View Full Version : Nazi references, Part Deux
Don Corleone
10-28-2010, 04:36
So, avoiding the political vitriol of the first thread, and the whole question of why it's okay to compare Bush to Hitler but not Obama, I'm curious about another whole aspect of Nazis making their appearance in modern converse....
How do Germans feel about things like "Hogan's Heroes" and the like? I mean, Bob Crane, and a pre-Family-Feud-woman-kissing Richard Dawson were right there in the late 60s, making jokes about the gestapo, the SS, concentration camps... you name it.
Was it offensive? So banal and trivializing of such a profound truth of human suffering hiterto unknown in the world that it induced bewilderment?
I'm serious here... from the time I was old enough to understand what the Shoah actually was (I believe 9), Hogan's Heroes seemed macabre and grotesque. Yet it still plays on TV Land occassionally...
HoreTore
10-28-2010, 11:52
Everything both can and should be joked about.
The Bush/Obama nazi references aren't meant as just jokes however, and that's what makes them different from Hogan's Heroes.
To explain further:
-To jokingly compare health care to racial purity(for example), is ok.
-To seriously compare health care to racial purity, is not ok.
gaelic cowboy
10-28-2010, 13:44
It's a bit hard to take Nazi's seriously after watching even a single episode of Allo Allo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hfHyDSTX50
Louis VI the Fat
10-28-2010, 14:01
One shouldn't make jokes about the Nazi era!
It is painful, people have personal memories. For example, my own grandfather died a painful dead in Treblinka concentration camp...
...where he fell from his watchtower.
Sorry 'bout that. I couldn't resist. :embarassed:
Louis VI the Fat
10-28-2010, 14:02
Nah, but seriously.
Nazism is of course not a laughing matter. Show some respect, eh?
My own grandfather died in the resistance. For this, simply for being in the resistance, he was transported East, where he died, alone, during a cold winter's night in the Ukraine, killed resisting Bolshevism in the Charlemagne legion.
Sorry 'bout that. :shame:
From now on I'll behave in this thread I SWEAR
rory_20_uk
10-28-2010, 14:05
Fair point though. The losers are vilified, the winner deified. Some did believe the propaganda that this is what they were fighting for.
~:smoking:
This thread offends me.
Because it assumes that Nazi jokes offend me.
I think HoreTore summed the rest up somewhat.
It's a bit hard to take Nazi's seriously after watching even a single episode of Allo Allo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hfHyDSTX50
exactly!
...I mean...Goad Moanin! :D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBharndqLNA
Strike For The South
10-28-2010, 16:08
If you can't joke about 6 million dead civilians what can you joke about?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-28-2010, 16:33
If you can't joke about 6 million dead civilians what can you joke about?
Your math is off.
Oh never mind, I keep forgetting your Texan. Math is easier there. One, two, three...ten, bunch, whole lotta, Texas-sized amount.
HoreTore
10-28-2010, 16:33
If you can't joke about 6 million dead civilians what can you joke about?
It takes 22.3 years before a tragedy can be laughed about. So, holocaust-jokes have been OK since around august 1967.
Also the reason why it's OK to joke about the 6 million killed in the holocaust, but not about the ~3000 killed in WTC....
Strike For The South
10-28-2010, 16:38
Your math is off.
Oh never mind, I keep forgetting your Texan. Math is easier there. One, two, three...ten, bunch, whole lotta, Texas-sized amount.
PEROSNAL ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One can simultaneously acknoweldge what happend was bad, but if you can't joke about it than those people still have a hold on you. Humor is a very good coping mechanism much better than mourning
HoreTore
10-28-2010, 16:43
PEROSNAL ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, he did forget about you Texan's woeful spelling....
Also the reason why it's OK to joke about the 6 million killed in the holocaust, but not about the ~3000 killed in WTC....
we have top men working on that right now....top men!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kw4IE8Sr1Q
The Stranger
10-28-2010, 16:56
its not funny.. and he realises that at the end XD
HoreTore
10-28-2010, 17:00
its not funny.. and he realises that at the end XD
That's because he's a horrible comedian, not because the holocaust isn't funny....
When Peter Griffin wears a nazi outfit and tells Louis and her friend that "...there's only one way you're not getting on that train - bow-chicka-bow-wow", that's a hilarious holocaust-joke :laugh4:
gaelic cowboy
10-28-2010, 17:17
As always it take a self professed Paddy to figure out how to joke about nazism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On6bB3Jgups
Meneldil
10-28-2010, 23:50
On the topic of nazis/shoah jokes, around here, most people who make jokes about the nazis and the Shoah are unfortunately people who happen to think all this wasn't that bad, and that Israel is doing "way worse man!".
So yeah, I don't find them offensive per themselve. But unhappily, most people who make them are holocaust deniers or at least people who try to lessen it (most oftenly in order to blame Israel for something).
HoreTore
10-29-2010, 00:00
On the topic of nazis/shoah jokes, around here, most people who make jokes about the nazis and the Shoah are unfortunately people who happen to think all this wasn't that bad, and that Israel is doing "way worse man!".
So yeah, I don't find them offensive per themselve. But unhappily, most people who make them are holocaust deniers or at least people who try to lessen it (most oftenly in order to blame Israel for something).
Oh come on. That's like saying that those who make rapejokes doesn't think rape is bad.
PanzerJaeger
10-29-2010, 00:40
I find those that make crass Nazi references far less offensive than those weekend historians who apply a uniform immorality to every German who fought in the war. :shrug:
rory_20_uk
10-29-2010, 09:03
Oh come on. That's like saying that those who make rapejokes doesn't think rape is bad.
But you woudn't make them in front of a rape victim.
~:smoking:
One shouldn't make jokes about the Nazi era!
It is painful, people have personal memories. For example, my own grandfather died a painful dead in Treblinka concentration camp...
...where he fell from his watchtower.
Sorry 'bout that. I couldn't resist. :embarassed:
That is the third time this week. Need air.
HoreTore
10-29-2010, 12:16
I find those that make crass Nazi references far less offensive than those weekend historians who apply a uniform immorality to every German who fought in the war. :shrug:
I also find that those who keep telling the lie that "only the SS murdered jews" and other such nonsense in order to remove all blame from the Wehrmacht is far more offensive.
But you woudn't make them in front of a rape victim.
After 22.3 years, you can!
Furunculus
10-29-2010, 12:58
It takes 22.3 years before a tragedy can be laughed about. So, holocaust-jokes have been OK since around august 1967.
Also the reason why it's OK to joke about the 6 million killed in the holocaust, but not about the ~3000 killed in WTC....
good point, there is a point within the living memory of those who suffered where public jokes of this variety could be deemed deeply insensitive.
i take it you refer to the passage of generations with the 22.3 figure?
al Roumi
10-29-2010, 13:40
I'm not sure jokes about the actual holocaust are ok. Jokes about Nazis and their mannerisms are one thing, but you'll note that none of the attached clips (or any other popular jokes about Nazis that I know) poke fun at the prosecution of the holocaust or killing jews. I know some modern British comedians can be very dark int heir humour, but they do not cross the line of diminishing the horror of genocide.
HoreTore
10-29-2010, 15:45
:
good point, there is a point within the living memory of those who suffered where public jokes of this variety could be deemed deeply insensitive.
i take it you refer to the passage of generations with the 22.3 figure?
Am I the only one watching South Park on this forum?:inquisitive:
Furunculus
10-29-2010, 16:11
probably, and certainly not me, apologies.
HoreTore
10-29-2010, 16:15
probably, and certainly not me, apologies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Has_Aides
gaelic cowboy
10-29-2010, 16:16
:
Am I the only one watching South Park on this forum?:inquisitive:
No I have them all on boxset plus I'm always watching American Dad and Family Guy on BBC3 :thumbsup:
Devastatin Dave
10-29-2010, 19:44
Nazism attatched to Germany is so outdated when using it for discriptive purposes. Now when I'm talking to people about hard core porn involving feces, urine, or various farm animals, i play the german card....
gaelic cowboy
10-29-2010, 19:46
Nazism attatched to Germany is so outdated when using it for discriptive purposes. Now when I'm talking to people about hard core porn involving feces, urine, or various farm animals, i play the german card....
I nearly spilt my tea readin this
I'm not sure jokes about the actual holocaust are ok. Jokes about Nazis and their mannerisms are one thing, but you'll note that none of the attached clips (or any other popular jokes about Nazis that I know) poke fun at the prosecution of the holocaust or killing jews. I know some modern British comedians can be very dark int heir humour, but they do not cross the line of diminishing the horror of genocide.
Ya never saw such jokes either. Nazi's are just crazy cool villains in the alternative reality of entertainment. Especially when ocultism is added.
I nearly spilt my tea readin this
I say, old chap.
The Stranger
10-30-2010, 00:10
That's because he's a horrible comedian, not because the holocaust isn't funny....
When Peter Griffin wears a nazi outfit and tells Louis and her friend that "...there's only one way you're not getting on that train - bow-chicka-bow-wow", that's a hilarious holocaust-joke :laugh4:
i know... :P i meant that he realised that he is not funny and he kinda goes silent and decides to makes another weird noise, which also fails XD
gaelic cowboy
10-30-2010, 01:36
I say, old chap.
Rather discommodious to waste such a fine libation old bean
Devastatin Dave
10-30-2010, 04:36
Rather discommodious to waste such a fine libation old bean
Waste? Its never a waste when you've expelled liquids when reading one of my posts. I'm slightly insulted now....
gaelic cowboy
10-30-2010, 14:20
Waste? Its never a waste when you've expelled liquids when reading one of my posts. I'm slightly insulted now....
Now I have spilled some tea
Furunculus
10-30-2010, 16:47
Nazism attatched to Germany is so outdated when using it for discriptive purposes. Now when I'm talking to people about hard core porn involving feces, urine, or various farm animals, i play the german card....
roflmao!
Rather discommodious to waste such a fine libation old bean
Quite. *lights pipe*. Now if you would excuse me, dear fellow, I will be out for a stroll in the park. Long live England!
With german card he probably means america's express.
Gregoshi
10-31-2010, 03:04
With german card he probably means america's express.
No, the Master(race)Card. ~D
Louis VI the Fat
10-31-2010, 04:04
No, the Master(race)Card. ~DOuch(witz)!
Devastatin Dave
10-31-2010, 13:14
No, the Master(race)Card. ~D
Don't leave Auschwitz without it...
Don't leave Auschwitz without it...
Oh don't worry about that, our conditions are excellent
Louis VI the Fat
11-04-2010, 12:31
German police have arrested 23 people suspected of being involved in an illegal far-right internet radio station.
About 270 officers took part in more than 20 raids across 10 German states.
Widerstands Radio (Resistance Radio) broadcasts music and ideology reflecting neo-Nazi views - something which is illegal in Germany.
Prosecutors say those held face charges of forming a criminal organisation and inciting racial hatred.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11689141
One would almost forget it with the omnipresent, 24/7 onslaught of neo-Nazi propaganda on the internets, but it still amounts to incitement to hatred in many democracies.
HoreTore
11-04-2010, 16:30
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11689141
One would almost forget it with the omnipresent, 24/7 onslaught of neo-Nazi propaganda on the internets, but it still amounts to incitement to hatred in many democracies.
Wrong way to deal with the issue. A taboo attracts people and an underground organization can spiral out of control. No, let them run for office instead, let them tell people about their views, let us debate them. They'll disappear like an Irishman in a dry county. And this isn't just a theory, it happened to the neo-nazi's here, there's no reason why the same wouldn't happen everywhere else. They've grown in strength over the last couple of decades, but when they entered the 2009 election, they crumbled afterwards because they were completely rejected by everyone else.
The nazi ideologi is a weak one, it will not stand a chance in a debate. It's full of holes, contradictions and general stupidity. The only way to sway people with it is by spreading it in the underground, so why keep it there?
Strike For The South
11-04-2010, 16:32
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11689141
One would almost forget it with the omnipresent, 24/7 onslaught of neo-Nazi propaganda on the internets, but it still amounts to incitement to hatred in many democracies.
Yes lets arrest people for sharing there views that'll protect freedom
Tellos Athenaios
11-05-2010, 06:20
The nazi ideologi is a weak one, it will not stand a chance in a debate. It's full of holes, contradictions and general stupidity. The only way to sway people with it is by spreading it in the underground, so why keep it there?
Well we've been their before with other worldviews. It doesn't always work out, though.
al Roumi
11-05-2010, 11:43
Yes lets arrest people for sharing there views that'll protect freedom
Yep, it's a toss-up between free speech and the state's responsability to provide safety and security for its people. Us "euroweenies" (with scrawny necks and a body unfit for carrying ammo boxes) aren't allowed to carry firearms so we do unfortunately depend on the state for safety and security. Plus, no-one in their right mind, not least other Germans, wants to see fervent nationalistic and xenophobic Germans again.
Rhyfelwyr
11-05-2010, 14:34
Yep, it's a toss-up between free speech and the state's responsability to provide safety and security for its people.
Safety and security from a radio station?
al Roumi
11-05-2010, 15:56
Safety and security from a radio station?
Yes, absolutely. Cos that really is all it was, a radio station.
Strike For The South
11-05-2010, 16:05
Yep, it's a toss-up between free speech and the state's responsability to provide safety and security for its people. Us "euroweenies" (with scrawny necks and a body unfit for carrying ammo boxes) aren't allowed to carry firearms so we do unfortunately depend on the state for safety and security. Plus, no-one in their right mind, not least other Germans, wants to see fervent nationalistic and xenophobic Germans again.
I never said anything about weapons or violence
rory_20_uk
11-05-2010, 16:07
Yes, absolutely. Cos that really is all it was, a radio station.
If it wasn't then prove it and charge them for something else.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
11-05-2010, 16:25
If it wasn't then prove it and charge them for something else.
~:smoking:
Do you believe that is was wrong to get Al Capone for tax fraud?
rory_20_uk
11-05-2010, 16:31
Fraud is withholding money from the government, and is already a crime.
A radio station is not itself a criminal act, nor does shutting it down make people more safe.
~:smoking:
al Roumi
11-05-2010, 16:59
I never said anything about weapons or violence
No you didn't (this is also in response to rory), but incitement to violence is obviously about nipping things in the bud. I'm not going to sit here and defend that vs absolute freedom of speech etc but it's not always registered that the state does have a responsability to keep its citizens safe, not least from each other.
Rhyfelwyr
11-05-2010, 17:09
Yes, absolutely. Cos that really is all it was, a radio station.
Is there any evidence of direct calls for violence?
I really doubt they would have done the same with an Islamist radio station. It seems we have one set of laws for one people, and another for people that we don't like.
al Roumi
11-05-2010, 17:34
Is there any evidence of direct calls for violence?
I really doubt they would have done the same with an Islamist radio station. It seems we have one set of laws for one people, and another for people that we don't like.
I don't actually know about precise charges in this case, beyond reading the bbc article a couple of days ago. Are there pacifistic Neo-Nazis? Peaceful protest/marches are not something I'd immediately associate with Far right and neo-nazi movements, but I could indeed be prejudiced...
As to your different rules argument, I would strongly suspect that "Islamists" inciting violence would indeed be closed down. The UK's laws on incitement to hatred and violence were reviewed and beefed up exactly so that they could deal with Abbu Hamza among others. Ironicaly, Muslims are under particularily close surveilance in the UK so to say that the state bends over backwards -as you imply, for them is is superfluous. Lastly, these arrests and this radio station were focussed in Germany not the UK, so who you mean by "we" in the "we have different rules" I don't know...
Rhyfelwyr
11-05-2010, 17:42
I don't actually know about precise charges in this case, beyond reading the bbc article a couple of days ago. Are there pacifistic Neo-Nazis? Peaceful protest/marches are not something I'd immediately associate with Far right and neo-nazi movements, but I could indeed be prejudiced...
Well if they aren't being violent then they are being pacifistic.
As for 'we', come on, I mean western democracies in general. Although Germany does admittedly have particularly stupid and un-liberal laws regarding it's treatment of the 'far-right' as it is called.
al Roumi
11-05-2010, 17:54
Well if they aren't being violent then they are being pacifistic.
I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as that, hence the UK's "incitement to hatred" thing. My understanding of neo and acme nazism is that it is anathema to pacifism, regarding it as a tool of the weak.
As for 'we', come on, I mean western democracies in general. Although Germany does admittedly have particularly stupid and un-liberal laws regarding it's treatment of the 'far-right' as it is called.
I'm not sure I'd call Germany's laws on this stupid, for the reasons I stated above -irrespective of their infringement of liberal free speech.
If you actually have evidence of the kind of bias you refer to then please do offer it up, otherwise this just sounds like a sweeping statement I've heard all to much from such groups as the EDL and BNP.
Tellos Athenaios
11-05-2010, 19:58
Fraud is withholding money from the government, and is already a crime.
A radio station is not itself a criminal act, nor does shutting it down make people more safe.
Actually it is. Or at least I assume they didn't have a licence to operate in that particular radio spectrum.
HoreTore
11-05-2010, 20:54
Fraud is withholding money from the government, and is already a crime.
Yes, but the length of his punishment was obviously not determined by the tax evasion by itself.
Louis VI the Fat
11-06-2010, 01:56
Yes lets arrest people for sharing there views that'll protect freedomNazis committed the greatest crime ever comitted against Germany, not even a single human lifetime ago. One would think they could be considered a criminal organisation.
Secondly, the role of propaganda in the events leading to the German disaster are well understood. Never again means never again - it is not a given that taking freedom of speech to its very absolutes should take preference over historical responsibilities.
Thirdly, how would you feel about Al Qaeda operating a New York radio station, urging listeners to donate money for another attack? To simultaneously - what I'll never understand - to simultaneously celebrate 9-11 and deny it happened in the first place.
There is an area where 'sharing your views' crosses over into running an organisation. 'The Twin Towers must be blown up' - that can be a general political statement. It can also be a direct order to specific members of your group. The former might be permissable (is it? should it be?), the latter is not. There is a grey area between the two.
Well if they aren't being violent then they are being pacifistic.
I thought being pacifistic was being pro-peace and not being pro-gassing and pro-beating. :shrug:
As for 'we', come on, I mean western democracies in general. Although Germany does admittedly have particularly stupid and un-liberal laws regarding it's treatment of the 'far-right' as it is called.
And other countries don't have stupid laws that have some historical reasons? If we allow completely free speech for them and they start talking to the press etc., can you imagine what that could mean? How that would change the image we have now after 60 years of hard work? And I bet a lot of people would blame us forgiving them more ground etc.
Other than that most neo-nazis are like nazis with a much worse dress code and even less brain. The ones with brain however have come up with some rather clever schemes to avoifd getting their organizations banned, but deep inside they're still very, very evil, I doubt this radio station was any different.
I thought you guys learned 70 years ago that appeasement doesn't work with nazis. ~;)
Rhyfelwyr
11-06-2010, 15:28
I thought being pacifistic was being pro-peace and not being pro-gassing and pro-beating. :shrug:
Right now it's about their actions. If they have not been violent, then they have been peaceful. Is there any evidence at all of them being violent? Is there any evidence of them making direct calls for violence?
If they have, ban them. If not, can't we just have one law for everybody?
And other countries don't have stupid laws that have some historical reasons? If we allow completely free speech for them and they start talking to the press etc., can you imagine what that could mean?
I imagine the German people would probably find their neo-Nazi ideas pretty stupid, and that would be the end to the whole matter. :shrug:
How that would change the image we have now after 60 years of hard work? And I bet a lot of people would blame us forgiving them more ground etc.
Other than that most neo-nazis are like nazis with a much worse dress code and even less brain. The ones with brain however have come up with some rather clever schemes to avoifd getting their organizations banned, but deep inside they're still very, very evil, I doubt this radio station was any different.
I thought you guys learned 70 years ago that appeasement doesn't work with nazis. ~;)
I thought you guys learned 70 years ago that banning free speech to promote a national image isn't the best way to go about things. ~;)
I advocate Free speech as long as it is truthful, honest and the statements can be reasonably assumed. That is Freedom of Speech.
Sure, you can still have lots of disagreements with people under this and it doesn't stop opposing debates, it embodies everything good.
Rhyfelwyr
11-06-2010, 17:13
I advocate Free speech as long as it is truthful, honest and the statements can be reasonably assumed. That is Freedom of Speech.
That doesn't sound like freedom of speech to me. Who on earth decides what is "truthful"?
That doesn't sound like freedom of speech to me. Who on earth decides what is "truthful"?
The courts, if it turns up in a liable case.
The basis of any argument incorporates evidence. In order to make a statement, you would have something there in the first place, if you don't, then it is what is called "a lie". As an accompanying measure, there is also the clause of "reasonable assumption", where such evidence is indirect or hard to prove.
So lets say -
Rhyfelwyr: "My pastor visits brothels".
End up in court, due to the pastor wanting to defend his community reputation. The court finds out he did walk into a particular brothel by accident on one occasion, because he meant to have visited the place next door. You reasonably assumed he was visiting the brothel for other intentions, so even though you was wrong in your statement, it was a reasonable assumption given the circumstances. But you would also obviously stop saying that statement, because it was found to be incorrect.
However...
Beskar: "Rhyfelwyr's pastor visits brothels"
I have no evidence or support for this conclusion or assumption, therefore I would abusing my freedom of speech. (Especially as I wouldn't have even been there at the time or even know who this pastor is.)
That is what Freedom of Speech is all about. It is to allow people to freely express themselves when in grievance about something truthful and not for them to be censored by the government or by others for saying these things. It isn't a platform for people to sprout unsupported nonsense.
gaelic cowboy
11-06-2010, 18:09
This thread moved me to copy paste an old Kevin Myers article from the Irish Independent from a while back, he is pretty much a kind of grumpy old man journo who drives people insanely mad on the left mostly these days.
Let me say from the outset; I'm with Bishop Richard Williamson on this.
There was no holocaust, (or Holocaust, as my computer software insists) and six million Jews were not murdered by the Third Reich. These two statements of mine are irrefutable truths, yet their utterance could get me thrown in the slammer in half the countries of the EU.
Why, they could in the right circumstances even get me extradited for trial in Sweden, a country which heroically kept the Third Reich supplied with iron ore, even as the last victims of the Nazi genocide were being murdered.
What? I admit that there was murder and genocide (or Genocide, as my spell-check wants me to call it) but almost in the same breath, insist that there was no holocaust? How is this possible?
Well, if you turn historical events into current political dogmas, (believed even by my computer) you are thereby creating a sort of secular, godless religion, which becomes mandatory for all who wish to participate in public life. Yet dogmas, by definition, are so simplistic and crude that they are usually not merely wrong, but are also probably so.
It is an offence in German law to say that six million Jews did not die in the holocaust. Very well then. I am a criminal in Germany. For efficient though the Nazis were, they were not so clinically precise as to kill six million Jews — not a Jew more, or not a Jew less.
As it happens, the figure ‘six million' was originally a round-estimate of the total numbers of concentration camp victims of the Third Reich: this was then turned by popular perception, aided by activists such as the Simon Weisenthal Centre, into the Jewish death toll.
However, there is not even a scientific or documentary basis for this number. Its enduring appeal — the digit six, with the six zeros which follow it — depends upon a fairly basic human predilection for numerological magic. It is, very likely, a subconsciously appealing version of the diabolical, 666.
Moreover, there certainly was no holocaust. For if the word is to have any literal validity at all, it must be related to its actual meaning, which comes from the Greek words holos, 'whole', and caust, ‘fire'. Most Jewish victims of the Third Reich were not burnt in the ovens in Auschwitz. They were shot by the hundreds of thousands in the Lebensraum of the east, or were worked or starved to death in a hundred other camps, across the Reich.
This programme was begun informally by Nazi armies in 1941, and only took organised form after the Wannsee conference in January 1942. Thus was born one of the most satanic operations in world history, in which millions of Jews were murdered. To be sure, you can use the term holocaust to describe these events, but only as a metaphor.
However, to turn that metaphor into a political dogma, a denial of which can result in imprisonment, is to create a religio-penal code of which Torquemada would have approved.
Now, I've done an extensive internet search on Bishop Williamson, and I truly have no idea what he actually said about the Third Reich; though he is everywhere called a ‘holocaust denier', as if this term has some universal meaning.
It hasn't. I'm a holocaust denier; but I also believe that the Nazis planned the extermination of the Jewish people, as far as their evil hands could reach. And because the Nazis lost, the free-speech party won. So, this means that the bishop can believe, and even publicly state, if he wants, that Auschwitz was an ice-cream parlour and the SS was a dance troupe.
That is the nature of free speech. Any one of us should be able to declare any old counter-factual and even offensive nonsense, without being sent to jail, provided we preach hatred for no one. It's a free and equal world.
Or is it?
Across Europe, there are countless Islamic madrasahs, in which imams regularly preach hatred for Jews, and where the holocaust is routinely denied. Which member-state of the EU will pursue such conveyors of hate, or seek the extradition of an imam who says that the holocaust was a Zionist hoax? None of them. We know this. For the EU has tolerated the creation of an informal historiographical apartheid. So, on the one hand, a single, eccentric (and possibly deranged) Christian bishop may be hounded for his demented historical beliefs: but on the other, there is a deafening silence over the widespread and virulent distortion of the ‘holocaust' by Islamic preachers.
If Bishop Williamson has an agenda, it is so bonkers as to rank alongside that of The Lunar Cheese Society.
Yet he, and other Christian cranks like him, could even be imprisoned for their stated beliefs, as other ‘men of God', working to an infinitely more sinister and far more politically inspired agenda, are simultaneously ignored.
This disparity is now effectively an EU policy.
You can reasonably call such double-standards many things, but the words ‘rational', ‘wise' or ‘consistent' are not among them. ‘Suicidal' and ‘insane', however, certainly are.
This thread moved me to copy paste an old Kevin Myers article from the Irish Independent from a while back, he is pretty much a kind of grumpy old man journo who drives people insanely mad on the left mostly these days.
I know they have accounted for the deaths of around 1.5 million Jewish children and roughly 3 million Jewish adults. The Germans did a very good job with the passports, identity cards and record keeping, and they are all documented in Yad Vashem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yad_Vashem). I was there during my visit to Israel. It is a very moving place, full of facts, figures, communications between government and political figures. Archived documents. Full of personal testimonies by survivors.
I would recommend anyone who wants to properly discuss the holocaust to pay a visit there. It helps illustrate the whole thing in real-time, not a simple 'statistic' in a text-book.
Rhyfelwyr
11-06-2010, 18:47
The courts, if it turns up in a liable case.
How does libel prove you can only say what is "truthful"? All libel might be from false/misleading statements, but not all false/misleading statements are libel. Libel is only for certain circumstances, to protect someone/something from a sort of non-physical attack.
Making untrue statements in general is a whole different matter.
gaelic cowboy
11-06-2010, 19:02
How does libel prove you can only say what is "truthful"? All libel might be from false/misleading statements, but not all false/misleading statements are libel. Libel is only for certain circumstances, to protect someone/something from a sort of non-physical attack.
Making untrue statements in general is a whole different matter.
he has ye there Beskar saying people X are evil blah blah is untrue but not libel.
Right now it's about their actions. If they have not been violent, then they have been peaceful. Is there any evidence at all of them being violent? Is there any evidence of them making direct calls for violence?
Being peaceful is not being pacifistic as far as I'm aware. Whether those individuals are/were peaceful I do not know, there are certainly neo-nazis who chase immigrants down the street and beat them up. their message as a whole is not very compatible with pacifistic ideas I bet, they don't say it openly though because of laws against inciting hatred.
If they have, ban them. If not, can't we just have one law for everybody?
The laws against using Nazi symbology, inciting hatred and trying to get rid of democracy ARE for everybody and AFAIK they're the ones mostly used against Nazis, but also hate-preaching imams and other organizations.
I thought you guys learned 70 years ago that banning free speech to promote a national image isn't the best way to go about things. ~;)
If we learned that, it was more like 65 years ago, but we're not really banning free speech, we just dismantle evil organizations that break our laws and want to replace our democracy with a fascist dictatorship.
Rhyfelwyr
11-06-2010, 20:49
Being peaceful is not being pacifistic as far as I'm aware. Whether those individuals are/were peaceful I do not know, there are certainly neo-nazis who chase immigrants down the street and beat them up. their message as a whole is not very compatible with pacifistic ideas I bet, they don't say it openly though because of laws against inciting hatred.
Where is the evidence that they beat immigrants up? They were charged because of the radio station, not violence.
And as you said yourself, they haven't openly incited violence and so they haven't broken the law, so...
The laws against using Nazi symbology, inciting hatred and trying to get rid of democracy ARE for everybody and AFAIK they're the ones mostly used against Nazis, but also hate-preaching imams and other organizations.
As Gaelic's article said, the madrassas routinely deny the Holocaust, and nothing happens.
And OK the law against Nazi beliefs is for everyone, you could ban any specific belief then say it's fair since it applies to everyone, but that's not how things work.
If we learned that, it was more like 65 years ago, but we're not really banning free speech, we just dismantle evil organizations that break our laws and want to replace our democracy with a fascist dictatorship.
Which is another way of saying that you are banning free speech.
Where is the evidence that they beat immigrants up? They were charged because of the radio station, not violence.
And as you said yourself, they haven't openly incited violence and so they haven't broken the law, so...
Kinda missed the articcle and was commenting on neo nazis in general. I have no idea what they were saying on the radio.
Which is another way of saying that you are banning free speech.
Yes, we've never had the same free speech like the US, we also don't allow everyone to have guns and school is compulsory here and homeschooling not allowed.
We're actually not banning free speech, we're just banning nazi speech, that may mean we do not have completely free speech but banning free speech sounds like we're not allowed to say anything without government approval.
I'm not sure it's a good idea but I'm not going to cry any tears for the poor nazis either.
Ironside
11-07-2010, 11:30
This thread moved me to copy paste an old Kevin Myers article from the Irish Independent from a while back, he is pretty much a kind of grumpy old man journo who drives people insanely mad on the left mostly these days.
Funny that he complains about technical inaccuracies while being outright wrong with the part about Sweden. Unless he claims that the Nazi genocide stopped in the summer of 1944. Including the rest of that part, it is probably enough for libel.
Strike For The South
11-08-2010, 17:31
Nazis committed the greatest crime ever comitted against Germany, not even a single human lifetime ago. One would think they could be considered a criminal organisation.
Yes except they are all dead or living in Argentina. We talk about Nazis all the time on here and we aren't cenosored (even when the arguement devolves into the merits) Are you worried that because this radio stations pulpit is bigger more will be drawn to them? I have never seen you lock a thread when PJ rails on Mainsteins awesomeness or how the regime revived the fatherland. Why the double standard?
Secondly, the role of propaganda in the events leading to the German disaster are well understood. Never again means never again - it is not a given that taking freedom of speech to its very absolutes should take preference over historical responsibilities.
Telling people how to think is much more of an abridgement of freedom. So are you saying we should take the side of the victor in every war? The NAZIs were not the first and certainly not the last evil regime. Where do we draw the line? What can be propigated and what can't? Tell me.
Thirdly, how would you feel about Al Qaeda operating a New York radio station, urging listeners to donate money for another attack? To simultaneously - what I'll never understand - to simultaneously celebrate 9-11 and deny it happened in the first place.
Let it happen, The radio station will most likely become bankrupt due to lack of ad revenue and if it is financed by an outside source, will most likely fall on deaf ears anyway. If our ideals can not win over hate fueled propaganda than we have lost. People must be allowed to make there on decisons on there ideals. To take away any option leads to a devolvment of our principles. Let this man speak his drivel it is our job to speak ours and beat him. It is not our right to impose victors justice and outlaw his views because then we have simply become the Nazis.
Enlightinment ideals do not vaule the status quo they simply vaule the arena of ideas. To take away these mens outlet is to become no better than them. I refuse to lower myself to there muck even if it means dead bodies.
There is an area where 'sharing your views' crosses over into running an organisation. 'The Twin Towers must be blown up' - that can be a general political statement. It can also be a direct order to specific members of your group. The former might be permissable (is it? should it be?), the latter is not. There is a grey area between the two.
We are not talking about yelling "FIRE" in a crowded building we are talking about views.
Devastatin Dave
11-11-2010, 02:02
Do German chicks have hairy pits?
Do German chicks have hairy pits?
If I can pass as a chick, then yes.
al Roumi
11-11-2010, 12:43
Where is the evidence that they beat immigrants up? They were charged because of the radio station, not violence.
And as you said yourself, they haven't openly incited violence and so they haven't broken the law, so...
Fair point, but presumably this is not just a Neo-nazi branded radio station. As well as playing bad rock it presumably (to constitute incitement to violence/hatred) must have broadcast Neo-Nazi ideas.
As Gaelic's article said, the madrassas routinely deny the Holocaust, and nothing happens.
And OK the law against Nazi beliefs is for everyone, you could ban any specific belief then say it's fair since it applies to everyone, but that's not how things work.
I actually went along with that article until that paragraph. You cry for "evidence" in your preceding response and then immediately drop that (commendable) desire to base an argument on fact and instead pick up your prejudice -or what could at best be called your gut sense. Which this twerp of a journo clearly also did. How many madrassas have YOU or HE been in where the holocaust is denied and hatred of jews is preached?
Ask any history teacher on a school with enrichment about holocaust denial.
al Roumi
11-11-2010, 13:47
Ask any history teacher on a school with enrichment about holocaust denial.
1. That's not evidence
2. That's not madrassahs
1. That's not evidence
2. That's not madrassahs
You recognise the fruit by the tree. They get teached somewhere
gaelic cowboy
11-11-2010, 14:50
I actually went along with that article until that paragraph. You cry for "evidence" in your preceding response and then immediately drop that (commendable) desire to base an argument on fact and instead pick up your prejudice -or what could at best be called your gut sense. Which this twerp of a journo clearly also did. How many madrassas have YOU or HE been in where the holocaust is denied and hatred of jews is preached?
Myer's can often be a twerp your are correct in that allright but if you seriously think that the holocaust is not denied in madrasas then yer mad in the head.
He does indeed drop evidence etc for gut sense but I would rather live in a world of where Myer's gut ran the show than say this crowd European Council for Fatwa and Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Council_for_Fatwa_and_Research) who are also from Ireland and are the umbrella organisation for all of Europe headed by Yusuf al-Qaradawi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi)
Statement by Yusuf
statement on Al-Jazeera on January 30, 2009, al Qaradawi said (as translated by MEMRI):
Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.
On the separation of state and church (secularism)[citation needed]: "Since Islam is a comprehensive system of `Ibadah (worship) and Shari'ah (legislation), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari'ah, a denial of the Divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions. (...) the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari'ah is a downright apostasy."
On equal rights for women[citation needed]: "Those misguided people cudgel their brains in finding out lame arguments that tend to give both males and females equal shares of inheritance ... it’s the nature of woman to be maintained and cared for by man ... irrespective of whether she is poor or rich." .
On democracy -where per definition a majority vote might differ from the commands in the Qur'an and Sunnah,[citation needed]: "the Shari'ah cannot be amended to conform to changing human values and standards, rather, it is the absolute norm to which all human values and conduct must conform ..." .
On the freedom of religion[citation needed]: "All Muslim jurists agree that the apostate is to be punished. However, they differ regarding the punishment itself. The majority of them go for killing; meaning that an apostate is to be sentenced to death." .
Louis VI the Fat
11-11-2010, 15:02
Ask any history teacher on a school with enrichment about holocaust denial.'Enrichment about Holocaust denial' - that's just perfect. :laugh4:
Fragony is always right about these things:
Reuters – Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:25 NZDT
PARIS (Reuters) – Muslim pupils and parents in France are increasingly making religious demands on the state school system that teachers should rebuff by explaining the country’s secular principles, according to an official report.
The High Council for Integration (HCI) reported growing problems with pupils of immigrant backgrounds who object to courses about the Holocaust, the Crusades or evolution, demand halal meals and “reject French culture and its values.”
“It is becoming difficult for teachers to resist religious pressures,” said the report, published in draft form by the newspaper Journal du Dimanche over the weekend. The final report will be presented to the government next month.
“We should now reaffirm secularism and train teachers how to deal with specific problems linked to the respect for this principle,” it said.
http://olehgirl.com/?p=5006
It's not the Madrassas. Nowadays, teachers often drop teaching about the Holocaust because they don't want to face another classroom intifada. And that's the public/state/secular school system.
rory_20_uk
11-11-2010, 15:16
There was an interesting I saw on the BBC website which happened to be about the first female Jewish Rabbi in Germany.
In the article it mentioned how Jews in germany place secular, National law above religious law. This is something that should be expected of all religious groups. Of course some have grown up with the state and so will be very similar. But if that's a problem then find a country with views that are more similar.
~:smoking:
al Roumi
11-11-2010, 15:17
Statement by Yusuf Qaradawi:
Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers.
Yep, that would IMO constitute holocaust denial and probably incitement to racial hatred too. What laws does EIRE have on these? I'm not sure Germany would/could prosecute as the organisation indeed seems to be based in Dublin (and probably so for that very reason).
al Roumi
11-11-2010, 15:28
Jews in germany place secular, National law above religious law. This is something that should be expected of all religious groups. Of course some have grown up with the state and so will be very similar. But if that's a problem then find a country with views that are more similar.
Its interesting you say this, and the tricky thing about reconciling/absorbing/integrating Islam into western societies is that it is such wide ranging religion. We could have a very interesting and enlightening discussion about it I'm sure. Some Muslims, like al-Qaradawi truly see it as an all encompassing credo, others like Dr Kamal Helbawi (also Muslim brotherhood of Egypt) are more embracing of democracy and liberty.
Yep, that would IMO constitute holocaust denial and probably incitement to racial hatred too. What laws does EIRE have on these? I'm not sure Germany would/could prosecute as the organisation indeed seems to be based in Dublin (and probably so for that very reason).
Why would that statement constitute as holocaust denial? He is not denying it, he is praising it.
gaelic cowboy
11-11-2010, 15:30
Some years back there was a massive fight outside the main mosque in Ireland as the more integrated and basically Irish in everyday life group came to realise that there Mosque had been taken over by Sunni Islamo-Fascist's funded by that beacon of light Saudi Arabia.
Unfortunately they lost the fight which was an actual street battle outside the mosque but the cat was out of the bag the evil was here and it was determined to shape the minds of the young muslim.
The one group who routinely protest agianst them is naturally the small Shia community as they worry the Sunni are trying to bring there oppression with them into Ireland.
rory_20_uk
11-11-2010, 15:34
So is Christianity or Paganism.
The expectation should be that religions bend to state rules and laws, and not the other way around.
~:smoking:
'Enrichment about Holocaust denial' - that's just perfect. :laugh4:
Fragony is always right about these things:
It's not the Madrassas. Nowadays, teachers often drop teaching about the Holocaust because they don't want to face another classroom intifada. And that's the public/state/secular school system.
I don't understand these schools just flung them. These kids often are as daft a donkey they will never achieve anything education is wasted on them, they are ruining it for also not too bright but motivated ones. No such problem occur in schools for non-braindead, discussion yeah but no primitive rage.
gaelic cowboy
11-11-2010, 15:36
Yep, that would IMO constitute holocaust denial and probably incitement to racial hatred too. What laws does EIRE have on these? I'm not sure Germany would/could prosecute as the organisation indeed seems to be based in Dublin (and probably so for that very reason).
You can say anything you like on it about it as we have no law against it.
They are here as we have a common travel area with UK so they can develop ideas here while they raise and store funds here etc and then proliferate there beliefs around the rest of Europe.
al Roumi
11-11-2010, 16:02
Why would that statement constitute as holocaust denial? He is not denying it, he is praising it.
"The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place."
Is that denial or diminution? You may be right - but it's hardly particularly supportive of the accepted version of history.
So is Christianity or Paganism.
The expectation should be that religions bend to state rules and laws, and not the other way around.
Even if they are as comprehensive, the difference with Islam is some of its followers (salafists), who want its current form to be just like it was in Muhammad's life-time. This is when the prophet was at once a religious, political and military leader. This means that those Muslims who pine for such "original" Islam would like to see all three strands of society/power lead by a single inidividual (Montesquieu would roll in his grave). Hence the difficulty of secularism...
You can say anything you like on it about it as we have no law against it.
They are here as we have a common travel area with UK so they can develop ideas here while they raise and store funds here etc and then proliferate there beliefs around the rest of Europe.
While you didn't say anything along those lines, I hope this clarifies the double-standard issue a little for others.
"The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place."
Is that denial or diminution? You may be right - but it's hardly particularly supportive of the accepted version of history.
Well, it is exaggerated in context compared to the other groups affected by the holocaust, as in the disabled, socialists, communists, gypies, and the other groups affected by it as well. So in that way, it is. But it is true that the jewish population did face a unique racial problem (other than the disabled, who can't help being disabled) and were just killed willy nilly as scape goats.
rory_20_uk
11-11-2010, 16:24
Even if they are as comprehensive, the difference with Islam is some of its followers (salafists), who want its current form to be just like it was in Muhammad's life-time. This is when the prophet was at once a religious, political and military leader. This means that those Muslims who pine for such "original" Islam would like to see all three strands of society/power lead by a single inidividual (Montesquieu would roll in his grave). Hence the difficulty of secularism...
What any branch of nutters wants is not the issue: The 88 club, nor the KKK, nor any other extremist group be they following God or their own hate should force the state to bend to their wants.
If they don't want to adhere then they are deciding to exlude themselves from society and this should be accepted as their choice, not that the system needs to bend over backwards to accomodate them.
~:smoking:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.