German Holocaust Denier gets 5 Years

[Axiom_Blade]

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/20070215-094935-1484r/

In a statement to the court, Ernst Zundel said the judges should create an international commission to determine whether millions of Jews were actually massacred during World War II. He said if the commission found that they were, he would apologize for his views.

Huh....sound familiar??

[defaultdotxbe]

In a statement to the court, Ernst Zundel said the judges should create an international commission to determine whether millions of Jews were actually massacred during World War II. He said if the commission found that they were, he would apologize for his views. accuse the commission of being Zionist supporters


fixed it :)


ETA: gar, whats the bbcode fro strikeout here? lol

[NeilC]

The guy is obviously a vile nazi pig but it still doesn't seem right to jail someone for merely believing something different to the commonly held view - OK facts in this case.

[Totovader]

The guy is obviously a vile nazi pig but it still doesn't seem right to jail someone for merely believing something different to the commonly held view - OK facts in this case.

I'd be willing to bet you won't find any disagreement, here.

I don't believe putting stupid people in jail benefits anyone- in fact I think it hurts the scientific movement: it stifles debate, giving credence to the deniers.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Zundel is sort of the Holocaust deniers Judy Wood. He promotes the idea that the nazis maintain a base at Antarctica were they keep the UFO's they developed during and after the war. A regular nazi nutjob he is.

SLOB

[WildCat]

fixed it :)


ETA: gar, whats the bbcode fro strikeout here? lol
What are ya, stupid? Uh, like that... ;)

[MortFurd]

The guy is obviously a vile nazi pig but it still doesn't seem right to jail someone for merely believing something different to the commonly held view - OK facts in this case.

It isn't just "holding a different view." His particular crime amounts to "incitement to racism." The German word is "Volksverhetzung." The literal translation is "incitement of the masses." Zuendel's crime is more related to "incitement to riot" and hate crimes as they would be named in the US.

It sucks when a republic has to limit the rights of its people, but in the case of Germany and Nazism I'm afraid the Germans are right - they need those laws specific and to the point of "inciting the masses" and "supportive of Nazism" to bring home the point of the prosecution and the judgement that comes from it.

When the last of the post WWII generation is gone, maybe the laws could be repealed. Until then, it is all too common to find folks who still believe that Hitler was a good guy who was out manuevered by the "Armaments Industry" into starting the war. I have met folks who believe that he did good things for the country, and who still believe that Jewish people were and are evil and a threat to all non-Jews in the world.

That said, there are plenty of good folks here. The nazi idolators are a minority, and the majority disapproves of them greatly. "Schindler's List" is shown on public (government supported) TV, as well as documentaries about the activities - and atrocities - of the nazis and the German Army during WWII.

Germany is doing its best to overcome its past, and for the time being they need these laws. Zuendel could have been prosecuted under a more generic law against, for example, hate crimes. Nailing him under a law aimed at nazism and its supporters sends a reminder to the average German that helps to reenforce German society's intent to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Germany has experienced first hand just how easy it is to rouse an entire nation into a war-mongering genocidal frenzy. They have made laws that (they sincerely hope) will prevent a reoccurence, and filled those laws with words and names and terms that remind them of the reason for those laws.

[Kiwiwriter]

I oppose laws that make it criminal to deny the Holocaust, but MortFurd makes a very strong argument for the German and Austrian position on the issue, and I do agree with his logic.

I would also note that Mr. Zundel apparently was tossed out of Canada for funneling his money to violent neo-Nazi groups in America and Canada, which was what that trial was about. He is a grade-A nutter, with books about Nazi UFOs and "The Hitler We Loved And Why," and his "reports" on Auschwitz fueled a lot of David Irving's nonsense (and Irving fueled him).

In one of Zundel's trials in Canada, Holocaust survivors were put on the stand to verify the truth of their experiences, and Zundel and his attorney basically hounded and harassed these people. For example, one recalled the "Selection" process at Auschwitz, and assumed the doctor that day was Mengele. Well, Zundel's paper said it was some other SS medic, and Zundel used that to accuse the survivor of making the whole story up. Nonsense, of course, and I would not expect a survivor to know whether the doctor was Mengele that day or not. The survivors were reduced to tears, which was Zundel's goal.

This is why the Lipstadt defense against Irving relied on documentation and historians, not survivors, to prevent Irving from hounding victims again.

Zundel's trade, by the way, is that of a photo-retoucher. So he's familiar with faking imagery to suit his goals.

He wants a "commission" to investigate the Holocaust. I guess he also wants to pick the members.

I am reminded in this story of how Streicher, late in his trial, said that he now supported "World Jewry" in its aims, and offered to make a speech at Madison Square Garden, urging the world to get behind the Jews. Naturally, his bizarre offer was ignored.

[Panoply_Prefect]

my post became a double one after editing.

[Panoply_Prefect]

As I rembember it he was even convicted for lying - but the law was then abolished for beging against the Canadian constitution. It was however proven that he not only lied, but that he knew he was lying.

I also believe that it was for the Zundel-trials the infamous Leuchter-report was made.

The Zundel-evicition was also very bizarre. First he left Candada, claiming he was being harassed by the government. He moved to the States were is wife, Ingrid Rimland, is a naturalized citizen (thinks she's Ukrainian originally). Then he failed to comply to IRS-hearings which led to his deportation, back to Canada where he seeked asylum (Yep, same govenment he accused of harassment) to evade being deported back to Germany.

He is indeed a weird one.

Also on trial for denying the Holocaust is Germar Rudolf - and on a side note Germany is now pushing for making Holocaust-denial, and the denial of other crimes against the humanity, illegal in the entire EU.


SLOB

[JamesB]

Has Kevin Barrett sent him a consolation card yet?

[Brainster]

More coverage of the story by the Feathered Bastard (http://phoenixnewtimes.com/blogs/?p=243) in the Phoenix New Times, with a tie-in to the 9-11 Accountability Conference in Chandler, AZ.

[Axiom_Blade]

Also on trial for denying the Holocaust is Germar Rudolf - and on a side note Germany is now pushing for making Holocaust-denial, and the denial of other crimes against the humanity, illegal in the entire EU.

OK, whatever, Germany. They think they can just legislate ideas out of existence? There's ALWAYS going to be some conspiracy nutbars around who think the holocaust was fake. All you do by silencing them is make them look like martyrs. The holocaust deniers use this as an argument: "Well, if the truth of the holocaust is so self-evident, where's the harm in questioning it? Why is it illegal? What are they trying to hide?"

Suppressing speech, even Holocaust denial, in the long run does more harm than good.

[Panoply_Prefect]

OK, whatever, Germany. They think they can just legislate ideas out of existence? There's ALWAYS going to be some conspiracy nutbars around who think the holocaust was fake. All you do by silencing them is make them look like martyrs. The holocaust deniers use this as an argument: "Well, if the truth of the holocaust is so self-evident, where's the harm in questioning it? Why is it illegal? What are they trying to hide?"

Suppressing speech, even Holocaust denial, in the long run does more harm than good.

Yes agreed. Im even suspecting thats what drove Irving back to Austria, even though he knew he would be imprisoned. I've been hit several times by deniers with "if its the truth, why the need to hide behind laws?" But Germany and Austria both have a history making the Holocaust in particular a sensitive issue so I can understand why they have those laws. That doesnt mean I agree with them, but I can understand it.

SLOB

[fuelair]

He promotes the idea that the nazis maintain a base at Antarctica were they keep the UFO's they developed during and after the war.

SLOB

Well, of course he's right about that!! That's part of what got
Ray Palmer so confused about the (abandon)Deros.:D :D :D

[Mondial]

You're a two faced hypocrite if ever there was one. Laws against free speech by nazis are wrong but laws against free speech by "democracy" are right. Germany is a signatory to the UN Declaration on Human Rights which includes the right to a dissenting opinion on all subjects. As for the nazi past everyone is well aware of it as there is not a week that goes by without the never ending holocaust propaganda in films, tv, newspapers etc. World War II ended over 60 years ago! 95% of the German people would not have even been alive during the war yet they are made to go on a never ending guilt trip. Germany to this day has paid billions in reparations to Israel and individual jews around the world and these reparations continue today. The money comes from the German taxpayers even thought most of them weren't even alive during the war. When will it end? I repeat World War II ended over 60 years ago!

It isn't just "holding a different view." His particular crime amounts to "incitement to racism." The German word is "Volksverhetzung." The literal translation is "incitement of the masses." Zuendel's crime is more related to "incitement to riot" and hate crimes as they would be named in the US.

It sucks when a republic has to limit the rights of its people, but in the case of Germany and Nazism I'm afraid the Germans are right - they need those laws specific and to the point of "inciting the masses" and "supportive of Nazism" to bring home the point of the prosecution and the judgement that comes from it.

When the last of the post WWII generation is gone, maybe the laws could be repealed. Until then, it is all too common to find folks who still believe that Hitler was a good guy who was out manuevered by the "Armaments Industry" into starting the war. I have met folks who believe that he did good things for the country, and who still believe that Jewish people were and are evil and a threat to all non-Jews in the world.

That said, there are plenty of good folks here. The nazi idolators are a minority, and the majority disapproves of them greatly. "Schindler's List" is shown on public (government supported) TV, as well as documentaries about the activities - and atrocities - of the nazis and the German Army during WWII.

Germany is doing its best to overcome its past, and for the time being they need these laws. Zuendel could have been prosecuted under a more generic law against, for example, hate crimes. Nailing him under a law aimed at nazism and its supporters sends a reminder to the average German that helps to reenforce German society's intent to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Germany has experienced first hand just how easy it is to rouse an entire nation into a war-mongering genocidal frenzy. They have made laws that (they sincerely hope) will prevent a reoccurence, and filled those laws with words and names and terms that remind them of the reason for those laws.

[Mondial]

I oppose laws that make it criminal to deny the Holocaust, but MortFurd makes a very strong argument for the German and Austrian position on the issue, and I do agree with his logic.

I would also note that Mr. Zundel apparently was tossed out of Canada for funneling his money to violent neo-Nazi groups in America and Canada, which was what that trial was about. He is a grade-A nutter, with books about Nazi UFOs and "The Hitler We Loved And Why," and his "reports" on Auschwitz fueled a lot of David Irving's nonsense (and Irving fueled him).

In one of Zundel's trials in Canada, Holocaust survivors were put on the stand to verify the truth of their experiences, and Zundel and his attorney basically hounded and harassed these people. For example, one recalled the "Selection" process at Auschwitz, and assumed the doctor that day was Mengele. Well, Zundel's paper said it was some other SS medic, and Zundel used that to accuse the survivor of making the whole story up. Nonsense, of course, and I would not expect a survivor to know whether the doctor was Mengele that day or not. The survivors were reduced to tears, which was Zundel's goal.

This is why the Lipstadt defense against Irving relied on documentation and historians, not survivors, to prevent Irving from hounding victims again.

Zundel's trade, by the way, is that of a photo-retoucher. So he's familiar with faking imagery to suit his goals.

He wants a "commission" to investigate the Holocaust. I guess he also wants to pick the members.

I am reminded in this story of how Streicher, late in his trial, said that he now supported "World Jewry" in its aims, and offered to make a speech at Madison Square Garden, urging the world to get behind the Jews. Naturally, his bizarre offer was ignored.


Do you think that because someone was in a concentration camp and is a holocaust survivor that this means they are some kind of saint and never tell lies and don't have an axe to grind and cannot be questioned? In a truly democratic society no one should be above question!

[Mondial]

OK, whatever, Germany. They think they can just legislate ideas out of existence? There's ALWAYS going to be some conspiracy nutbars around who think the holocaust was fake. All you do by silencing them is make them look like martyrs. The holocaust deniers use this as an argument: "Well, if the truth of the holocaust is so self-evident, where's the harm in questioning it? Why is it illegal? What are they trying to hide?"

Suppressing speech, even Holocaust denial, in the long run does more harm than good.


In a democratic society free speech is supposed to exist for everyone including those whose opinions you may despise.

[Mondial]

The guy is obviously a vile nazi pig but it still doesn't seem right to jail someone for merely believing something different to the commonly held view - OK facts in this case.


He probably considers his jailers "democratic" pigs!

[Axiom_Blade]

Do you think that because someone was in a concentration camp and is a holocaust survivor that this means they are some kind of saint and never tell lies and don't have an axe to grind and cannot be questioned? In a truly democratic society no one should be above question!

So, somehow the survivors managed to ALL agree on the same lie, and the Nazis even backed them up!

As you said yourself, WWII was over 60 years ago. These people shouldn't have to still answer questions. Case is closed.

[Questioninggeller]

Quick Michael Shermer plug. Shermer and Alex Grobman wrote "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?" (2000).

In the book Shermer and Grobman go through the belief system and claims of the deniers. They also also discuss their meetings and discussion with several including Zundel.

[Questioninggeller]

So, somehow the survivors managed to ALL agree on the same lie, and the Nazis even backed them up!

As you said yourself, WWII was over 60 years ago. These people shouldn't have to still answer questions. Case is closed.

A Holocaust denial group said they'd give $50,000 to anyone who could prove it. Well,

At IHR's first conference in 1979, the group offered $50,000 to anyone "who could prove that the Nazis operated gas-chambers to exterminate Jews during World War II." Not content with announcing the "reward" among its own ranks, IHR also notified well-known Holocaust survivors and Jewish organizations. A California businessman, Mel Mermelstein, who was 17 when he was interned with his family at Auschwitz in 1944 (his mother and two sisters did not survive), and who later founded the Auschwitz Study Foundation, received the notice, signed by Lewis Brandon -- one of the pseudonyms used by David McCalden, IHR's first director. Mermelstein remitted a notarized statement describing his internment at Auschwitz and his own observation, on May 22, 1944, of his mother and two sisters being driven by Nazi guards toward what he later learned was gas chamber number five. He received no clear response to either his initial or follow-up inquiries, but started getting Holocaust-denying hate literature in his mail and was described as a "racist" in leaflets that were distributed in his neighborhood. He filed suit against IHR for breach of contract, libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress early in 1981.

In a pre-trial determination, the court took judicial notice -- i.e., accepted as a well-known and indisputable fact -- that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz [See box: "Judicial Notice"], and in July 1985 the lawsuit was settled in Mermelstein's favor. IHR was forced to pay the $50,000 reward as well as an additional $40,000 for pain and suffering. Under the terms of their agreement, IHR also issued Mermelstein a letter of apology.

[snip]


More: http://www.adl.org/Learn/ext_us/historical_review.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=ihr

[Architect]

The guy is obviously a vile nazi pig but it still doesn't seem right to jail someone for merely believing something different to the commonly held view - OK facts in this case.

It's important to understand that there is a significant difference between the European and American approach to freedom of speech, and how it affects this issue.

In Europe, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (EHCR), associated documents, and consequent national legislation. However there is a clear and consistent exemption where that speech is impinging upon the rights of ohers through, for example, incitement to religious or racial crime (the most widely effected exemptions):


The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society... for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others....


The ference to reputations is in respect of EU national libel and slander laws, which are a lot tighter than the US. Basically if you tell lies about someone and can't prove it in court, then you'll be a lot poorer.

If we look at the crap which (say) white supremicisit groups spout and most worryingly the fact that it is attractive to a (thankfully small) an impressionable proportion of the population then personally I have absolutely no problem with the restrictions.

And before anyone says "it's the small end of the wedge", it's important to remember that there is no history of such abuse in Western Europe. Quite the opposite - the courts have traditionally upheld judicial reviews where the states have sought even minor restrictions.

[a_unique_person]

Germany is doing its best to overcome its past, and for the time being they need these laws. Zuendel could have been prosecuted under a more generic law against, for example, hate crimes. Nailing him under a law aimed at nazism and its supporters sends a reminder to the average German that helps to reenforce German society's intent to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Germany has experienced first hand just how easy it is to rouse an entire nation into a war-mongering genocidal frenzy. They have made laws that (they sincerely hope) will prevent a reoccurence, and filled those laws with words and names and terms that remind them of the reason for those laws.

When you consider the damage done to Germany and the millions of it's people killed because of Nazism, I can understand the reason those laws exist.

[Nick Terry]

You're a two faced hypocrite if ever there was one. Laws against free speech by nazis are wrong but laws against free speech by "democracy" are right. Germany is a signatory to the UN Declaration on Human Rights which includes the right to a dissenting opinion on all subjects. As for the nazi past everyone is well aware of it as there is not a week that goes by without the never ending holocaust propaganda in films, tv, newspapers etc. World War II ended over 60 years ago! 95% of the German people would not have even been alive during the war yet they are made to go on a never ending guilt trip. Germany to this day has paid billions in reparations to Israel and individual jews around the world and these reparations continue today. The money comes from the German taxpayers even thought most of them weren't even alive during the war. When will it end? I repeat World War II ended over 60 years ago!

If you ever bothered to research accurate information about the questions you raise, you'd see that there is nothing 'eternal' about reparations; firstly state-to-state reparations were one off payments, and those made to Israel were made in the 1950s. That's about 50 years ago. Adenauer cleverly made sure that reparations to Israel were payments in kind, so in effect the entire program became a massive subsidy to German industry to boost exports. That does not seem like a bad deal to me.

Second, compensation payments to individuals are made for life as with pensions, which means they cease when the recipient dies. They are not individually generous. It is however the sheer number of claimants that makes them seem financially significant. Yet, a simple comparison with German GDP shows they are negligible.

Third, what makes you think all compensation payments go to Jews? They don't. Compensation is paid out to victims of forcible sterilisation, to survivors of German concentration camps in general, and to survivors of Jewish ghettos, forced labour camps etc. In the 1950s it was also paid out on an individual basis for property compensation, which inflates the overall numbers who received compensation. They also had to make separate applications for each major item, thus complicating the bureaucracy. 40% of the payments in the 1990s and 2000s go to recipients within Germany, and it is well known that there are very few Jews in Germany today. Thus, your insinuation is woefully misinformed and basically antisemitic

Yes, antisemitic. Your antisemitism is easily detected because like all hatefilled woowoos you are incapable of spelling 'Jews' with a capital, whereas German is religiously capitalised in your little rant.

This thread was about the prosecution of a known neo-Nazi for hatespeech. The majority of posters so far have expressed disagremeent with the idea of jailing even as unpleasant a kook as Zuendel. Instead of confining your comment to the issues of free speech and law, you immediately conflated the discussion to a supposed 'neverending guilt trip' that exists only inside the heads of neo-Nazis.

I expect if you return you'll continue to reveal your true colours.

[Panoply_Prefect]

If you ever bothered to research accurate information about the questions you raise, you'd see that there is nothing 'eternal' about reparations; firstly state-to-state reparations were one off payments, and those made to Israel were made in the 1950s. That's about 50 years ago. Adenauer cleverly made sure that reparations to Israel were payments in kind, so in effect the entire program became a massive subsidy to German industry to boost exports. That does not seem like a bad deal to me.

Second, compensation payments to individuals are made for life as with pensions, which means they cease when the recipient dies. They are not individually generous. It is however the sheer number of claimants that makes them seem financially significant. Yet, a simple comparison with German GDP shows they are negligible.

Third, what makes you think all compensation payments go to Jews? They don't. Compensation is paid out to victims of forcible sterilisation, to survivors of German concentration camps in general, and to survivors of Jewish ghettos, forced labour camps etc. In the 1950s it was also paid out on an individual basis for property compensation, which inflates the overall numbers who received compensation. They also had to make separate applications for each major item, thus complicating the bureaucracy. 40% of the payments in the 1990s and 2000s go to recipients within Germany, and it is well known that there are very few Jews in Germany today. Thus, your insinuation is woefully misinformed and basically antisemitic

Yes, antisemitic. Your antisemitism is easily detected because like all hatefilled woowoos you are incapable of spelling 'Jews' with a capital, whereas German is religiously capitalised in your little rant.

This thread was about the prosecution of a known neo-Nazi for hatespeech. The majority of posters so far have expressed disagremeent with the idea of jailing even as unpleasant a kook as Zuendel. Instead of confining your comment to the issues of free speech and law, you immediately conflated the discussion to a supposed 'neverending guilt trip' that exists only inside the heads of neo-Nazis.

I expect if you return you'll continue to reveal your true colours.

Correct me if Im wrong but weren't payments from Germany to the state of Israel based on the amount of surviving refugees Israel had to cope with (as opposed as retribution for murdered jews, eg invalidating the oft used claim by deniers that Israel would benefit from inflating the number of killed in concentration camps etc)?

Cheers,
SLOB

[Nick Terry]

Correct me if Im wrong but weren't payments from Germany to the state of Israel based on the amount of surviving refugees Israel had to cope with (as opposed as retribution for murdered jews, eg invalidating the oft used claim by deniers that Israel would benefit from inflating the number of killed in concentration camps etc)?

Cheers,
SLOB

Reparations to Israel were indeed based on the number of living refugees and not on the number of the dead.

[A-Train]

It isn't just "holding a different view." His particular crime amounts to "incitement to racism." The German word is "Volksverhetzung." The literal translation is "incitement of the masses." Zuendel's crime is more related to "incitement to riot" and hate crimes as they would be named in the US.

Could you please explain how Zundel's actions amounted to "incitement of the masses" or "incitement to riot"? Specifically, where is the evidence that "the masses" were incited by him; and who, specifically, are the rioters?

It sucks when a republic has to limit the rights of its people, but in the case of Germany and Nazism I'm afraid the Germans are right - they need those laws specific and to the point of "inciting the masses" and "supportive of Nazism" to bring home the point of the prosecution and the judgement that comes from it.

It does indeed suck. But why do Germans "need" these laws to "bring home the point of the prosecution" but other Republics do not? Is that what you meant to say? Otherwise, it just seems like you're using euphenisms to rationalize your squelching of the speech of someone whose ideas you don't like.

[Elizabeth I]

OK, whatever, Germany. They think they can just legislate ideas out of existence? There's ALWAYS going to be some conspiracy nutbars around who think the holocaust was fake. All you do by silencing them is make them look like martyrs. The holocaust deniers use this as an argument: "Well, if the truth of the holocaust is so self-evident, where's the harm in questioning it? Why is it illegal? What are they trying to hide?"

Suppressing speech, even Holocaust denial, in the long run does more harm than good. [bolding mine]

Thanks, Blade. I was going to reply but you made my point for me. And very well, I might add.

[MaGZ]

The other side of the coin.

The Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/

[Pardalis]

Go away MaGZ. :mad:

[Oliver]

OK, whatever, Germany. They think they can just legislate ideas out of existence? There's ALWAYS going to be some conspiracy nutbars around who think the holocaust was fake. All you do by silencing them is make them look like martyrs. The holocaust deniers use this as an argument: "Well, if the truth of the holocaust is so self-evident, where's the harm in questioning it? Why is it illegal? What are they trying to hide?"

Suppressing speech, even Holocaust denial, in the long run does more harm than good.

One main reason to install these laws was because
the Holocaust is proven and therefore it is a type of
SLANDER against the victims to ignore the facts and
make things up.

I guess this way it's easier for americans to under-
stand the law. Personally i have no problem with it
and beside that, we don't have to waste time on
"Holotruther" - they don't influence society with
their stupidity and lies. :rolleyes:

[Mondial]

If you ever bothered to research accurate information about the questions you raise, you'd see that there is nothing 'eternal' about reparations; firstly state-to-state reparations were one off payments, and those made to Israel were made in the 1950s. That's about 50 years ago. Adenauer cleverly made sure that reparations to Israel were payments in kind, so in effect the entire program became a massive subsidy to German industry to boost exports. That does not seem like a bad deal to me.

Second, compensation payments to individuals are made for life as with pensions, which means they cease when the recipient dies. They are not individually generous. It is however the sheer number of claimants that makes them seem financially significant. Yet, a simple comparison with German GDP shows they are negligible.

Third, what makes you think all compensation payments go to Jews? They don't. Compensation is paid out to victims of forcible sterilisation, to survivors of German concentration camps in general, and to survivors of Jewish ghettos, forced labour camps etc. In the 1950s it was also paid out on an individual basis for property compensation, which inflates the overall numbers who received compensation. They also had to make separate applications for each major item, thus complicating the bureaucracy. 40% of the payments in the 1990s and 2000s go to recipients within Germany, and it is well known that there are very few Jews in Germany today. Thus, your insinuation is woefully misinformed and basically antisemitic

Yes, antisemitic. Your antisemitism is easily detected because like all hatefilled woowoos you are incapable of spelling 'Jews' with a capital, whereas German is religiously capitalised in your little rant.

This thread was about the prosecution of a known neo-Nazi for hatespeech. The majority of posters so far have expressed disagremeent with the idea of jailing even as unpleasant a kook as Zuendel. Instead of confining your comment to the issues of free speech and law, you immediately conflated the discussion to a supposed 'neverending guilt trip' that exists only inside the heads of neo-Nazis.

I expect if you return you'll continue to reveal your true colours.


The guilt trip that never ends is the never ending holocaust propaganda. Not a week goes by without films, tv, newspaper articles etc. Stalin is said to have killed 20 million in the Soviet Union but the Russian people aren't made to go on a guilt trip like you insist for Germans. In fact for every time Stalin is even mentioned Hitler would be mentioned 100 times more by the media. You have a medieval mentality that Hitler is Satan and Germans have to pay repentance. As for being anti Semitic? I would prefer to say anti Judaism as the Babylonian Talmud of that religion defines non jews as inferior and condones lying, stealing and cheating against the goyim. Yes, jews is spelt with a small j as a deliberate sign of disrespect. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

[Nick Terry]

The guilt trip that never ends is the never ending holocaust propaganda. Not a week goes by without films, tv, newspaper articles etc. Stalin is said to have killed 20 million in the Soviet Union but the Russian people aren't made to go on a guilt trip like you insist for Germans. In fact for every time Stalin is even mentioned Hitler would be mentioned 100 times more by the media. You have a medieval mentality that Hitler is Satan and Germans have to pay repentance. As for being anti Semitic? I would prefer to say anti Judaism as the Babylonian Talmud of that religion defines non jews as inferior and condones lying, stealing and cheating against the goyim. Yes, jews is spelt with a small j as a deliberate sign of disrespect. If you don't like it, that's your problem.


Yup, as expected. An antisemitic moonbat. Go flush your head down the toilet, please.

[Thunder]

Mondial- is it fair for me to be anti-christain because up until the 1960's it was official church policy to view the jews as collectively guilty for the death of christ? The christians have persecuted jews for 2,000 years..does that justify me hating them? protestants have a sect of millions of people, known as "Lutheranism", that takes the name of a theologian who called for the burning of jews homes. does that make it right for me to hate Lutherans?

If any people has a right to be angry at others...it is the Jews against the Christians. But I would never tell anyone that a Jew should hate Christians because of the past or a few twisted beliefs. But I guess folowing your logic, I should.

And by the way, I will pay you 10$ if you find me a Rabbi, today, who advocates lying, cheating, stealing, or defaming non-Jews, as a religous principle of Judaism.

[Oliver]

Mondial- is it fair for me to be anti-christain because up until the 1960's it was official church policy to view the jews as collectively guilty for the death of christ? The christians have persecuted jews for 2,000 years..does that justify me hating them? protestants have a sect of millions of people, known as "Lutheranism", that takes the name of a theologian who called for the burning of jews homes. does that make it right for me to hate Lutherans?

If any people has a right to be angry at others...it is the Jews against the Christians. But I would never tell anyone that a Jew should hate Christians because of the past or a few twisted beliefs. But I guess folowing your logic, I should.

I never understood the discussions about "Jews killed Jesus".

1. Jesus was a Jew.
2. Pharisees wanted his death. Romans killed him.
3. Bible: "Jesus died to take our sins. It was God's plan".

[Nick Terry]

One main reason to install these laws was because
the Holocaust is proven and therefore it is a type of
SLANDER against the victims to ignore the facts and
make things up.

I guess this way it's easier for americans to under-
stand the law. Personally i have no problem with it
and beside that, we don't have to waste time on
"Holotruther" - they don't influence society with
their stupidity and lies. :rolleyes:

The wording of the German laws is very much closer to libel law than anything else. Indeed, in France, all the major 'revisionist' authors have been sued for libel by living persons - Rassinier, Bardeche and Faurisson were all convicted of libel.

[Nick Terry]

The other side of the coin.

The Institute for Historical Review
http://www.ihr.org/

This, 9/11 Truthers, is your sad and sorry future of utter irrelevance. The IHR hasn't published anything since 2002. Some 'Institute', huh?

[Mondial]

I find it incredible that people who claim to be skeptics/freethinkers/atheists will suspend their critical faculties when it comes to holocaust survivors and the holocaust story in general. There is a word for lying under oath in a court of law. It is called PERJURY. Holocaust survivors are not just accusing people of murder but mass murder by the million. If they are frightened of being vigorously cross examined they shouldn't testify in the first place. Take the "Ivan the Terrible" case in Israel. Holocaust survivors under oath claimed John Demjanjuk was this man but it was a deliberate frame up and he was acquitted. What about their perjured testimony? None of them were charged. At the first Zundel trial in 1985 an "eyewitness" called Arnold Friedman testified-that the colour of flames coming from the chimneys determined who was being cremated-blue flames were Hungarian jews and green flames meant Polish jews. Can anyone honestly take such garbage seriously? Elie Wiesel is a professional survivor who tours the lecture circuit but he is another fraud. www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml (http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml) He claims that at the site of a mass grave of jews (Babi Yar) blood spurted out of the ground in geysers for months afterwards! There is one survivor that the establishment media is not interested in however. His name is Alexander McClelland. He joined the Australian army in 1939, fought in Crete and was captured. Because of several escape attempts he was imprisoned at the Terezin concentation camp (Theresienstadt). He says there were no gas chambers there and agrees with revisionists like Zundel who say there was no attempt to exterminate the jews of Europe. His website is www.aijf.org/2005_update.html (http://www.aijf.org/2005_update.html) He has written a book about his experiences THE ANSWER-JUSTICE but the usual great promoters of "tolerance" and "understanding" don't want the media to report on it as it interferes with their propaganda image of the holocaust. An Australian war veteran who fought the nazis who doesn't believe in the holocaust! The zionist McCarthyists and their chorus of smear merchants have a hard time making the usual claims of nazi, fascist, Hitlerite etc stick when it comes to this man.
This essay CHEMISTRY OF THE HOLOCAUST was written in 1978 and was my first intro to holocaust skepticism-"It has escaped the notice of most people that stories of a "Nazi Holocaust" during World War II are actually impossible as regards the chemistry of poisons"-Read on www.cwporter.com/c1.htm (http://www.cwporter.com/c1.htm)

[Thunder]

Mondial- please tell me. if Zionists and Jews are such bad people...what should be done with us? send us all to siberia? madigascar?

[Oliver]

I find it incredible that people who claim to be skeptics/freethinkers/atheists will suspend their critical faculties when it comes to holocaust survivors and the holocaust story in general.

What type of statement is that?

You have two eyes. Shall we discuss that for the next 50
years that you probably have 3 eyes? The Holocaust is
no question and i give a **** if there died 5,000,000 or
5,000,001 people. I AM GERMAN - and i accepted it the
way i SAW it in many pictures and videos. It does not
change anything to discuss it.

Why are Americans talking about that type of Hoax-Sh**???

Watch this one and tell me it's fake:

BtVW71TdqVk

[JimBenArm]

It's too bad we attract this nutbars here. But at least we keep them away from the rest of the world, so I guess that's one good thing.

You guys really need to find a functional brain. I bet if you all combined your entire intellect, it would add up to a Cocker Spaniel, albiet a dull-witted one.

[Questioninggeller]

Why are Americans talking about that type of Hoax-Sh**???


Americans? This thread is about a German sentenced in Germany. Or others about a Briton in Austria (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359797134&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

You clearly do not want Holocaust denial (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2126640&postcount=2) discussed (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2353055&postcount=37), but that doesn't mean you should generalize this to one country or attack the threads that discuss this.

[Oliver]

Americans? This thread is about a German sentenced in Germany. Or others about a Briton in Austria (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1170359797134&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

You clearly do not want Holocaust denial (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2126640&postcount=2) discussed (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2353055&postcount=37), but that doesn't mean you should generalize this to one country or attack the threads that discuss this.

I have no problem to discuss the Holocaust if we are
talking about facts instead talking about bullcrap. The
laws make sense to me. It's slander - a very common
thing in western law.

Ever heard the term "slander"?

What's your problem?

Are you german or jewish?

[Questioninggeller]

What's your problem?

My problem is that you routinely do this in the threads.

[Oliver]

My problem is that you routinely do this in the threads.

No, your problem exited before you even met me. So
what's the point? What exactly doesn't fit in your mind?

Is it the "1 million, 6 milllion or maybe 10 million" discussion?
Is it the "Was ZyklonB used at all" issue?

What is your point?

[Questioninggeller]

No, your problem exited before you even met me. So
what's the point? What exactly doesn't fit in your mind?

Is it the "1 million, 6 milllion or maybe 10 million" discussion?
Is it the "Was ZyklonB used at all" issue?

What is your point?

I am not denying the Holocaust. You should take a deep breath and re-read my posts.

[Oliver]

I am not denying the Holocaust. You should take a deep breath and re-read my posts.

So what's your point then?

[Questioninggeller]

So what's your point then?

STOP DISRUPTING THREADS!

You did it here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2126640
And here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2353055

Some people follow what is happening in the news with these nuts.

[Oliver]

STOP DISRUPTING THREADS!

You did it here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2126640
And here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2353055

Some people follow what is happening in the news with these nuts.

So what? People get cut their hands or feet off if they
steal. So what's the conspiracy? To me it looks like an
issue for "JREF/Politics and Sociial Issues" - your point?

[Questioninggeller]

So what? People get cut their hands or feet off if they
steal. So what's the conspiracy? To me it looks like an
issue for "JREF/Politics and Sociial Issues" - your point?

Holocaust denial is the conspiracy.

[Oliver]

Holocaust denial is the conspiracy.

No, it is not a conspiracy. Why do you think it is one?

[Questioninggeller]

No, it is not a conspiracy. Why do you think it is one?

Holocaust denialists believe it is:

that the Holocaust is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples. For this reason, Holocaust denial is generally considered an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

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

If you notice this sections top threads are about 9/11 conspiracy theories:

The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge, or that the attacks were a false flag operation carried out with the intention of stirring up the passions and buying the allegiance of the American people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theory

I'm not going to be rude, but it is clear you don't understand what this forum is about and/or you have problems fully understanding English.

Things related to purported conspiracy theories are posted here. That doesn't make them true or not.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Don't make me pull this thread over. I'll do it!

[Oliver]

Holocaust denialists believe it is:

If you notice this sections top threads are about 9/11 conspiracy theories:

I'm not going to be rude, but it is clear you don't understand what this forum is about and/or you have problems fully understanding English.

Things related to purported conspiracy theories are posted here. That doesn't make them true or not.

A guy goes to jail because a legal law = political/social issue,
no matter why he was sentenced. This is the main point of
this thread, isn't it?

[Kiwiwriter]

Do you think that because someone was in a concentration camp and is a holocaust survivor that this means they are some kind of saint and never tell lies and don't have an axe to grind and cannot be questioned? In a truly democratic society no one should be above question!

Nobody's saying the Holocaust can't be questioned...what the German law is designed to do is to prevent racial incitement being used to repeat the Holocaust again. And I've already said I don't think such laws are a good idea, but Germany has a different situation, as the birthplace of Nazism.

And I find it pretty hilarious how you turn the victim into the villain. I guess you think that if a girl gets raped, it's her fault that she wore a low-cut blouse that day or went running in sweats.

[LashL]

It is undeniable that some holocaust deniers and some 9/11 deniers are in bed together. That's not to say that all troofers are holocaust deniers, but the 9/11 Truthiness Movement doesn't do itself any favours by welcoming and encouraging anti-semites. The Troofer Movement has so little support among rational people that it embraces any crazy group that purports to support its nuttiness, and it doesn't care that that means embracing holocaust deniers.

Pretty sad, really.

[A W Smith]

guess its the price to pay for just following orders

[gumboot]

In the 1920's and 30's a political party arose in Germany that promised a bright future for the crippled nation. However that future quickly became dark, as dissenting voices were silenced.

"Inciting unrest"
"Inciting civil disobedience"
"Inciting riots"

They had all sorts of fancy names for it.

But after a while they stopped their reasonable titles, and just locked up, rounded up, beat, shot, anyone they didn't like. And then they started a war.

For six years the free nations of the world bled and fought to defeat that evil ideology, and we did beat it. We liberated Germany from itself, and set them on a new path.

Now, 60 years later, they still haven't got a grip on "freedom". You cannot oppress the voices of the minorities, and claim the title "free". You cannot jail dissenting ideas, and claim you are free. You cannot suppress different thoughts.

Jailing a person for their beliefs and their words is wrong. It violates the basic principles of free society.

The man is a twisted moron. He is utterly wrong, sickeningly so.

But shame on Germany for their actions.

-Gumboot

[Architect]

Jailing a person for their beliefs and their words is wrong. It violates the basic principles of free society.



You only have the right to those beliefs up until the moment you act, or incite others to act, illegally. There can never be any excuse for those who seek to incite religious or racial hatred. I have absolutely no problem at all with European laws in this respect.

[Nick Terry]

There are at least three broad legal red lines which Holocaust denial can cross and has crossed:

libel, slander and defaming the memory of the dead
false news and false advertising
incitement to racial hatredAll are areas of 'free speech' which have been historically restricted by many countries for different reasons, with different standards, and in different court contexts: civil and criminal. These are not 'thoughtcrimes', they are crimes and offenses where a specific speech-act has been made that is deemed to be socially harmful.

Throw in the major, major differences between continental law and Anglo-Saxon common law traditions, and you have a recipe for confusion.

[Nick Terry]

I find it incredible that people who claim to be skeptics/freethinkers/atheists will suspend their critical faculties when it comes to holocaust survivors and the holocaust story in general.

Oh, the you're-not-sceptical gambit. How about you tell us the 100 books written in non-English languages you have read on this subject, or the archives you've visited to investigate this piece of history.

You should also be aware that people's understanding of the Holocaust is based on history which is primarily derived from documents.

There is a word for lying under oath in a court of law. It is called PERJURY. Holocaust survivors are not just accusing people of murder but mass murder by the million.

Yep, along with many Germans, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, French, Dutch, Belgians, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Hungarians, Norwegians, Danes, Italians as well as some from America, Britain and the Commonwealth.

You're a gimp if you think it's just Jewish eyewitnesses who confirm this story.

If they are frightened of being vigorously cross examined they shouldn't testify in the first place.

Then how do you explain the routine presence of death-camp survivors at death-camp trials since 1945? Evidently they're made of tougher stuff than your stupid prejudices will allow.

Take the "Ivan the Terrible" case in Israel. Holocaust survivors under oath claimed John Demjanjuk was this man but it was a deliberate frame up and he was acquitted. What about their perjured testimony? None of them were charged.

A 1987 case more than 40 years after the war? Gee, memories degrade - well I never!!!

At the first Zundel trial in 1985 an "eyewitness" called Arnold Friedman testified-that the colour of flames coming from the chimneys determined who was being cremated-blue flames were Hungarian jews and green flames meant Polish jews. Can anyone honestly take such garbage seriously?

A 1985 case a full 40 years after the war? Gee, memories degrade - well I never!!!

Elie Wiesel is a professional survivor who tours the lecture circuit but he is another fraud. www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml (http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/wiesel.shtml) He claims that at the site of a mass grave of jews (Babi Yar) blood spurted out of the ground in geysers for months afterwards!

Actually, so did Eichmann claim this.

Anyway, the ground hydrology of decomposing mass graves is a subject which the UK got an object lesson in when we culled our cattle herds during the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic of 2000:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/thats-why-it-is-denial-not-revisionism_10.html

THE carcasses of 1,500 sheep slaughtered five weeks ago because they were infected with foot and mouth are to be dug up and burned by Maff after blood was found bubbling up from the ground.

[...]

It follows the discovery a week ago that 15,000 sheep buried on the Army firing ranges at Epynt, mid-Wales, were leaking body fluids into the water table and would have to be dug up and burned. Richard Tutton, who farms at Buttington Hall, said: "They were buried five weeks ago. The pit was very tidy, efficient and deep.

"We have had horrendous rain since then. Water has got in beneath and it was sort of bubbling up. It has not reached the river or anything. They are catching it before anything happens."That's 1500 sheep. Now imagine what would happen with 34,000 corpses in the Indian summer of 1941.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/04/28/nfnm328.xml

Just goes to show that arguments to incredulity often run smack into that little ol' something called reality and the natural world.

There is one survivor that the establishment media is not interested in however. His name is Alexander McClelland. He joined the Australian army in 1939, fought in Crete and was captured. Because of several escape attempts he was imprisoned at the Terezin concentation camp (Theresienstadt). He says there were no gas chambers there and agrees with revisionists like Zundel who say there was no attempt to exterminate the jews of Europe. His website is www.aijf.org/2005_update.html (http://www.aijf.org/2005_update.html) He has written a book about his experiences THE ANSWER-JUSTICE but the usual great promoters of "tolerance" and "understanding" don't want the media to report on it as it interferes with their propaganda image of the holocaust. An Australian war veteran who fought the nazis who doesn't believe in the holocaust! The zionist McCarthyists and their chorus of smear merchants have a hard time making the usual claims of nazi, fascist, Hitlerite etc stick when it comes to this man.

Guess what, there were indeed no gas chambers at Theresienstadt. So please go tilt your windmills somewhere else.

This essay CHEMISTRY OF THE HOLOCAUST was written in 1978 and was my first intro to holocaust skepticism-"It has escaped the notice of most people that stories of a "Nazi Holocaust" during World War II are actually impossible as regards the chemistry of poisons"-Read on www.cwporter.com/c1.htm (http://www.cwporter.com/c1.htm)

All these idiotic claims have been debunked by PhD-qualified chemists.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/

Now, once again, please go flush your head down the toilet. You're not wanted here.

[Kiwiwriter]

Oh, the you're-not-sceptical gambit. How about you tell us the 100 books written in non-English languages you have read on this subject, or the archives you've visited to investigate this piece of history.

You should also be aware that people's understanding of the Holocaust is based on history which is primarily derived from documents.



Yep, along with many Germans, Poles, Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, French, Dutch, Belgians, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, Hungarians, Norwegians, Danes, Italians as well as some from America, Britain and the Commonwealth.

You're a gimp if you think it's just Jewish eyewitnesses who confirm this story.



Then how do you explain the routine presence of death-camp survivors at death-camp trials since 1945? Evidently they're made of tougher stuff than your stupid prejudices will allow.



A 1987 case more than 40 years after the war? Gee, memories degrade - well I never!!!



A 1985 case a full 40 years after the war? Gee, memories degrade - well I never!!!



Actually, so did Eichmann claim this.

Anyway, the ground hydrology of decomposing mass graves is a subject which the UK got an object lesson in when we culled our cattle herds during the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic of 2000:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2006/04/thats-why-it-is-denial-not-revisionism_10.html

THE carcasses of 1,500 sheep slaughtered five weeks ago because they were infected with foot and mouth are to be dug up and burned by Maff after blood was found bubbling up from the ground.

[...]

It follows the discovery a week ago that 15,000 sheep buried on the Army firing ranges at Epynt, mid-Wales, were leaking body fluids into the water table and would have to be dug up and burned. Richard Tutton, who farms at Buttington Hall, said: "They were buried five weeks ago. The pit was very tidy, efficient and deep.

"We have had horrendous rain since then. Water has got in beneath and it was sort of bubbling up. It has not reached the river or anything. They are catching it before anything happens."That's 1500 sheep. Now imagine what would happen with 34,000 corpses in the Indian summer of 1941.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/04/28/nfnm328.xml

Just goes to show that arguments to incredulity often run smack into that little ol' something called reality and the natural world.



Guess what, there were indeed no gas chambers at Theresienstadt. So please go tilt your windmills somewhere else.



All these idiotic claims have been debunked by PhD-qualified chemists.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-david/rudolf/

Now, once again, please go flush your head down the toilet. You're not wanted here.

I started writing an answer to this fella yesterday, but I was too angry to properly phrase it and too tired to research it, so I'm very pleased you beat me to the punch.

Now, Mondial, how about answering my questions asked earlier?

[gumboot]

You only have the right to those beliefs up until the moment you act, or incite others to act, illegally. There can never be any excuse for those who seek to incite religious or racial hatred. I have absolutely no problem at all with European laws in this respect.


If he's inciting others to rob banks, or kill Jews, or whatever, fine.

But if all he's doing is inciting others to HATE Jews, he should be left alone. Being racist in thought (not in action) should not be illegal. If you make it illegal to "be racist" you're essentially banning certain thoughts or ideas. Bad idea.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

There are at least three broad legal red lines which Holocaust denial can cross and has crossed:

libel, slander and defaming the memory of the dead
false news and false advertising
incitement to racial hatredAll are areas of 'free speech' which have been historically restricted by many countries for different reasons, with different standards, and in different court contexts: civil and criminal. These are not 'thoughtcrimes', they are crimes and offenses where a specific speech-act has been made that is deemed to be socially harmful.


Thanks, I understand all this. Some key factors:

1) You cannot defame, slander, or libel the dead. They are not protected by these laws.

2) False advertising, fine, but false news? News agencies report false news that they know is false all the time. I don't think printing knowingly false news should be a criminal act. (A fine, sure, but not prison).

3) This is the one I totally disagree with. The government here tried to raise a "hate-speech" bill in Parliament and it was universally slammed. I'm well aware that Germany has these sorts of laws, and that this guy was sentenced in accordance with German law. I'm just saying I believe the laws are totally wrong, and in violation of the principles of free society.

If you incite a whole bunch of people and they all become racist scum, so what. They should be allowed to be racist scum. If some of them then go off and kill a Jew or something, those individuals should be charged with murder.

Of course if the guy is going "we should kill all the Jews" that's a whole different thing. But that's a murder-related charge, not racial hatred.

-Gumboot

[Architect]

Nope. Disagree. Incitement to commit an offence is in itself an offence.

[gumboot]

Nope. Disagree. Incitement to commit an offence is in itself an offence.


You're completely missing the point. I totally agree with you. I am saying in a genuine free society "racial hatred" should not be an offence. Therefore "inciting racial hatred" couldn't be an offence.

-Gumboot

[Nick Terry]

Thanks, I understand all this. Some key factors:

1) You cannot defame, slander, or libel the dead. They are not protected by these laws.

But that's why Germany has a law against defaming the memory of the dead.

2) False advertising, fine, but false news? News agencies report false news that they know is false all the time. I don't think printing knowingly false news should be a criminal act. (A fine, sure, but not prison).

'False news' is the name of the Canadian provision used five times before it was used to try Zuendel twice, before being struck down as unconstitutional.

I appreciate the spirit behind this line of attack but fear it could easily be abused. The very rarity with which the statute was applied in Canada shows that courts erred on the side of caution.

3) This is the one I totally disagree with. The government here tried to raise a "hate-speech" bill in Parliament and it was universally slammed. I'm well aware that Germany has these sorts of laws, and that this guy was sentenced in accordance with German law. I'm just saying I believe the laws are totally wrong, and in violation of the principles of free society.

As with (1) and (3) I am simply pointing out where the lines are which converge on the concept of making Holocaust denial illegal.

If you incite a whole bunch of people and they all become racist scum, so what. They should be allowed to be racist scum. If some of them then go off and kill a Jew or something, those individuals should be charged with murder.

Of course if the guy is going "we should kill all the Jews" that's a whole different thing. But that's a murder-related charge, not racial hatred.

The British law against incitement to racial hatred sets the bar where I'd like it. Nick Griffin of the BNP was unsuccessfully prosecuted for inciting hatred against Muslims. He was acquitted. David Irving was never prosecuted for a similar offense in the UK. But there have been successful prosecutions, including of Muslim preachers inciting terrorist acts. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Yes, it could be abused in a certain climate, but I think if ever British or American society ends up in that climate, then we'll be living an Alex Jones fantasy.

[gumboot]

As with (1) and (3) I am simply pointing out where the lines are which converge on the concept of making Holocaust denial illegal.


Understood. I'm not denying Germany's laws. I'm just expression the opinion that they don't follow the ideology of "free society".




The British law against incitement to racial hatred sets the bar where I'd like it... But there have been successful prosecutions, including of Muslim preachers inciting terrorist acts.


Ah, but see there's no need for this new law. A terrorist act was ALREADY illegal. Therefore inciting terrorist acts was already illegal. It doesn't have to involve "racial hatred".

"I say to you, followers, that you should strap explosives on your bodies and blow up the trains".

Is that "racial hatred"? No, of course not. Nothing about race or hatred there. But it's inciting acts of terrorism. So illegal.

But what about:

"The non-Muslim is sub-human, do not respect him"

Is that inciting racial hatred? Sure is. Should it be illegal? I say no. In big letters.

What's the point here. These sorts of laws are easily abused. The Nazis started by establishing laws like this. They sounded reasonable, at first.

My philosophy is "our society values equality and freedom strongly enough that we can withstand the odd person inciting racism. Society itself will reject their values".

-Gumboot

[tsig]

The guilt trip that never ends is the never ending holocaust propaganda. Not a week goes by without films, tv, newspaper articles etc. Stalin is said to have killed 20 million in the Soviet Union but the Russian people aren't made to go on a guilt trip like you insist for Germans. In fact for every time Stalin is even mentioned Hitler would be mentioned 100 times more by the media. You have a medieval mentality that Hitler is Satan and Germans have to pay repentance. As for being anti Semitic? I would prefer to say anti Judaism as the Babylonian Talmud of that religion defines non jews as inferior and condones lying, stealing and cheating against the goyim. Yes, jews is spelt with a small j as a deliberate sign of disrespect. If you don't like it, that's your problem.

Well I don't like it.

I think it might violate the rules.

[sackett]

...All you do by silencing them is make them look like martyrs....

It's even worse than that. This ugly Nazoid loon IS a martyr to free speech.

Yes, nauseating as the idea may be, you have to stand up for this ****sucker if you believe in freedom of speech.

Pardon me while I go call Ralph. But it's true.

[Kiwiwriter]

It's even worse than that. This ugly Nazoid loon IS a martyr to free speech.

Yes, nauseating as the idea may be, you have to stand up for this ****sucker if you believe in freedom of speech.

Pardon me while I go call Ralph. But it's true.

They are unlikely and lousy martyrs for free speech, but outlawing them does make them martyrs.

However, as noted earlier, it's important that these days their prime argument seems to be no longer the validity of the Holocaust, but their status as free speech martyrs...which means at some levels, they're admitting that they're full of garbage, but still demanding their right to spout it.

That also is an admission that their purpose is not to dispute the events of the Holocaust, but to rehabilitate their neo-Nazi politics and Herr Hitler.

What I would find interesting is whether or not these guys, were they to take power in a Western nation, would outlaw teaching of materials that said the Holocaust was a tragedy, or anything benign about Jews. My guess is they would not, which would merely add to their hypocrisy.