to be disparagement, it has to be untrue.

Believe it or not, truth is not a defense in some counties. Didn't Uri sue Randi for "insult" in Japan a little while back?

[Bob Blaylock]

1. What does Guantanamo have to do with speech-limiting rights?


Nothing. It's a prisoner of war facility at this time. The people being held there are not being held for anything that they've said; they are being held because they are enemy combatants who have been captured by us in the current war.

[KingMerv00]

...they are being held because they are enemy combatants who have been captured by us in the current war.

We think. Hard to tell without habeas corpus. :D

[ravdin]

I remain unconvinced that a surplus of free speech was the root cause of the Third Reich's crimes.

[Darth Rotor]

We think. Hard to tell without habeas corpus. :D
So, let me see, when American sailors captured German U Boat crews in WW II, they had to serve a writ of habeus corpus?

Is that where you are going with this? ;)

[KingMerv00]

It is my fault for starting this potential derailment.

So, let me see, when American sailors captured German U Boat crews in WW II, they had to serve a writ of habeus corpus?

No. I don't see the situations as equivilent. I understand that certain situations may require the suspension of habeas courpus but in the interest of Justice and truth, it should be a last resort.

For what it is worth, the SCOTUS currently agrees with me. Course that could change any day now.

Edit: Not sure why I capitalized "Justice" above. Maybe I think I'm a superhero or something.

[Darth Rotor]

It is my fault for starting this potential derailment.
No probs Merv, I was in a playful mood.
I understand that certain situations may require the suspension of habeas courpus but in the interest of Justice and truth, it should be a last resort.
There we go, decision by platitude: let's have more of that! :rolleyes:
For what it is worth, the SCOTUS currently agrees with me.
About the platitudes, or what a hash Bush and Rummy made of the whole Gitmo dodge?
Edit: Not sure why I capitalized "Justice" above. Maybe I think I'm a superhero or something.
For great justice? Maybe you are playing Zero Wing, on a nostalgia kick? :D

DR

[KingMerv00]

There we go, decision by platitude: let's have more of that! :rolleyes:

Platitudes are easier to type than the full blown arguments they endorse.

*sigh* If you are going to drag me kicking and screaming into a REAL conversation, my argument goes something like this:

1) Detaining innocents is bad.
2) Habeas corpus is useful to avoid the detention of innocents.
3) If circumstances are such that HC is impractical, I would be OK with its temporary suspension.
4) I don't think the current circumstances make HC impractical.
5) WWII on the other hand....

[MaGZ]

In light of the Should the UK extradite Holocaust denier? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125636) thread I will tell
you people a story my Grandma is telling me for years now:

My German ancestors lived in White Russia near Odessa during the Nazi-
Regime - and in 1941, the town was occupied by German forces.

My Grandma told me that she never feared anything during her childhood
until this happened:

Across the River they used to live, the occupying Nazi's burned Jews in
mass graves using caustic lime (http://zenstoves.net/MSDS/CALCIUMCARBIDE.htm). One day, a neighbor of my Grandmothers
family came to their house and reported this:

"Last night I went outside after hearing some strange noises coming from
outside. I was shocked when I realized what was going on. A heavily
burned Jew was lying in front of me and he asked me to beat him to death
to stop the pain he was going through."

I don't know what happened to this jewish Man [I can only imagine], but
my Grandma told me that at this point, she knew what fear is about.

And I tell you this story because you should know that freedom of speech
is one thing, but preventing those things from happening again, is more
important than allowing the same kind of hate-speech that led to the
things that I just mentioned.

I suspect the caustic lime was used to dispose of bodies killed in warfare in a sanity manner.

[MaGZ]

Ahem, the Nazi war machine was powered by burning books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_book_burnings).

Maybe the Book Burnings were just a symbolic cleansing of Germany?

[MaGZ]

So you're saying that my Grandma lied to make Jews look good? :(
Why should she do that?

Anti-Jewish opinions are part of "Freedom of expression". Denying
the Holocaust despite the overwhelming evidence is slander. So
what's the difference between the laws in your system in contrast
to the laws in the German system?

How young was your Grandmother at the time and why didn’t the White Russians greet the Germans as liberators? The Ukrainians did.

[MaGZ]

Funny that you say that, considering you keep defending the Iranian government's clear anti-semitic rhetoric, especially here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4115739&postcount=357), and defended MaGZ' right to post hate propaganda here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4103603&postcount=56), here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4103735&postcount=59) and here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4100997&postcount=23).

Kind of contradictory, isn't it?

You are completely oblivious that these are clearly hate-speech, these are equivalents of Holocaust denial, and yet you refuse one and accept the other.

Although Hitchens in Randfan's link does have a good point, that letting these crackpots speak can only further our resolve and deepen and strengthen our knowledge of the real history, but I don't agree as far as what these people say can also influence fools (useful idiots), and people without proper critical thinking skills, and this can lead to alot of harm, since alot of people can be swayed this way without realizing it, so I can't say I'm a 100% in favor of freedom of speech for these cases. I still think hate speech is nothing more than that, hate speech, it doesn't bring anything constructive to the table. Holocaust deniers I suspect don't really believe what they claim, they just want to incite fear and hatred towards the Jewish people, and that is not constructive, that is not debating, it's simply blind propaganda.

As I said in response to your post:

But I am also aware that we can't really do anything about it, that freedom of speech either is or isn't, either we have it or we don't, and this is where Hitchens hits the mark, ultimately we have to live with these people, and their hate, but we don't haev to like it, I certainly don't. Freedom of speech is a gift, and a curse.

You are wrong about that. I am totally convinced the Holocaust is a monstrous lie after reading Butz’s book.

[MaGZ]

Then tell me, smart ass, which religious, cultural or ethnic group, other than the jews...

... has been the focus of demonization by a world religion for about 2,000 years, as well as the designated chew toy for many generations of pious bullies?
... has been stuck into ghettos, subjected to humiliating special laws, used as a scapegoat, and targetted by pogroms over and over again for all that time?
... has been extorted by the people whose theoretical duty it should have been to protect their lives in return for the promise to provide this protection, which of course was conveniently forgotten at any opportune moment?
... was the target one of the most thorough and intentional campaigns of genocide in history, and THE main victim of one of the vilest regimes in history?
... has then had insult added to injury by having the intellectual heirs of said regime (among others) turn around and claim victim status, stating that the abovementioned extinction event was a hoax perpetrated by the group in order to extort money and a country from the rest of the world?

No, really, tell me. I´m curious.

If some of these things happened why? What is it about Jews that makes them easy targets for abuse and destruction? Is it their looks, religion, attitude, smell?

What is you answer as to why Jews are persecuted?

[KingMerv00]

Maybe the Book Burnings were just a symbolic cleansing of Germany?

Yes of course! A symbolic literal cleansing! :rolleyes:

Excuse me. I'm off to rob a bank as a symbolic act of my anger at the economy.

[Oliver]

I suspect the caustic lime was used to dispose of bodies killed in warfare in a sanity manner.


Ehm, no. I was talking about Jews not being killed in warfare but
being killed right at the mass grave. Water and caustic lime was
used to make sure that the "solution" worked.

BTW: My Granny is 80 today/13 back then - and they had no
reason to see the German invasion as liberation since they had
a good life which basically turned over night when they had to
give away nearly all of their Food and Animals to support the
invading Troops. Plus they had to flee* when the German Army left:
[*That's how parts of my Family ended up in Canada and the US.]

Following the Siege of Odessa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Odessa), and the Axis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_forces) occupation, approximately 60,000 Odessans (mostly Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew)) were either massacred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odessa_Massacre) or deported. Many parts of Odessa were damaged during its siege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Odessa) and recapture on 10 April (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_10) 1944 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944), when the city was finally liberated by the Red Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army). It was one of the first four Soviet cities to be awarded the title of "Hero City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_City)" in 1945. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odessa#First_half_of_the_20th_century)

[Wolfman]

...and Oliver continues to fail to answer my question

[Pardalis]

after reading Butz’s book.

A fitting name, that's probably where he took his info.

[Chaos]

What world religion? If you are referring to Christianity, it took some centuries for it to grow into a regional religion, then an imperial religion, and then some more centuries for it to spread over the world, in which case it stuck, and didn't stick, unevenly.

Or do you refer to Islam?

Do you actually understand what you are asking?

Okay, let me rephrase: instead of "a world religion", use "the dominant religion pretty much any place they lived in".

More overstatement "for all that time" which ignores the actual time line which is NOT your posited 2000 years. I give the Jews a lot of credit for surviving as a culture when their homeland was overrun by the Romans. They ate whatever crap they had to, with locals, and put up with second class citizen status as a survival skill. There are plenty of peoples who didn't, and either disappeared or were assimilated, over your same two thousand years.

Oh. And since they put up with it, it means they were not the victims of it? :confused:

What are you referring to, in detail?

Being, well, "asked" to "borrow" money to whoever it was that ruled whatever place they lived in, knowing perfectly well (whether it was explicitly stated or not) that compliance with such "requests" was the only thing keeping the ruler from simply confiscating what they owned and killing or expelled them.

Do you refer to the Russian Kulaks here? ;) The Formosans? The non Han Chinese?

Unless you are even dumber than you are pretending, you know exactly who I am pretending to.

That one I get.

Well, finally.

I am wondering if using hyperbole to frame the question will get you the answer you desire. I understand the point you are trying to make, but I find the way you are trying to make it overly emotional, and in so being crafted less deserving of a serious response by the target of your disdain.

How about you prove that "hyperbole" thing by showing me either that these things did not happen to the jews, or that there are other groups who had the same things happen to them?

And I´m not even waiting for chillzero to actually explain why my post earns her oh-so-righteous condemnation.

[chillzero]

...and Oliver continues to fail to answer my question

Mine too.

Never mind, I'm sure that there'll be some further diversion supplied in the thread to play the 'my people are more worthy of their victim status than any other victims ever' game regardless of whether that's the topic or not.

MaGZ, in response to your posts. It was my understanding too that caustic lime, etc were used to dispose of bodies. However, it's not beyond the realms of possibility (it's even been documented, I'm sure) that not everyone who ended up in these pits were dead immediately. I don't really see how that is a point worth making - these people were being killed systematically either way.

Oliver seems to be saying (as I asked him earlier for clarification, I'm still not sure) that freedom of speech led to this situation. What's your take on the dangers of free speech?

[Darat]

(Caveat - I do not in fact support the German laws and especially not how they are apparently prosecuted - added this caveat because it would seem for some people that trying to understand something is to support it.)

The idea that there is some absolute right to "freedom of speech" is not held by any of the countries the folks in this thread are from. All of our societies and countries sets limits on our freedom to speech. So the idea that the Germans are somehow backward (or even more silly "barbaric") because they have laws that restrict the freedom of speech in some circumstances is simply wrong.

The issue is simply where should the line be drawn? When you look at the actual German legislation there seems to be two major areas that it is meant to deal with, one is the idea of "denigrating" people (died or alive) that have been victims of certain crimes where the motivation was racist/ethnic/cultural/bigotry and the second where there is "incitement".

Now the second part, the incitement, is part of all our legal systems, some countries have specific legislation, some still retain the older "common law" approach but it is recognised that at times speech alone can be the basis of committing a criminal act - even if no "real world" criminal act follows. So in the USA & UK you can be tried simply for trying to incite someone else to commit a murder, whether the other person goes on to commit the murder or not.

So the question is really "Is "holocaust denial" on it's own 'incitement in this sense?". And I think to simply say "no" (or "yes") without examining the specifics of a country and society and culture is to approach the question with a lack of critical thinking. My view is, as I said above, that it is in fact not enough and whereas I could support the German prosecutors prosecuting anyone who was using "Holocaust denial" to directly entice others to commit crimes how I have seen it be used by the German prosecutors doesn't seem to fit in with this approach.

The other part of the German legislation (the denigration part) is the one I have major issues with and one that I have yet heard any strong argument to support. Yes it can be very unpleasant to be on the receiving end of bigotry and hatred but as long as it doesn't cross the line into actual action (or of course isn't in itself incitement to others to commit a crime) then I do not support the idea of restricting free speech on the grounds of "denigration".

(This is of course based on what I understand the German legislation to be and how it is actually used in Germany, which I base on English translations of the German legislation and reports of court cases since I don't read German well enough to read the legislation or German court records.)

[Oliver]

Mine too.

Never mind, I'm sure that there'll be some further diversion supplied in the thread to play the 'my people are more worthy of their victim status than any other victims ever' game regardless of whether that's the topic or not.

MaGZ, in response to your posts. It was my understanding too that caustic lime, etc were used to dispose of bodies. However, it's not beyond the realms of possibility (it's even been documented, I'm sure) that not everyone who ended up in these pits were dead immediately. I don't really see how that is a point worth making - these people were being killed systematically either way.

Oliver seems to be saying (as I asked him earlier for clarification, I'm still not sure) that freedom of speech led to this situation. What's your take on the dangers of free speech?


Yes, I'm saying that even suggesting that "Obama is conspiring with terrorists",
to make an analogy to recent events, pretty quickly can turn into "Obama
is a Terrorist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E)", which also quickly could lead to physical violence if spinning
out of control.

All of that happened over here very quickly in light of blaming the Jews
for the economical disaster at the time. At the Reichskristallnacht, the
taboo between speech and violence broke with drastic consequences
for millions of people, which then led to the decision to implement laws
preventing those incidents.

It's not that hard to grasp in light of Germany's history - nor does
the vast majority think it's some sort of limitation of Freedom of Speech.
Quite the opposite, it's incredibly annoying to argue with holocaust
ignorants for Germans because they know for fact what happened
from either own experiences or their parents/grandparents. Therefore
People are happy to have those laws in place.

[WildCat]

The idea that there is some absolute right to "freedom of speech" is not held by any of the countries the folks in this thread are from.
Nor did anyone claim such, so I have no idea why you felt the need to make this point.

All of our societies and countries sets limits on our freedom to speech. So the idea that the Germans are somehow backward (or even more silly "barbaric") because they have laws that restrict the freedom of speech in some circumstances is simply wrong.
If you take the position that denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities is tantamount to incitement of the German masses (which seems to be the premise of these laws) then there certainly is something backwards or barbaric among Germans, because no other western country (even ones dominated by Oliver's "Caucasians") seems to have a problem with people inciting riots, violence, or destruction merely by denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities. If you take the position that Germans are actually not barbaric and uncivilized then why the need for these laws?

Now the second part, the incitement, is part of all our legal systems, some countries have specific legislation, some still retain the older "common law" approach but it is recognised that at times speech alone can be the basis of committing a criminal act - even if no "real world" criminal act follows. So in the USA & UK you can be tried simply for trying to incite someone else to commit a murder, whether the other person goes on to commit the murder or not.
If your words are intended to get others to commit a crime you are not being charged for "speech alone" - you are being charged with attempting to get others to commit a criminal act.

The rest of your post I agree with.

[chillzero]

OLiver,
Do you think that nobody ever said a bad word against the jews before the nazis?

Do you think that had the jews not been a handy scapegoat, that none of what happened around WW2 would have happened?
Do you really believe that it was words, and not anything else that led to the violence?

[Darat]

Nor did anyone claim such, so I have no idea why you felt the need to make this point.



It is called "setting out an argument".


...snip....



Is this meant to addressed to any point I have made?

[Rasmus]

OLiver,
Do you think that nobody ever said a bad word against the jews before the nazis?

Do you think that had the jews not been a handy scapegoat, that none of what happened around WW2 would have happened?
Do you really believe that it was words, and not anything else that led to the violence?

Even if, he would be hard pressed to demonstrate that it was holocaust denial that led to the holocaust ...

[chillzero]

Even if, he would be hard pressed to demonstrate that it was holocaust denial that led to the holocaust ...


:eusa_doh:

[Oliver]

OLiver,
Do you think that nobody ever said a bad word against the jews before the nazis?

Do you think that had the jews not been a handy scapegoat, that none of what happened around WW2 would have happened?
Do you really believe that it was words, and not anything else that led to the violence?


You may misunderstand that the law isn't about Anti-Semitism or
specifically Jewish People. It's about the Human Factor of blaming
others for the circumstances they live in - and about the reputation
of dead people who cannot defend themselves.

So while a factual debate of the Holocaust isn't a legal problem at
all, to ridicule the Events against minorities, including Jews, in light
of the data the Nazis produced, the witnesses to the events, the
footage and all the other evidence like mass graves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_%28resources%29), is a problem
that the law does prevent - including Anti-semitic propaganda, an
quite important tool for Neo-Nazis to spread their "Ideas". Of course
they don't like it.

Well, as I said - it was words in combination of rough times, propaganda
and a general distrust against Jews. For example:

Hyperinflation did not directly bring about the Nazi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) takeover of Germany; the inflation ended with the introduction of the Rentenmark and the Weimar Republic continued for a decade afterward. The inflation did, however, raise doubts about the competence of liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) institutions, especially amongst a middle class who had held cash savings and bonds. It also produced resentment of Germany's bankers and speculators, many of them Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish), whom the [free-speech*]-government and [free-speech*]-press blamed for the inflation. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_in_the_Weimar_Republic)


*Added by me

And yes, while WW2 most probably would have happened anyway,
the Holocaust may have been preventable.

[chillzero]

And yes, while WW2 most probably would have happened anyway,
the Holocaust may have been preventable.

hmmm....
Do you think the jews were the only victims of the holocaust?

[Tailgater]

You may misunderstand that the law isn't about Anti-Semitism or
specifically Jewish People. It's about the Human Factor of blaming
others for the circumstances they live in - and about the reputation
of dead people who cannot defend themselves.

So while a factual debate of the Holocaust isn't a legal problem at
all, to ridicule the Events against minorities, including Jews, in light
of the data the Nazis produced, the witnesses to the events, the
footage and all the other evidence like mass graves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_%28resources%29), is a problem
that the law does prevent - including Anti-semitic propaganda, an
quite important tool for Neo-Nazis to spread their "Ideas". Of course
they don't like it.

Well, as I said - it was words in combination of rough times, propaganda
and a general distrust against Jews. For example:




*Added by me

And yes, while WW2 most probably would have happened anyway,
the Holocaust may have been preventable.

So, is it any political, religious, or different groups that you want to apply this to? Stopping any speech that might lead to a demonization of a particular group?

[Tailgater]

Chaos,

I don't think anyone is trying to diminish the severity of what the jews have gone through as much as level a field where this applies to everyone. I could be wrong, but that's where I see them going with it. Do we protect one group more than others specifically because they have gone through more historically? And if we do, how large is that umbrella going to be?

[Cuddles]

Then tell me, smart ass, which religious, cultural or ethnic group, other than the jews...

... has been the focus of demonization by a world religion for about 2,000 years, as well as the designated chew toy for many generations of pious bullies?
... has been stuck into ghettos, subjected to humiliating special laws, used as a scapegoat, and targetted by pogroms over and over again for all that time?
... has been extorted by the people whose theoretical duty it should have been to protect their lives in return for the promise to provide this protection, which of course was conveniently forgotten at any opportune moment?
... was the target one of the most thorough and intentional campaigns of genocide in history, and THE main victim of one of the vilest regimes in history?
... has then had insult added to injury by having the intellectual heirs of said regime (among others) turn around and claim victim status, stating that the abovementioned extinction event was a hoax perpetrated by the group in order to extort money and a country from the rest of the world?

No, really, tell me. I´m curious.

Well, I can't deny that my ass is apparently a lot smarter than you, but that doesn't really excuse you from actually reading posts before you respond with a load of irrelevant, ranting crap. Now, why don't you try again and actually learn something. You see all those examples of genocide I noted? You see the ones that actually involved killing more people than the Nazis killed Jews? You see the ones that involved wiping out a far higher proportion of ethnicities than the Nazis ever did? You see the ones that involved killing people in more brutal ways at a much higher rate than the Nazis did?

Seriously, get over yourself. Jews have been treated badly sometimes. Great. So have lots of other people. In fact, some have been treated so badly that they no longer even exist. The Nazi's treatment of the Jews was pretty bad, but it is by no means unique, and was not even the worst example of this kind of behaviour. Now please, if you actually have a coherent argument to make, feel free to do so, but enough with the blind ranting already.

Chaos,

I don't think anyone is trying to diminish the severity of what the jews have gone through as much as level a field where this applies to everyone. I could be wrong, but that's where I see them going with it. Do we protect one group more than others specifically because they have gone through more historically? And if we do, how large is that umbrella going to be?

Exactly. My whole point, both in this thread and the one I first posted that list in, is that no-one is special. Humans have acted inhumanely to each other for about as long as there have been humans. Setting one group apart from the rest not only doesn't help matters, it is exactly the kind of behviour that leads to this sort of thing in the first place.

I find it particularly ironic, and rather worrying, that it is those claiming special victim status that are the ones who seem to most want to discriminate against others here. Bad things may have happened in the past, but doing the same bad things yourself is not going to improve things. The saying "Two wrongs don't make a right." is very much true. The Nazis started by censoring the Jews. If we censor the Nazis, how are we any better than them?

[Wolfman]

Gotta' say, Oliver's blatant willingness to simply ignore questions that happen to be inconvenient to his own arguments is quite impressive. In my original post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4117718&postcount=38) (the one I'm still waiting for Oliver to respond to), I said this:
Bush & Oliver -- same tactics, same arguments. Repression/denial of basic democratic freedoms justified through use of fear tactics and vague claims that such repression is necessary to "prevent" the same tragedies from happening again.
Let me now add:

Bush & Oliver -- same tactics, same arguments. If someone raises an argument that is too difficult to answer, or demonstrates the basic fallacies of your own argument, simply ignore it and rant about something else, hoping to distract people and lead them away from the original argument.

[Oliver]

hmmm....
Do you think the jews were the only victims of the holocaust?


Why should I think that? Other minorities like mentally ill, gays, disabled
persons, POW's, Gypsies and others were systematically killed as well:



3 Victims and death toll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll)

3.1 Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Jews)
3.2 Other groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Other_groups)

3.2.1 Slavs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Slavs)

3.2.1.1 Ethnic Poles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Ethnic_Poles)
3.2.1.2 South and East Slavs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#South_and_East_Slavs)

3.2.2 Soviet POWs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Soviet_POWs)
3.2.3 Roma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Roma)
3.2.4 Disabled and mentally ill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Disabled_and_mentally_ill)
3.2.5 Gay men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Gay_men)
3.2.6 Freemasons and Jehovah's Witnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Freemasons_and_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses)
3.2.7 Political activists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Political_activists)

[chillzero]

Why should I think that? Other minorities like mentally ill, gays, disabled
persons, POW's, Gypsies and others were systematically killed as well:



3 Victims and death toll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll)

3.1 Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Jews)
3.2 Other groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Other_groups)

3.2.1 Slavs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Slavs)

3.2.1.1 Ethnic Poles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Ethnic_Poles)
3.2.1.2 South and East Slavs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#South_and_East_Slavs)


3.2.2 Soviet POWs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Soviet_POWs)
3.2.3 Roma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Roma)
3.2.4 Disabled and mentally ill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Disabled_and_mentally_ill)
3.2.5 Gay men (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Gay_men)
3.2.6 Freemasons and Jehovah's Witnesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Freemasons_and_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses)
3.2.7 Political activists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Political_activists)






Yet your argument seemed to be that the holocaust wouldn't have happened if it were not for free speech and the repression of the jews (specifically).

So I'm back to my original question. What's your point?

What point are you trying to make about free speech, and why are you relating it specifically to the holocaust? Do you think you could state clearly what exactly it is you are trying to argue here?

[Oliver]

So, is it any political, religious, or different groups that you want to apply this to? Stopping any speech that might lead to a demonization of a particular group?


No, not at all. The laws in place are fine the way they are. And they
don't get you in trouble unless you're threatening someone or group
by propagating violence or hate. Go to the next Townhall and scream:
"Death to the President" and you will know what I mean.

Could you imagine the Washington Post and MSNBC ranting about
"Jews brought us into the financial mess" or worse? In Germany,
that was the case in the free Media. Without any facts whatsoever
besides the fact that many Jews happened to be banker.

So you may also call the laws an adjustment that pushes the radical
media to be careful about what they make up.

[Oliver]

Yet your argument seemed to be that the holocaust wouldn't have happened if it were not for free speech and the repression of the jews (specifically).

So I'm back to my original question. What's your point?

What point are you trying to make about free speech, and why are you relating it specifically to the holocaust? Do you think you could state clearly what exactly it is you are trying to argue here?


I'm not arguing at all, just stating the fact that the Holocaust led
to the laws we have regarding hate speech. Plus growing up with
those laws, I don't see any difference between similar Libel/Slander
laws in other western societies.

So I'm rather wondering about what point you people are trying
to make here. Maybe that the speech limiting laws in the US
should be abolished? :confused:

[Oliver]

Oliver,

Apparently, your argument is that Germans are somehow different than the rest of the world. In the rest of the world -- or at least, in the vast majority of free, western nations -- we are quite able to provide people with the right to freedom of speech, including racism and holocaust denial, without having our countries turn into fascist regimes.

It is, in fact, quite amazing just how much you sound like the Americans whom you criticize here so regularly.

The United States government, under the "leadership" of George Bush, used fear as a means of limiting peoples' freedoms. They repeated story after story about the atrocities committed by terrorists, and said, "It is necessary to take away some of your freedoms in order to prevent this from ever happening again." And what does Oliver do? Oliver goes and tells us a tragic story, and uses that in exactly the same manner, to argue that freedoms that are enjoyed in the majority of other democratic western nations should be denied to the German people.

And skip the whole thing about this being the same as libel or slander laws, or nonsense like that. The laws in many other nations very clearly differentiate between libel and slander, and what you are talking about. For example, libel and slander does not include claiming that someone did not do something bad that someone else claims they did (a prime example...it is not either libelous or slanderous to claim that it was not Muslims who flew planes into the WTC. Nor is it libelous or slanderous to claim that the U.S. gov't, or Jews, or anyone else was behind it. Nor would it be libelous or slanderous to entirely deny that the event happened, or to argue that not as many people died as the authorities claim).

I despise the way that the U.S. gov't used fear tactics to justify limiting the freedoms of American people; and I similarly dislike Germans using fear tactics to justify limiting the fredoms of German people. I particularly dislike it when Americans/Germans/anyone not only restrict such freedoms, but then insist that other nations must cooperate with them in restricting those freedoms.

Don't get me wrong -- Gerald Toben is a despicable man, and below contempt. But holding beliefs that I find despicable does not make a person a criminal. Nor does explaining those beliefs to others. Now, if the man actually encouraged/incited people towards acts of violence against people based on their race, or engaged in such acts himself, I'd fully support arresting and imprisoning him. But so far as I can see, he has not done that. Simply telling people what you believe does not constitute incitement. If it did, then every time I explained my atheist beliefs, and why I believe no god exists, I'd be "guilty" of religious attacks, and likewise subject to prosecution and imprisonment.

Bush & Oliver -- same tactics, same arguments. Repression/denial of basic democratic freedoms justified through use of fear tactics and vague claims that such repression is necessary to "prevent" the same tragedies from happening again.


Look, Wolfman. I don't browse this forum 24/7 - so I prefer to
answer longer messages when I have the time for that. Which
isn't right now, I apologize.

[chillzero]

I'm not arguing at all, just stating the fact that the Holocaust led to the laws we have regarding hate speech.

So what was the whole deal with the story about your grandmother? You say now that you want to discuss that the Holocaust led to restrictions on hate speech. Fair enough. How you thought you could get to that by posting a story (which you still haven't responded to my question about, btw) about someone's experience with a camp jew is beyond me.

Your initial post seemed to be claiming that free speech led to the Holocaust, not the other way around. Please try to be a little less cryptic when you want a discussion.

[Oliver]

So what was the whole deal with the story about your grandmother? You say now that you want to discuss that the Holocaust led to restrictions on hate speech. Fair enough. How you thought you could get to that by posting a story (which you still haven't responded to my question about, btw) about someone's experience with a camp jew is beyond me.

Your initial post seemed to be claiming that free speech led to the Holocaust, not the other way around. Please try to be a little less cryptic when you want a discussion.


Yes, what led to the Holocaust were missing laws against hate-speech
propaganda and politicians fueling that distrust and hate against minorities.
Now that we have such laws, even the worst economic circumstances
will not allow anyone to publish hate-speech-propaganda as long the
justice systems works.

And concerning the OP, something MagZ brought up about the Holocaust
inspired me to the OP. Call it an emotional response - I don't really know
what the point is, I primarily felt to share the story.

[Wolfman]

Look, Wolfman. I don't browse this forum 24/7 - so I prefer to answer longer messages when I have the time for that. Which
isn't right now, I apologize.ROTFLMAO

"when I have time for that" <-- Oliver, you've had enough time to make forty-three other posts in various threads since I wrote that. In the same time period, I've written eight. It seems quite plain that you spend more time here, and have written much more than me.

Fact is, myself and many others have seen you do this regularly. You pick and choose which posts you will respond to -- generally the ones that have the poorest arguments, or the ones that you can twist around to your own purposes in order to steer things in the direction you want -- while you ignore and refuse to respond to others.

Heck, if you don't want to answer me, that's fine. It just goes to further demonstrate the strength of my own argument. But as long as you keep posting in this thread to try to 'prove' your point by responding to others, I'm going to keep pointing out your absolute failure to respond to my post.

I'd call you a hypocrite and a fool, but that would be attacking the arguer, and not the argument -- therefore, I won't do that. Instead, I'll say simply that your arguments are hypocritical and foolish.

[Chaos]

Nor did anyone claim such, so I have no idea why you felt the need to make this point.

If you do not wish to be seen as making a certain claim, I suggest that you refrain from making said claim.

If you take the position that denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities is tantamount to incitement of the German masses (which seems to be the premise of these laws) then there certainly is something backwards or barbaric among Germans, because no other western country (even ones dominated by Oliver's "Caucasians") seems to have a problem with people inciting riots, violence, or destruction merely by denying the Holocaust or other Nazi atrocities. If you take the position that Germans are actually not barbaric and uncivilized then why the need for these laws?

Is that the same way that US citizens would erupt into spontaneous orgies of public mass fornication if they were able to see bare boobs on TV? What a thoroughly barbaric bunch they are...

If your words are intended to get others to commit a crime you are not being charged for "speech alone" - you are being charged with attempting to get others to commit a criminal act.

Which is precisely the point of Holocaust denial. You don´t construct an elaborate system of lies, distortions and half-truths, all aimed at inciting hatred against a certain set of people, just because you like to hear the sound of you own voice or see your words in print.


@Tailgater:
Strange - for people who do not want to claim that, they have put in tremendous effort claiming exactly that. The jews HAVE a history of haven suffered abuse (to put it politely) in excess of that suffered by others, abuse which is continuing even now in some forms, and I don´t see what´s so terribly bad about trying to stop said abuse.

[Oliver]

Apparently, your argument is that Germans are somehow different than the rest of the world. In the rest of the world -- or at least, in the vast majority of free, western nations -- we are quite able to provide people with the right to freedom of speech, including racism and holocaust denial, without having our countries turn into fascist regimes.

It is, in fact, quite amazing just how much you sound like the Americans whom you criticize here so regularly.

The United States government, under the "leadership" of George Bush, used fear as a means of limiting peoples' freedoms. They repeated story after story about the atrocities committed by terrorists, and said, "It is necessary to take away some of your freedoms in order to prevent this from ever happening again." And what does Oliver do? Oliver goes and tells us a tragic story, and uses that in exactly the same manner, to argue that freedoms that are enjoyed in the majority of other democratic western nations should be denied to the German people.

And skip the whole thing about this being the same as libel or slander laws, or nonsense like that. The laws in many other nations very clearly differentiate between libel and slander, and what you are talking about. For example, libel and slander does not include claiming that someone did not do something bad that someone else claims they did (a prime example...it is not either libelous or slanderous to claim that it was not Muslims who flew planes into the WTC. Nor is it libelous or slanderous to claim that the U.S. gov't, or Jews, or anyone else was behind it. Nor would it be libelous or slanderous to entirely deny that the event happened, or to argue that not as many people died as the authorities claim).

I despise the way that the U.S. gov't used fear tactics to justify limiting the freedoms of American people; and I similarly dislike Germans using fear tactics to justify limiting the fredoms of German people. I particularly dislike it when Americans/Germans/anyone not only restrict such freedoms, but then insist that other nations must cooperate with them in restricting those freedoms.

Don't get me wrong -- Gerald Toben is a despicable man, and below contempt. But holding beliefs that I find despicable does not make a person a criminal. Nor does explaining those beliefs to others. Now, if the man actually encouraged/incited people towards acts of violence against people based on their race, or engaged in such acts himself, I'd fully support arresting and imprisoning him. But so far as I can see, he has not done that. Simply telling people what you believe does not constitute incitement. If it did, then every time I explained my atheist beliefs, and why I believe no god exists, I'd be "guilty" of religious attacks, and likewise subject to prosecution and imprisonment.

Bush & Oliver -- same tactics, same arguments. Repression/denial of basic democratic freedoms justified through use of fear tactics and vague claims that such repression is necessary to "prevent" the same tragedies from happening again.


Where did I say I want, like Bush, any expansion to any of the laws
in question? I'm actually opposed to the Nutjobs who want to install
any BigBrother-laws in Germany in light of the US led "War on Terror".

Your argument that Germany would turn into fascism again without
the laws in question, is as untrue as your claim that other western
societies have those racist freedoms and don't turn into fascist regimes.

Indeed, Britain has similar laws to Holocaust denial, such as incitement to
racial hatred. Similar laws exist in countries that were part of the holocaust
and even Australia obviously has similar laws:

In 2002, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia) found that Töben's website "vilified Jewish people", and ordered Töben to remove offensive material from his site.

And look at this:

In 1984, James Keegstra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra), a Canadian high-school teacher, was charged with denying the Holocaust and making antisemitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Christie_%28lawyer%29), argued that the section of the Criminal Code of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Code_of_Canada) (now section 319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms) (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Keegstra#Opinion_of_the_Court). Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#cite_note-39) Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial)

So let's start with your strange "German laws are unique" claim first before
I go on...

[Oliver]

I don´t see what´s so terribly bad about trying to stop said abuse.


Well, if Töben and Ahmadinejad share their excitement about the
Holocaust lies, it's Ahmadinejad who is the anti-semite who should
be removed - and the other guy just a victim of German oppression: :rolleyes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e3/Maddi_and_Fred.JPG

[Pardalis]

Please try to be a little less cryptic when you want a discussion.

You believe in the supernatural?

[Tailgater]

That would be interesting to see Ahmadinejad arrested on one of his speaking tours and extradited to Germany to face trial for Holocaust denial.

[Oliver]

You believe in the supernatural?


Derailing mood? Read my last 2 posts. They're about your "arguments".

[Oliver]

That would be interesting to see Ahmadinejad arrested on one of his speaking tours and extradited to Germany to face trial for Holocaust denial.


Oh, it certainly would. Some Canadians and "Free Speechers" would
love Germany for that double-standard. Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad
doesn't have an anti-semitic website being available in Germany.

[Pardalis]

Some Canadians and "Free Speechers" would love Germany for that double-standard.

I would love your double standard? :boggled:

Like Chillzero, I'm not sure I understand your point in this thread.

[Tailgater]

Oh, it certainly would. Some Canadians and "Free Speechers" would
love Germany for that double-standard. Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad
doesn't have an anti-semitic website being available in Germany.

Uh, ya, that's why it's the world wide web. So, a website falls under the law, but openly denying it on the news and hosting conferences about it does not? Makes no sense. What is the double standard you are talking about?

He has his own section on wiki and google spits out thousands of articles, yet this guys one website is special?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denier#Iranian_President_Ahmadinejad

[Oliver]

I would love your double standard? :boggled:

Like Chillzero, I'm not sure I understand your point in this thread.


My point is that the Holocaust should never ever happen again.
That's why I support those laws as much as the Canada Supreme
Court Does about their own "speech-limiting Holocaust law":

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697 is a landmark freedom of expression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_expression) decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Canada) where the Court upheld the Criminal Code of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Code_of_Canada) provision prohibiting the wilfull promotion of hatred against an identifiable group as constitutional under the freedom of expression provision in section 2(b) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Two_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_ Freedoms) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms). Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Keegstra#Opinion_of_the_Court)


So?

[Pardalis]

So?

So why the hell do you keep defending Ahmadinejad and MaGZ, if you basically agree with me that what they are doing is inciting hatred against the Jews?

[Wolfman]

Where did I say I want, like Bush, any expansion to any of the laws in question? I'm actually opposed to the Nutjobs who want to install any BigBrother-laws in Germany in light of the US led "War on Terror".Nice red herring there, Oliver. My argument was simply about using fear tactics to justify laws that violate freedom of speech, or any other freedom -- regardless of whether those laws already exist, or are new.

Your entire OP is based on justifying German laws by using the exact same tactics that Bush uses -- you refer to something terrible that happened, and then say that these laws are necessary to "prevent that from happening again". Bush uses 9/11, you use the holocaust.

My point is that just because something bad happened, it does not automatically or implicitly justify laws that restrict freedoms; that there must be more to the argument than that. In particular, it must be demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that, without such laws, the same (or worse) events would happen again.

So, can you demonstrate that without the current German laws, Germany would again start persecuting/killing Jews, or any other group? I really, really doubt it.
Your argument that Germany would turn into fascism again without
the laws in question, is as untrue as your claim that other western
societies have those racist freedoms and don't turn into fascist regimes.WTF?!? I didn't say that Germany would turn to fascism without such laws -- in fact, I said the exact opposite!!! It is my contention that, without such laws, Germany would still be in no danger of returning to such abuses!

It is you who is implicitly arguing that Germans would do these things again. Your entire OP is based on this premise -- you cite a horror story from the past, and then state that these laws are necessary to prevent the same thing from happening again!
Indeed, Britain has similar laws to Holocaust denial, such as incitement to racial hatred. Similar laws exist in countries that were part of the holocaust and even Australia obviously has similar laws:I don't know if you're clueless, or being deliberatly obtuse.

Yes, every country has laws that cover racism. However, in most (but not all) western countries, those laws are limited to racism that involves A) commiting acts of violence/intolerance towards others, or B) inciting others to violence or intolerance. Thus, for example, in Canada it is perfectly legal to state that you consider blacks to be inferior, or you believe that Jews are trying to take over the world -- or that the holocaust never happened, etc. But it would be illegal to physically assault someone because of their race, or encourage others to do so; and it would be illegal to deny work/housing to someone based on race.

Now, I would encourage you to go and find anywhere that this person has done those things.

Furthermore, the whole "other people do it" claim is stupidity personified. Hell, at the time leading up to WW II, other European countries also had laws that specifically discriminated against Jews...does that mean that the Nazis were justified in doing the same thing? Of course not.
In 2002, a judge of the Federal Court of Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Court_of_Australia) found that Töben's website "vilified Jewish people", and ordered Töben to remove offensive material from his site. Now, a curious thing here is that your link goes to a Wikipedia article about the Federal Court of Australia, yet says nothing at all about the ruling you refer to. Since I've found that you will consistently and unashamedly misrepresent, exaggerate, and/or distort information to suit your particular argument, I'd appreciate a link to the actual court case in question. I can't really comment on something about which I have no information at all except for your own (rather unreliable) claims.
And look at this:

In 1984, James Keegstra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Keegstra), a Canadian high-school teacher, was charged with denying the Holocaust and making antisemitic claims in his classroom as part of the course material. Keegstra and his lawyer, Doug Christie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Christie_%28lawyer%29), argued that the section of the Criminal Code of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Code_of_Canada) (now section 319{2}), is an infringement of the Charter of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms) (section 9{b}). The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Keegstra#Opinion_of_the_Court). Keegstra was convicted, and fired from his job.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#cite_note-39) Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial)
Keegstra was actively teaching that "Jews are evil"; and furthermore, he was not simply expressing his views, he was actively trying to force them on a classroom of students who had to repeat his beliefs on their tests/exams in order to pass. It was this latter aspect that in particular led to the ruling against him. He wasn't simply stating his views, and leaving it up to other people to decide whether or not they agreed with him; he was using a position of power to force those views upon children.
So let's start with your strange "German laws are unique" claim first before I go on...Hmmm...now we get a strawman. I don't recall saying that "German laws are unique". They are not. There are, in fact, other countries that have similar laws. The question of whether or not they are "unique" is entirely irrelevant. But bravo for yet another attempt at derailing the discussion in an entirely pointless direction.

China has laws that are "not unique" also...for example, imprisoning people without charges. There are many countries that do the same thing. Its not "unique"...in fact, it is relatively common in many nations. That doesn't mean that it is "right".

Let us take this back to the original point I raised -- a point that, for all your red herrings and strawmen, you never really addressed.

Bush justifies American restrictions on freedom by citing 9/11; you rely on German restrictions on freedom by citing a terrible story from your grandmother's past. Furthermore, you justify imposing German laws on other nations where the acts in question would not be illegal. All of which is complete nonsense, in that you have not in any manner, shape, or form demonstrated that without these laws, the same abuses would happen again. Personally, I don't believe they would. And my belief is supported by the plain evidence that there are numerous countries that do not have the draconian laws that Germany has in this regard, and yet those abuses you refer to in your fear-mongering are, in fact, not happening.

[Oliver]

Uh, ya, that's why it's the world wide web. So, a website falls under the law, but openly denying it on the news and hosting conferences about it does not? Makes no sense. What is the double standard you are talking about?

He has his own section on wiki and google spits out thousands of articles, yet this guys one website is special?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denier#Iranian_President_Ahmadinejad


Germany is trying to make a landmark-decision based on the fact
that a "Speech-hate"-Website that is available in Germany, is
breaching the German law - just because it's availability.

Now that's something I don't support. Unfortunately, the Internet
will be regulated, no matter what we think about it. So we'll
see if Germany is able to win this case. I doubt that. And I
doubt that Töben will be extradited in some days. We'll see.

The other argument of the supreme court here is, that they
persecuted Töben because not solely for the "Hate-Site",
but specifically because he's the Author of the content.

Not to mention that Ahmadinejad most probably has diplomatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity)
immunity, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity) so he can pretty much speak whatever crosses his
mind, even making death threats to me and you.

[Tailgater]

So why the hell do you keep defending Ahmadinejad and MaGZ, if you basically agree with me that what they are doing is inciting hatred against the Jews?

I'm wondering this as well. For someone who has diced the Iranian's comments up time after time and made excuses as to how he is so non-threatening, he is quit to want justice for others spewing the same crap.

[Pardalis]

I'm wondering this as well. For someone who has diced the Iranian's comments up time after time and made excuses as to how he is so non-threatening, he is quit to want justice for others spewing the same crap.

Yeah, and on top of that the argument he likes to use in this case is freedom of speech. :boggled:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4084925&postcount=212 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4084925&postcount=212http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2779880&postcount=138)[/URL]
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3034237&postcount=1676 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4084925&postcount=212http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2779880&postcount=138)
[url]http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2779880&postcount=138

[Oliver]

Nice red herring there, Oliver. My argument was simply about using fear tactics to justify laws that violate freedom of speech, or any other freedom -- regardless of whether those laws already exist, or are new.

Your entire OP is based on justifying German laws by using the exact same tactics that Bush uses -- you refer to something terrible that happened, and then say that these laws are necessary to "prevent that from happening again". Bush uses 9/11, you use the holocaust.

My point is that just because something bad happened, it does not automatically or implicitly justify laws that restrict freedoms; that there must be more to the argument than that. In particular, it must be demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt that, without such laws, the same (or worse) events would happen again.

So, can you demonstrate that without the current German laws, Germany would again start persecuting/killing Jews, or any other group? I really, really doubt it.
WTF?!? I didn't say that Germany would turn to fascism without such laws -- in fact, I said the exact opposite!!! It is my contention that, without such laws, Germany would still be in no danger of returning to such abuses!

It is you who is implicitly arguing that Germans would do these things again. Your entire OP is based on this premise -- you cite a horror story from the past, and then state that these laws are necessary to prevent the same thing from happening again!
I don't know if you're clueless, or being deliberatly obtuse.

Yes, every country has laws that cover racism. However, in most (but not all) western countries, those laws are limited to racism that involves A) commiting acts of violence/intolerance towards others, or B) inciting others to violence or intolerance. Thus, for example, in Canada it is perfectly legal to state that you consider blacks to be inferior, or you believe that Jews are trying to take over the world -- or that the holocaust never happened, etc. But it would be illegal to physically assault someone because of their race, or encourage others to do so; and it would be illegal to deny work/housing to someone based on race.

Now, I would encourage you to go and find anywhere that this person has done those things.

Furthermore, the whole "other people do it" claim is stupidity personified. Hell, at the time leading up to WW II, other European countries also had laws that specifically discriminated against Jews...does that mean that the Nazis were justified in doing the same thing? Of course not.
Now, a curious thing here is that your link goes to a Wikipedia article about the Federal Court of Australia, yet says nothing at all about the ruling you refer to. Since I've found that you will consistently and unashamedly misrepresent, exaggerate, and/or distort information to suit your particular argument, I'd appreciate a link to the actual court case in question. I can't really comment on something about which I have no information at all except for your own (rather unreliable) claims.

Keegstra was actively teaching that "Jews are evil"; and furthermore, he was not simply expressing his views, he was actively trying to force them on a classroom of students who had to repeat his beliefs on their tests/exams in order to pass. It was this latter aspect that in particular led to the ruling against him. He wasn't simply stating his views, and leaving it up to other people to decide whether or not they agreed with him; he was using a position of power to force those views upon children.
Hmmm...now we get a strawman. I don't recall saying that "German laws are unique". They are not. There are, in fact, other countries that have similar laws. The question of whether or not they are "unique" is entirely irrelevant. But bravo for yet another attempt at derailing the discussion in an entirely pointless direction.

China has laws that are "not unique" also...for example, imprisoning people without charges. There are many countries that do the same thing. Its not "unique"...in fact, it is relatively common in many nations. That doesn't mean that it is "right".

Let us take this back to the original point I raised -- a point that, for all your red herrings and strawmen, you never really addressed.

Bush justifies American restrictions on freedom by citing 9/11; you rely on German restrictions on freedom by citing a terrible story from your grandmother's past. Furthermore, you justify imposing German laws on other nations where the acts in question would not be illegal. All of which is complete nonsense, in that you have not in any manner, shape, or form demonstrated that without these laws, the same abuses would happen again. Personally, I don't believe they would. And my belief is supported by the plain evidence that there are numerous countries that do not have the draconian laws that Germany has in this regard, and yet those abuses you refer to in your fear-mongering are, in fact, not happening.


Why would saying "Jews are evil" bad in a free speech country?
That alone wouldn't bring you in trouble here in Germany.

I assume the aspect that children are receptive for that kind of
propaganda without being able to differ between "good" and "evil"
had a major influence in that ruling, had it not?

Now would it surprise you that the German Courts argues the
same way about media like the WWW?

Would it furthermore surprise you that you can freely question the
Holocaust as long you're not publishing your opinion, like in a Book,
Website, Song or in front of a Class?

So Canadians can air racist songs and Websites. That's nice, but
it's your way of defining the line Darat mentioned. I'm okay with
that - and with our definition as well. So it's you who doesn't like
the fact that the German decision where to draw the line is slightly
different. But as long this isn't a human rights issue like in the
Guantanamo no-right-zone, I don't really bother:

The argument that laws punishing Holocaust denial are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights) have been rejected by institutions of the Council of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe) (the European Commission of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission_of_Human_Rights),[93] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-92) the European Court of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights)[94] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-93)) and also by the United Nations Human Rights Committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Committee).[95] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-94) Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws)


And furthermore:

European Union

The European Union's executive Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission) proposed a European Union wide anti-racism xenophobia law in 2001, which included the criminalization of Holocaust denial. On July 15, 1996, the Council of the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_the_European_Union) adopted the Joint action/96/443/JHA concerning action to combat racism and xenophobia.[98] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-97)[99] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-98) During the German presidency there was an attempt to extend this ban.[100] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-99) Full implementation was blocked by Britain and the Nordic countries because of the need to balance the restrictions of voicing racist opinions against the freedom of expression.[101] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-100) As a result a compromise has been reached within the EU and while the EU has not prohibited Holocaust denial outright, a maximum term of three years in jail is optionally available to all member nations for "denying or grossly trivializing crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."[102] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-101)[103]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws#cite_note-102)
Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial_laws)

[Oliver]

And Wolfman. We will see if Töben is extradited or not. I doubt it. So
unless that will actually happen, there is no need to think about it.

[Tailgater]

Yeah, and on top of that the argument he likes to use in this case is freedom of speech. :boggled:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4084925&postcount=212 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4084925&postcount=212http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2779880&postcount=138)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2779880&postcount=138 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4084925&postcount=212http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2779880&postcount=138)
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3034237&postcount=1676

Welcome to free speech, UW.

By that I mean that everybody on this planet is free to
speak whatever they want in my opinion. But this alone
is no threat.

If you interpret this being a threat nevertheless, you
should drop your believe in free speech and -expression,
because your argument would be worthless if you believe
in free speech for yourself as long people don't say
anything that bothers you.

And no - Iran *surprise-surprise* doesn't have a long
history of violent, bloody military interventions:

http://www.google.com/search?source=...=Google+Search

So using facts, logic and historical background, it's safe to
say that the US-Government is a bunch of crazy war-horny
MF'ers. Not some people in the ME talking BS.

Unless - of course - you can provide some evidence
that is more convincing than the latest "Woo-mourning".

I thought laughing dog, but we need some variety here.

:train

[Oliver]

So why the hell do you keep defending Ahmadinejad and MaGZ, if you basically agree with me that what they are doing is inciting hatred against the Jews?


Yes, it certainly borders inciting hatred in German laws definition, yet
their proposals are rational and in no way anti-semitic. Therefore it
has to be proven if Iran is a threat for Jews or not. Reviewing the facts,
there is no obvious threat other than the fears of fearful people.

Plus, Ahmadinejad isn't spreading his nonsense in Germany since he has
to either break the law in Germany - or provide a Website that is available
in Germany with him being the Author. Under those circumstances was
Töben indicted.

Concerning MagZ: I have hope for him being able to wake up.
Unfortunately, the never-ending attacks won't help to open his
mind. That's a basic psychological fact.

[Bob Blaylock]

"Last night I went outside after hearing some strange noises coming from outside. I was shocked when I realized what was going on. A heavily burned Jew was lying in front of me and he asked me to beat him to death to stop the pain he was going through."


Others have pointed out things that seem to render this story implausible, and now I've noticed yet another. The heavily-burned Jew asked to be beaten to death to put him out of his misery. I'd believe someone in such great suffering might ask to be killed, but to ask for a specific method of killing, particularly one that is itself likely to be painful, seems unlikely. If he had the presence of mind to ask to be killed in a specific manner, surely he'd ask for something quicker and less painful, such as having his throat cut.


I'm not arguing at all, just stating the fact that the Holocaust led to the laws we have regarding hate speech. Plus growing up with those laws, I don't see any difference between similar Libel/Slander laws in other western societies.


Really? You don't understand the difference between slander/libel, wherein lies are disseminated about specific individuals, causing direct harm to their reputation; and expression of an unpopular political belief which harms no one? I suppose you also don't understand the difference between a tort (which is what slander/libel is treated as) and a crime (which is how Germany treats its thoughtcrimes).

[Oliver]

I thought laughing dog, but we need some variety here.




Yes, it was a loose statement since my point was the threat factor - that
was the context of the discussion, and being a honest man, you acknowledge
that, don't you?

[Oliver]

Others have pointed out things that seem to render this story implausible, and now I've noticed yet another. The heavily-burned Jew asked to be beaten to death to put him out of his misery. I'd believe someone in such great suffering might ask to be killed, but to ask for a specific method of killing, particularly one that is itself likely to be painful, seems unlikely. If he had the presence of mind to ask to be killed in a specific manner, surely he'd ask for something quicker and less painful, such as having his throat cut.

Really? You don't understand the difference between slander/libel, wherein lies are disseminated about specific individuals, causing direct harm to their reputation; and expression of an unpopular political belief which harms no one? I suppose you also don't understand the difference between a tort (which is what slander/libel is treated as) and a crime (which is how Germany treats its thoughtcrimes).


Read on, we've been there already.

[Pardalis]

Yes, it certainly borders inciting hatred in German laws definition

And the fact that he's a head of state doesn't bother you?

yet their proposals are rational and in no way anti-semitic.You haven't read it correctly, go back to the thread about it where Ziggurat and I are still waiting for you to answer our questions.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=124149&page=8

Plus, Ahmadinejad isn't spreading his nonsense in GermanyWhat difference does that make? He is spreading his hatred everywhere else.

Concerning MagZ: I have hope for him being able to wake up.
Unfortunately, the never-ending attacks won't help to open his
mind. That's a basic psychological fact.You're not answering the question, why do you defend his hate-speech?

[Tailgater]

Yes, it was a loose statement since my point was the threat factor - that
was the context of the discussion, and being a honest man, you acknowledge
that, don't you?

Not following you. If I am, this is what you are saying.

A. Man from Australia with website available in Germany=threat

B. Iranian president leading the ME movement in Holocaust Denial=no threat


Yes, it certainly borders inciting hatred in German laws definition, yet
their proposals are rational and in no way anti-semitic. Therefore it
has to be proven if Iran is a threat for Jews or not. Reviewing the facts,
there is no obvious threat other than the fears of fearful people.

What?

You mean like the German government fears websites and video games?

[Oliver]

And the fact that he's a head of state doesn't bother you?

You haven't read it correctly, go back to the thread about it where Ziggurat and I are still waiting for you to answer our questions.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4092853

What difference does that make? He is spreading his hatred everywhere else.

You're not answering the question, why do you defend his hate-speech?


No, it doesn't bother me - if there is no threat.

Please cite his hatred - and please do that in the Iran-thread since
it's all about Ahmadinejad, Iran and the imaginary threat. Thanks.

[Pardalis]

Reviewing the facts, there is no obvious threat other than the fears of fearful people.
Yes, it was a loose statement since my point was the threat factor
No, it doesn't bother me - if there is no threat.

So is your argument that Holocaust denial and hate-speech are a bad thing only when their author poses a direct and imminent threat?

[Oliver]

Not following you. If I am, this is what you are saying.

A. Man from Australia with website available in Germany=threat

B. Iranian president leading the ME movement in Holocaust Denial=no threat

What?

You mean like the German government fears websites and video games?


Where did I say that Töben is a threat? :confused:

And why don't you ask the German Government about their fears?
Or google a little-bit since you just provided evidence that you're
capable to complete such tasks.

[Oliver]

So is your argument that Holocaust denial and hate-speech are a bad thing only when their author poses a direct and imminent threat?


Actually, yes. That would be the wisest definition of the laws here. On
the other Hand, Töben broke the existing law, if you or me like it or not.

Personally I really don't care about his fate. Nor would I care if
Ahmadinejad would "vanish" over night. :)

[Tailgater]

Where did I say that Töben is a threat? :confused:

And why don't you ask the German Government about their fears?
Or google a little-bit since you just provided evidence that you're
capable to complete such tasks.

Just like the German laws are trying to prevent a "panicking crowd".
Same threat, different circumstances. No?

Want more?

[Oliver]

Want more?


Yes, when did I say: "Töben is a threat"?

[Pardalis]

Are you saying that if Ahmadinejad told his Holocaust denial crap in Germany he would be then a threat, and should be censored and imprisoned, but everywhere else it's OK, that he wouldn't be a threat in any other country for doing the same thing?

[chillzero]

So is your argument that Holocaust denial and hate-speech are a bad thing only when their author poses a direct and imminent threat?

Actually, yes. That would be the wisest definition of the laws here.


So hate speech isn't about the speech at all, but about the actual threat posed by the people who happen to speak ... ???
Wouldn't that threat then exist before they indulge in hate speech?

[Oliver]

Are you saying that if Ahmadinejad told his Holocaust denial crap in Germany he would be then a threat, and should be censored and imprisoned, but everywhere else it's OK?


No, as long he's the president thingy, he most probably could say
those things in Germany. It's called diplomatic immunity, if you heard
about that.

[Oliver]

So hate speech isn't about the speech at all, but about the actual threat posed by the people who happen to speak ... ???
Wouldn't that threat then exist before they indulge in hate speech?

Make an example.

[Pardalis]

No, as long he's the president thingy, he most probably could say those things in Germany. It's called diplomatic immunity, if you heard about that.

Sweet mother of god! :faint:

[chillzero]

Make an example.

Good grief ... Oliver - those were from your words.

[Tailgater]

Yes, when did I say: "Töben is a threat"?

Ah, I see. Pulling your usual crap. I can eat some ice cream and say "mmmm, its sooo sweet and cold and full of little chocolate chips", but you can't quote me saying that I liked it. I'm not going to bother connecting all your posts together in the neat little contradiction they always end up being because you'll huff and puff and this thread will be on page two in a week and you'll be posting the same bs in another thread. I don't need to look up anything because your whole premise is about how you feel Holocaust denial is a threat in Germany and we should believe you because your grandma from a Spielberg movie told you so.

From the op:

I don't know what happened to this jewish Man [I can only imagine], but
my Grandma told me that at this point, she knew what fear is about.

And I tell you this story because you should know that freedom of speech
is one thing, but preventing those things from happening again, is more
important than allowing the same kind of hate-speech that led to the
things that I just mentioned.

Better thought, you should answer your grandma with this statement next time she tries to tell you about fear.

And why don't you ask the German Government about their fears?
Or google a little-bit since you just provided evidence that you're
capable to complete such tasks.

[Oliver]

Sweet mother of god! :faint:


No, it's called either Diplomatic immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity) or Sovereign immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity). Look it up.

[Tailgater]

No, it's called either Diplomatic immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity) or Sovereign immunity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity). Look it up.

Ya, we know. :covereyes

[Oliver]

Ah, I see. Pulling your usual crap. I can eat some ice cream and say "mmmm, its sooo sweet and cold and full of little chocolate chips", but you can't quote me saying that I liked it. I'm not going to bother connecting all your posts together in the neat little contradiction they always end up being because you'll huff and puff and this thread will be on page two in a week and you'll be posting the same bs in another thread. I don't need to look up anything because your whole premise is about how you feel Holocaust denial is a threat in Germany and we should believe you because your grandma from Speilberg movie told you so.

From the op:

Better thought, you should answer your grandma with this statement next time she tries to tell you about fear.


Is your sole purpose to post in this thread trying to ridicule me
and what my Grandma told me?

Well, congratulations - I let others speak now if there is any
interest for a real debate other than playing "Who wants to
be a millionaire".

Anyway: My point is racism has to be fought -including via
law if hate-speech poses threats to others. If that is a bad
thing to support, then "so be it".

Adiós. :)

[Tailgater]

Is your sole purpose to post in this thread trying to ridicule me
and what my Grandma told me?

Well, congratulations - I let others speak now if there is any
interest for a real debate other than playing "Who wants to
be a millionaire".

Anyway: My point is racism has to be fought -including via
law if hate-speech poses threats to others. If that is a bad
thing to support, then "so be it".

Adiós. :)

Congratulations on proving my point yet again. The cornered mouse runs for the hole. I'll see you in the next thread you start. What's it going to be next? Iran is no threat to gay people while blasting US gay marriage policy? Or, maybe you can just lay low and jump into the next Matteo thread as a wingman. I'm sure he's got a "US has committed the Holocaust 2" in him by adding up all the imperialism over the last 100 years.

[Oliver]

By the way, Chaos: What did your Parents/Grandparents told you about
what they witnessed?

[Tailgater]

Anyway: My point is racism has to be fought -including via
law if hate-speech poses threats to others. If that is a bad
thing to support, then "so be it".



Whoa, back up. There it is again.

Oh, but you didn't say "Toben" so it doesn't count right?

[Chaos]

That would be interesting to see Ahmadinejad arrested on one of his speaking tours and extradited to Germany to face trial for Holocaust denial.

As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned - I would really like to see him arrested, extradited to Israel, and tried for incitement to genocide. I mean, he did threaten Israel specifically, didn´t he?

[Pardalis]

I finally came to my senses after that “diplomatic immunity” uppercut that came from out of nowhere. I literally fell off my chair reading that, I truly didn’t see that one coming.

Oliver, you are a special case, I have rarely seen anybody in my lifetime so willingly deceive himself in such a gleeful way, you’ve constructed yourself such a perfectly tight and auto regulatory system of self-confirmation that it is literally impossible to argue with you.

I love it.

It’s truly fascinating, we never know what we’re going to get next, and this “diplomatic immunity” shtick really tops it.

Now, could you answer all of these questions?:

1) If Ahmadinejad didn’t have “diplomatic immunity”, would you agree to censor him if he made Holocaust denial propaganda in your country?

2) If you say yes to the above:

a) to what extent would you censor him?
b) why wouldn't he be censored in other countries, what makes Germany a special place?

3) How does the “diplomatic immunity” status make him or what he says about the Holocaust less of a threat? Does his special status make the content of the propaganda different?

4) Don’t you think that a head of state spouting Holocaust denial gives this hate ideology somekind of legitimacy? Doesn't this make it more likely to have an impact?

5) If you answered ‘yes’ to the above question, wouldn’t this head of state be even more of a threat than any regular person spouting Holocaust denial on any kind of forum?

[WildCat]

What's it going to be next? Iran is no threat to gay people while blasting US gay marriage policy?
That was soooo 1 year ago: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=94223

[dudalb]

Anybody note that Oliver seems to take umbrage at the citizens of other countries criticising One of Germany's laws, while Oliver has made a full time career of commenting on American Politics (about which he knows very,very,little).

[Darth Rotor]

Okay, let me rephrase: instead of "a world religion", use "the dominant religion pretty much any place they lived in".
Well, accuracy is nice, better than the overstatement initially offered. :)
Oh. And since they put up with it, it means they were not the victims of it? :confused:
Your words, not mine, and you really, really, missed the point.

As I pointed out, it was a successful survival strategy, putting up with all that second class citizen stuff -- where the alternative may well have been extinction of a culture. As I said, I tip my cap. Likewise to the Basques.

Seen any Goths lately, Chaos, as in the Goths Caeser would recognize?

The victim issue is an appeal to emotion, so, waaah ****** waaah.
Being, well, "asked" to "borrow" money to whoever it was that ruled whatever place they lived in, knowing perfectly well (whether it was explicitly stated or not) that compliance with such "requests" was the only thing keeping the ruler from simply confiscating what they owned and killing or expelled them.
I see, and no other peoples were so put upon? Is that your wheeze here? You will note that the Jews, once again, did a decent job of turning a burden into a virtue with long term positive outcomes: see the wealthy Rothschild family for a superb example of taking lemons, and making some fine lemonade. You, on the other hand, are merely whinging.
Unless you are even dumber than you are pretending, you know exactly who I am pretending to.
I am tweaking your nose for both gross overstatement and whinging, and appealing to the cult of the victim. Lame, it is.
Well, finally.
Just trying to be nice. Rare, I know. :)
How about you prove that "hyperbole" thing by showing me either that these things did not happen to the jews, or that there are other groups who had the same things happen to them?
Actually, you are the careless one who pretends it didn't happen to others. What the others, see the Goths mentioned above, didn't do was hold on to their culture, they tended to assimilate.

The price for non assimilation, it seems, is to stand out as the other, historically. That can attract all kinds of crappy attention. The Basques trod a bit of a middle ground there, the Amerinds who chose not to assimilate sure as hell stand out, and so on.

But hey, you demand special victim status for a people who, by putting up with a lot of crap, are still a reasonably cohesive cultural group. How about you stop with the whinging? You attitude sucks. Look at how many other peoples over the centuries did NOT pull that off.

Druids. Saxons in England. Ibero-Celts. The Karankawa.

Rather than whinge about the troubles those folks went through, how about you tip a cap for pulling off the cultural coup they managed?
And I´m not even waiting for chillzero to actually explain why my post earns her oh-so-righteous condemnation.
Might have been the whinging.

ETA: if you have been following the news, the Chaldean Christians in Iraq, who have had to put up with over a millenium of second class citizen crap, also known by some as Dhimitude(spelling may be off here) in relation to Islam, the dominant religion, are at significant risk of being ethnically cleansed from Iraq. We'll see how that plays out. See also the risks to the Syriac Christians, and the crap the Coptic christians of Egypt, an ancient cultural group, are putting up with in re modern Islamist spite and malice. You also seem to ignore the Armenians, but then, they do have a place to call home, which the Jews didn't for a long while, due to getting their asses kicked by the Romans back in the day.

History is not kind to losers.

The Chaldeans' Achilles Heel, for the moment, is that unlike the Jewish diaspora, they don't have as robust an international network of places to run to as the Jews developed over the centuries. Even more ironic is that this allegeldy Christianophile president of the US has not offered to the Chaldeans anything like the support the Viet Namese boat people got in the 70's when our wars there did such damage to Vietnamese social stability.

[Oliver]

As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned - I would really like to see him arrested, extradited to Israel, and tried for incitement to genocide. I mean, he did threaten Israel specifically, didn´t he?


No, he did not. He's being accused of saying: "I will wipe off Israel from
the face of the planet", which is a complete mistranslation of what he
said, namely:

Word by word translation:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

[mrbaracuda]

No, he did not. He's being accused of saying

Tell me, is it fun to live in a world of denial?

[Oliver]

Tell me, is it fun to live in a world of denial?


Evidence. Welcome back. And btw:

Australia drops case against Ahmadinejad (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=72243&sectionid=351020101) Australia has withdrawn a threat to file an international lawsuit against Iran's president for expressing anti-Israeli sentiments. :rolleyes:

[mrbaracuda]

You didn't answer my question.

[Morrigan]

Nor did he answer Pardalis' questions. Oliver is the new Claus, eh? Nobody takes him even remotely seriously.

[mrbaracuda]

You mean the fish Klaus (http://blog.peta2.com/klausthefish.PNG)?

[MaGZ]

Mine too.

Never mind, I'm sure that there'll be some further diversion supplied in the thread to play the 'my people are more worthy of their victim status than any other victims ever' game regardless of whether that's the topic or not.

MaGZ, in response to your posts. It was my understanding too that caustic lime, etc were used to dispose of bodies. However, it's not beyond the realms of possibility (it's even been documented, I'm sure) that not everyone who ended up in these pits were dead immediately. I don't really see how that is a point worth making - these people were being killed systematically either way.

Oliver seems to be saying (as I asked him earlier for clarification, I'm still not sure) that freedom of speech led to this situation. What's your take on the dangers of free speech?

Free speech has little effect on the national course of events. Giving third parties and independents equal access to the electorate via the ballot, the media and debates would present a greater threat to the System that free speech.

[Oliver]

You didn't answer my question.


I did answer your question. You made the claim that Ahmadinejad
is an Anti-Semite, so you have to back it up: "Evidence"

[Pardalis]

*crickets*

[Oliver]

*crickets*


Put up - or shut up, G.

[RandFan]

Nor did he answer Pardalis' questions. Oliver is the new Claus, eh? Nobody takes him even remotely seriously.Bingo.

[Wolfman]

Nor did he answer Pardalis' questions. Oliver is the new Claus, eh? Nobody takes him even remotely seriously.Well, I'd say that he's even worse. Claus just plain ignores you and refuses to answer; Oliver "answers" you by claiming that you're making claims you never made, and then "proves" that they are wrong.

Oliver produces more straw than all the Canadian farms put together. I think I'm just gonna' call him the Scarecrow from now on.

[Morrigan]

So Oliver is Saskatchewan! Not very flattering. :D

:boxedin:

[Pardalis]

Bump

Now, could you answer all of these questions?:

1) If Ahmadinejad didn’t have “diplomatic immunity”, would you agree to censor him if he made Holocaust denial propaganda in your country?

2) If you say yes to the above:

a) to what extent would you censor him?
b) why wouldn't he be censored in other countries, what makes Germany a special place?

3) How does the “diplomatic immunity” status make him or what he says about the Holocaust less of a threat? Does his special status make the content of the propaganda different?

4) Don’t you think that a head of state spouting Holocaust denial gives this hate ideology somekind of legitimacy? Doesn't this make it more likely to have an impact?

5) If you answered ‘yes’ to the above question, wouldn’t this head of state be even more of a threat than any regular person spouting Holocaust denial on any kind of forum?

[Tailgater]

Bump

Hey now. Don't make Oliver accuse you of stalking.:p