Should David Irving go to jail for holocaust denial?

I can see merit both sides of the debate. In favour of punishing him, the strongest argument is that he should have respected the laws and sensibilities of the Austrian people. However punishing him so severely means he will no longer be seen as a fool or villain, but a martyr for freedom of speech. It seems to me that making holocaust denial illegal makes it look as if we can't argue the point based on historical evidence, and the best way to attack these pernicious ideas is to present the evidence that shows they are wrong.

Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4734648.stm

No it's rediculous. Why shouldn't you be allowed to denie it, freedom of speech if you ask me. Who takes it seriously anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

In favour of punishing him, the strongest argument is that he should have respected the laws and sesnsibilities of the Austrian people.

---

The strongest argument would be that by denying the Holocaust, Irving offends the victims both dead and alive. But I agree with your conclusion. An added argument for it would be that free debate of historical events is in the interest of all. Without it, we would not be able to determine which ideas are 'pernicious', as you put it, and which are not.

One things for sure. This will only promote the idea that the west is 'run' by international Jewry, with all the crap that entails.

A list of the countries that have Holocaust denial laws: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel,
Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Switzerland.

I knew about Austria, Germany and Israel, but I have to say that I'm surprised at extent of the list.

The mans an idiot anti-semite, this will only enhance his reputation with the far right looneys. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

The strongest argument would be that by denying the Holocaust, Irving offends the victims both dead and alive.

---

This is the strongest argument for his not saying the things in the first place and then being vilified when he did, but I don’t think we should send people to jail for being offensive, even if they are really offensive.

A massive fine to be spent on Holocaust memorial charities.

Locking him up is pointless. Best bankrupt the bastard...

~:smoking:

did he basically just say that most of the jewish people who died in the Holocaust died of disease and not the gas-chambers... or something like that?
but i think that if he said the holocaust never happened then it is no wonder austrians are annoyed by him... but i think 3 years is a little harsh

Quote:

---

Best bankrupt the bastard..

---

Too late, someone's beat you too it.

Quote:

---

In 2000 Irving was forced into bankruptcy when he unsuccessfully sued Deborah Lipstadt, an American academic who had called him a Holocaust denier. He was ordered to pay £3 million in legal costs and had to sell his Mayfair home.

---

Serves him right. :laugh4:

Well, I guess many of the people of those countries still feel it is necessary to forcibly quiet those whom they disagree with.

No, he should not be put in jail. Laws against denying the Holocaust are unjust and should all be repealed.

What happens if you say that WWII never happened? Is that Holocaust denial by proxy? Is it legal to say 44,000,000 "others" did not die but illegal to say 6,000,000 Jews didn't die either? How would that work, do you only get half the jail term?

The Ministry of Truth's jurisdiction is best left in novels.

Goofy, you sig-ed me! ~:eek:

i say make it legal, no a requirement that every time a person apears on TV or in a picture in the news while or just after denying the holocaust that he be forced to don (or it be drawn on) the trademark mustache of hitler, just so there is absoluteley no doubt what his views are.

less then that i say imprison him for defacing the entire jewish peoples and force him to explain how the jewish population of the world dropped by 11 million people in 4 years. you could also ask the slavs who were killed by nazis, and the disabled, and the russians.

He should be jailed. No tolerance for nazi propaganda, whether it disguises itself as history or not.

Freedom of Speech is such a wonderful thing. So many want the Freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

Did David Irving words incite violence?

Did David Irving advocate the killing of another human being in his speech?

An individual informed the public about what David Irving. This is how you deal with individuals who are irresponsible in their Freedom of Speech. It forces them into futher stupidity or forces them to review their words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Insane's information

In 2000 Irving was forced into bankruptcy when he unsuccessfully sued Deborah Lipstadt, an American academic who had called him a Holocaust denier. He was ordered to pay £3 million in legal costs and had to sell his Mayfair home.

---

Like InsaneApache stated it serves him right.

The man, and others like him that deny the holocaust, are cockroaches. And the best way to deal with cockroaches is not trying to catch them and lock them up, but subjecting them to light and air. And the best way to deal with holocaust deniers is to expose the fallacy of their ideas. Tossing this impotent wanker into prison gives him and his ideas a legitimacy that is not merited. As others have said, it makes him into a free speech martyr, when in truth, he's a pathetic clown who has ruined his intellectual reputation by allowing his pathological hatred to cloud his views.

On a side note, I guess if holocaust denial laws are evidence of 'international jewry' running things, so much for the argument that the US is run by Jews. It's perfectly legal to deny the holocaust over here, and all sorts of kooks do. I actually refused to work with a guy at my old company because he used to go on about this stuff. I'm not Jewish, and I wasn't so much offended by it, as I seriously questioned his judgement and his intellect and I didn't see why I should waste my time and effort working on a project that had an utter moron in such a key role.

austria is allowed to have the laws as they see fit. if they prove to be unpopular or ineffective, these laws can be voted out. austria is a democracy, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Freedom of Speech is such a wonderful thing. So many want the Freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

Did David Irving words incite violence?

Did David Irving advocate the killing of another human being in his speech?

An individual informed the public about what David Irving. This is how you deal with individuals who are irresponsible in their Freedom of Speech. It forces them into futher stupidity or forces them to review their words.

---

No and no. He said something along the lines of "There were no gas chambers in Auschwitz". Being put in gaol is a too extreme. Perhaps some Holocaust charity ought to sue him, but no imprisonment...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

austria is allowed to have the laws as they see fit. if they prove to be unpopular or ineffective, these laws can be voted out. austria is a democracy, right?

---

You're absolutely right. Austria is a sovereign nation and well within their rights to imprison people for making false, foolish and offensive statements. The thread topic was a question of should.

I'm finding however, that even my seemingly limitless respect for national sovereignty (and I think I have a higher degree of it than most in the backroom of all flavors) is being challenged these days. Technically speaking, China is well within their rights to require Google & Yahoo to supply them with any records they require. But you're not going to see me defending the PRC for this policy, or Google and Yahoo for prostituting themselves by complying with it.

Not all at all. There are burglars, rapists and some murderers sentenced to less, while other real offenders get off scott free.

I'd have to say I am against imprisoning him.

As a Yank, I am opposed to all but the most minimal and absolutely necessary restrictions on the freedom of speech. I do not believe in a listener's "right to not be offended" though I do agree that it is their right NOT to listen. Freedom of speech must, as a by product of protecting speech that furthers the community, put up with aspects of self expression that are wrong, utterly stupid, and occasionally offensive.

If any sentence is to be imposed under such a law, it would be to force the offender to attend a class wherein they had to confront the real evidence of that massive crime -- education, after all, is largely a public good. Incarceration or any other punitive measure would not, IMO, fit.

Here's a thought, by making debate on the issue illegal you are preventing anyone from trying to prove it didn't happen which has the perverse effect of preventing anyone from proving it did happen because you cant look at the (very weak) counter arguement.

Imprisoning him is not correct. Just let him go and speech his hatred, the idiot.

send him to jail and fine him

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke Malcolm

No and no. He said something along the lines of "There were no gas chambers in Auschwitz". Being put in gaol is a too extreme. Perhaps some Holocaust charity ought to sue him, but no imprisonment...

---

Yep I agree.

Now to compare this situation to the Muslim's who are offended by the cartoons of the prophet would be in order.

It shows the contrast on the application of Free Speech by different societies in a very subtle way.

Unless its a direct example of obvious incitement -- which this was not -- jailing someone because of speech or any other form of intellectual thought is plain wrong. Stupid people make themselves look bad enough by saying stupid things, no need for jail. If they gain some stupid followers, so be it, adults can make up their own minds. This is overkill by a country trying to make up for past crimes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

austria is allowed to have the laws as they see fit. if they prove to be unpopular or ineffective, these laws can be voted out. austria is a democracy, right?

---

It is, but in this case it's an issue of democracy versus minority rights. If Austria passed a law declaring that it would eject all people under 5'2" from it's country it might well be democractic, but it's not just.

Also, there is the fact that what Austria is doing to Irving is a blatant violation of the EU Charter of Fudenmental Rights. Article 11, section 1 is pretty clear on this:

Quote:

---

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the right to hold opinions and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

---

Emphasis mine.

It doesn't seem like there is a lot of room for argument here. It pretty much undermines this one completely:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

In favour of punishing him, the strongest argument is that he should have respected the laws and sesnsibilities of the Austrian people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Imprisoning him is not correct. Just let him go and speech his hatred, the idiot.

---

that english imam was send to jail for speeching hatred

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leonin Khan

that english imam was send to jail for speeching hatred

---

I guess he was inciting to violence/murder, then, which is not ok. I don`t believe in absolute freedom of speech.

Holocaust denial is the verbal equivalent of pissing on a mass grave. Irving is not in the business of writing history, he's in the business of gross slander and defamation. Just because Irving can read and write doesn't make him any better than a bunch of neo-nazi's who desecrate a Jewish cemetery.

Are these graffiti artists merely excercising their right to freedom of expression too? :
https://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3789/grave5os.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Also, there is the fact that what Austria is doing to Irving is a blatant violation of the EU Charter of Fudenmental Rights. Article 11, section 1 is pretty clear on this:

Emphasis mine.

It doesn't seem like there is a lot of room for argument here. It pretty much undermines this one completely:

---

Of course one could argue (and it actually is argued) that holocaust-denial violates the fundamental right that is guaranteed in the very first article: human dignity (i.e., the dignity of those who were victims of the Holocaust)

Of course, but the clarity of the wording in article 11 makes the case for his right to say it a much easier argument. Arguing that it violates article 1 requires quite a bit of reading between the lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Arguing that it violates article 1 requires quite a bit of reading between the lines.

---

Granted - but as "human dignity" naturally leaves much more room for interpretation than "freedom of expression" this is not surprising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Are these graffiti artists merely excercising their right to freedom of expression too? :
https://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3789/grave5os.jpg

---

Nope. They`re ruining others property.

As long as they don`t are racistic and/or incites to violence, Nazis can do whatever they want towithout me caring(apart from damaging other properties and alike).

I reluctantly agree that he shouldn't be punished.

A couple of weeks ago there has been an article on this case in "Der Spiegel":

The Swastika Wielding Provocateur

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Granted - but as "human dignity" naturally leaves much more room for interpretation than "freedom of expression" this is not surprising.

---

Not really, freedom of expression is one of most contentious rights ever dreamed up political theorists, which is of course why we're having this debate in the first place. You're argument about Human Dignity overuling freedom of expression could also be used to ban things like the dear, sweet danish cartoon, or my saying the Tony Blair is a big eared sellout, somehow I don't think that's the ideology behind article 1.

In the public square, people should be free to be stupid.

“Now to compare this situation to the Muslim's who are offended by the cartoons of the prophet would be in order.” Yes, let’s compare… One guy, not alone in Europe at theses times, denied the holocaust. He said that the number of victims were exaggerated (four millions instead of six should probably more acceptable?) and well, it was the war. He did that in Austria, which was heavily involved in Nazism (Hitler is Austrian…). A former UN General Secretary, Kurt Waldheim, Austrian, was in the SS… Hitler wasn’t aware of the extermination (never heard of Nacht and Nebel neither), it was a big misunderstanding… The fact that the Nazis never denied the fact (quiet difficult, anyway) never occurred to him and those like him. Because the goal is to put doubts in the mind of people who will never read a book, will never visit one camp, will never read the plaque when the cross the tunnel between Germany and Austria reminding who built him and at what price.
These theses were every where in Europe, spread by pseudo-historians, “negationists” from every country… They were not interested in facts but motivated by ideology. If you deny the reality of Extermination Camps, you can say that the treatment of the Boer population by the English is the same thing. You erase the unique reality of Nazism, the State planned to kill an entire population. They built an infrastructure to achieve this goal. They made researches to be more efficient.
It is not an OPINION; it is a denial of reality, of specificity. He never really try to study the process, he just said it never happened.
Debate about Hitler, if the Allies knew about the extermination, etc, all that exist today. That is part of a normal historical process to question what we think and believe. It is allowed by the law.
To publish jokes and cartoons about the extermination and the SS is allowed. You can like the joke or not, that is joke. They probably hurt and offend people who suffered from them, but it exists. I remember one comic named Strumtrooper which did it. Even if my own family suffered from the Gestapo, I found it funny. It was black humour; it happened and wasn’t censured…

Now, the Muslim anger is against one PICTURE… And to laugh about religion is allow by the law.

The attempt to link both case, if not unexpected, is laughable…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

somehow I don't think that's the ideology behind article 1.

---

On the contrary - this is exactly the ideology behind article 1

European and US constistutionalism - comparing essential elements

Excerpts:

Quote:

---

The same is true for the case of Lehideux v. France.16 In this case the French authorities had applied a law which prescribed that French history during the time of the German occupation may not be ‘falsified’. Two persons were convicted who had described General Pétain, the leader of the Vichy puppet government, as a patriotic figure by emphasising certain of his deeds and leaving out others which most people would regard as crucial, in particular the Vichy regime’s policy of persecution of Jews. These persons had not, however, denied this persecution or the holocaust as such. Again, the judgment of the European Court is liberal only in a very limited sense: the Court took pains to declare that holocaust denial and Nazi propaganda can be punished, and are even outside the scope of protection of the freedom of expression, and it only held that in the case at hand the issue was still within the realm of legitimate historical debate.17

---

Quote:

---

Another reason why freedom of speech occupies such a different place in European and US constitutionalism may be related to the second topic of this book, human dignity. Human dignity is a comparatively modern legal term.25 It is therefore not surprising that the term is not mentioned in the US Constitution, but is in a good number of post-war European constitutions as well as in international human rights instruments. The stimulus for the career of human dignity as a legal term is widely perceived to come from the global sense of unprecedentedness which the Nazi and other atrocities gave rise to, and the corresponding discovery of an even more fundamental legal right (or value) than the classical ‘life, liberty and property’.26 In a sense, therefore, the reason for recognising and proclaiming human dignity in post-war European constitutional texts can be seen as being structurally similar to why a need was felt to punish perpetrators for crimes against humanity and not merely for murder or enslavement. This reading of the history of the term human dignity as a constitutional concept easily explains why it has been more prevalent in Europe than in the United States. In America, the European experience which gave rise to the concept was simply not felt to be relevant.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat

Are these graffiti artists merely excercising their right to freedom of expression too?

---

Nobody is denying him the right to say his message. They restrict where it may be said. It is not legitimate to destroy another's property by putting your message on it. What the Austrian government is doing is telling him he cannot say it no matter what mode he uses to express it. It is not an acceptable mode to kill another person to express your dislike of them. You may certainly express your dislike through words though.

So Louis, Ser C, et. al.... it is your position that by allowing David Irving to utter his rubbish, the basic human dignity of the victims of the Shoah is being eroded?

Isn't that giving David Irving more power than his lunatic fringe rantings deserve? Wouldn't the ultimate rejection of Irving's garbage be....not imprisonment, not repudiation, censoring or even villification, but to give his ideas the time and consideration they deserve, which is none at all?

Wouldn't it be far better to just ignore turds like this guy, and every once is a blue moon, if his ravings get any sort of traction at all, trot out some evidence proving just how foolishly wrong he really is (and ideally, not in direct response to?) In my mind, the Shoah memorial in Washington DC is a far better answer to the David Irving's of the world then laws that carry prison sentances.

As for the grafitti issue, well, now you're hitting us where it counts Louis, property rights. Sure, you have a right to your message, but you have no right to impact the property value of my property, or that of a 3rd party in your effort to express it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“Now to compare this situation to the Muslim's who are offended by the cartoons of the prophet would be in order.” Yes, let’s compare… One guy, not alone in Europe at theses times, denied the holocaust. He said that the number of victims were exaggerated (four millions instead of six should probably more acceptable?) and well, it was the war. He did that in Austria, which was heavily involved in Nazism (Hitler is Austrian…). A former UN General Secretary, Kurt Waldheim, Austrian, was in the SS… Hitler wasn’t aware of the extermination (never heard of Nacht and Nebel neither), it was a big misunderstanding… The fact that the Nazis never denied the fact (quiet difficult, anyway) never occurred to him and those like him. Because the goal is to put doubts in the mind of people who will never read a book, will never visit one camp, will never read the plaque when the cross the tunnel between Germany and Austria reminding who built him and at what price.

---

So you advocate placing him in jail because he believes a revisionist type of history based upon denial?

Quote:

---

These theses were every where in Europe, spread by pseudo-historians, “negationists” from every country… They were not interested in facts but motivated by ideology. If you deny the reality of Extermination Camps, you can say that the treatment of the Boer population by the English is the same thing. You erase the unique reality of Nazism, the State planned to kill an entire population. They built an infrastructure to achieve this goal. They made researches to be more efficient.

---

Yes indead idealogical based belief is evident in his statements. Something to be ridiculed for what it is.

Quote:

---

It is not an OPINION; it is a denial of reality, of specificity. He never really try to study the process, he just said it never happened.

---

And here is where you are incorrect - its his opinion based upon his denial of reality. So you are advocating sending someone to jail because of denial in his speech?

Quote:

---

Debate about Hitler, if the Allies knew about the extermination, etc, all that exist today. That is part of a normal historical process to question what we think and believe. It is allowed by the law.

---

Freedom of Speech is also allowed by law. However it seems dissenting view points of based upon opinions is not allowed if it crosses into certain subjects.

Quote:

---

To publish jokes and cartoons about the extermination and the SS is allowed. You can like the joke or not, that is joke.

---

you just crossed into the point without knowing it.

Quote:

---

They probably hurt and offend people who suffered from them, but it exists. I remember one comic named Strumtrooper which did it. Even if my own family suffered from the Gestapo, I found it funny. It was black humour; it happened and wasn’t censured…

---

Okay now your beginning to get the point.

Quote:

---

Now, the Muslim anger is against one PICTURE… And to laugh about religion is allow by the law.

---

But to deny the holocaust happen is against the law. So in other words Free Speech has limits placed upon it, based upon the society.

That one picture crosses into what they believe to be blasamy, they are entitled to voice their outrage against that picture, and to demand an apology from the paper in that regards. They are not exercising responsible Freedom of Speech when they riot, but in protesting their anger at the paper they are exercising their rights, just as the artist that drew the picture exercised his right to free speech.

Quote:

---

The attempt to link both case, if not unexpected, is laughable…

---

Oh they are exactly the same, the link exists, both are free speech issues. What is laughable is that bigots come in all types. It seems in being intolerant of bigots some are advocating bigotary of a different type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So Louis, Ser C, et. al.... it is your position that by allowing David Irving to utter his rubbish, the basic human dignity of the victims of the Shoah is being eroded?

---

From the article I linked to in a previous post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Der Spiegel

It isn't Irving's books that landed him in prison, but his lectures -- sentences like this one, which he dictated to an Austrian reporter in 1989: "There were no gas chambers in Auschwitz. All witnesses who claim otherwise are psychiatric cases." Indeed, the Vienna public prosecutor's office plans to use tape recordings of some of Irving's appearances in Austria as part of its indictment.

---

To answer your question - yes, I think that statements like this violate the human dignity of the victims.

Would ignoring guys like him be the best thing to do? Probably.

However, a survivor who had to witness that his/her beloved ones were led to the gas chambers might see this differently.

Free speech is a right that needs all the protection it can get - and many people here in Germany were killed for not being willing to give it up - however, with rights come responsibilities, and Mr. Irving has, IMHO abused his right of free speech by mocking the victims of the Shoah/Holocaust.

EDIT to add: I agree however, that in the end the jail sentence might be counter-productive by turning Irving into a martyr (but I wouldn't disagree with the sentence for the sake of protection of free speech)

If I was a David Irving type, you know what would get me hard, so to speak? Invoking enough fear in people that they felt the need to imprison me. Do you know what would frustrate and infuriate me beyond reason? To have people, especially Jewish people, laugh at me.

I know what he says is deeply offensive. It's worse than that, it's vile, and it strongly implies a desire to bring that sort of wickedness to the light of day once again. But by driving the David Irvings of the world underground, you push them towards places where they might prosper while in hiding.

The best place for the class dunce is right up on a stool in front of the whole class, for everyone to acknowledge and laugh at. Only when we see these idiots ~:joker: for who and what they are do we have a chance at keeping them where they belong, right up there on the dunce stool. It's the tolerance of the most offensive statements of this sort that allow us to keep Pat Buchanan around as a useful buffoon (and I think he's flirted with the idea of holocaust denial on several occassions himself).

Clearly he shouldn't be put in jail, free speech is a wonderful thing especially because it makes us face up to and confront that which we do not agree with / take for granted. But because he shouldn't go to jail doesn't mean he shouldn't be stood up to and his arguments shown to be flawed - which thankfully has already been done when he lost his court battle a few years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

This is the strongest argument for his not saying the things in the first place and then being vilified when he did, but I don’t think we should send people to jail for being offensive, even if they are really offensive.

---

People who deny the mistreatment of Germans by the Russians after WWII insult me, my family and the victims of those crimes, but there's no law against it. People who deny the Armenian and Hellenic Genocides offend the victims of those, alive or dead, but there are no laws against that. People who deny the genocide of... [et cetera, et cetera, et cetera]

Democrats offend me. Hugo Chaves offends me. Socialists offend me. Communists offend me. But there aren't any laws against those.

I'm sure I offend alot of people, but I'm not outlawed (yet).

So really, does it matter if something's offensive? Freedom of speech covers this type of hogwash and, no matter how deranged it is, as long as no one is directly, physically hurt over it, it is his right to say it as far as I'm concerned.

Europe preaches to America about civil rights, but they don't even know what freedom of speach is.

Europe preaches to America about civil rights, but they don't even know what freedom of speach is.
Err ....who is it that keeps closing down Zundels site and the Earl Kruger "memorial" sites Capo ?
Don't climb on that high horse , you might fall off :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

Socialists offend me.

---

Bar one, young man; I have never offended you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Bar one, young man; I have never offended you.

---

Socialism in general offends my sensibilities, adrian :sweatdrop:
Though as far as I know, we cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

it is your position that by allowing David Irving to utter his rubbish, the basic human dignity of the victims of the Shoah is being eroded?

---

Yes. Their blood is my hereditary sin. I can not undo what happened, I can stand guard over the dignity of their souls.

But - sparing you all a 600 page-long exposé on this subject and cutting straight to the conclusion - I must in the end agree with this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

I reluctantly agree that he shouldn't be punished.

---

http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/tutmirleid.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Yes. Their blood is my hereditary sin. I can not undo what happened, I can stand guard over the dignity of their souls.

But - sparing you all a 600 page-long exposé on this subject and cutting straight to the conclusion - I must in the end agree with this:
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/tutmirleid.gif

---

Wow, Louis, late night? It's humanity's task to keep it in the forefront of our minds. If there's any such thing as collective guilt, there's plenty to be spread far and wide. But it goes deeper than that. The Shoah stands in modern history as an example of just how far we as predatory apes haven't come. If we allow ourselves to forget, it might be us running the camps next time, or it might be us in them.

Even depending on what the fella said verbatim, Freedom of Speech is Freedom of Speech.

Feel free to ridicule, heck even to agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don

Wow, Louis, late night?

---

Nah - you should be familiar by now with French' fondness for the pompous statement. A nation of great thoughts requires a great language. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Nah - you should be familiar by now with French' fondness for the pompous statement. A nation of great thoughts requires a great language. :book:

---

That's why French, as a language, is horrible, and German, as a language, rox0rz. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

People who deny the mistreatment of Germans by the Russians after WWII insult me, my family and the victims of those crimes, but there's no law against it. People who deny the Armenian and Hellenic Genocides offend the victims of those, alive or dead, but there are no laws against that. People who deny the genocide of... [et cetera, et cetera, et cetera]

---

Good point, lad. There are laws about the Armenian genocide though.


Here's a brief article about some current developments in France about this subject, dealing with both the Shoah and Armenia and the awkward position you can get yourself into when trying to balance political correctness and freedom of speech:

Quote:

---

French historians issued a common declaration to annul all parliamentary historical decisions, including the Armenian genocide law.

The discussion on “rewriting history” that flared in France last week is gradually intensifying.

“The duty of rewriting history in a free country does not belong to the parliament or any legal authorities,” the French historians stated. Parliamentary decisions, they defended, make it difficult to conduct research on history and education.

Four years ago, the French Parliament recognized the incidents of 1915 as the “Armenian genocide” despite Turkey’s harsh objections. In the single-paragraph law passed with pressure from the Armenian Diaspora in France, the statement “France clearly recognizes the 1915 Armenian genocide,” is noted.

A Paris Court ruled against famous French encyclopedia, The Quid, for printing the Turkish view on the so-called Armenian genocide last July. The same court had previously ruled against famous historian Bernard Lewis for a relevant article he published in the newspaper Le Monde and ordered him to pay a symbolic sum in compensation of one euro.

Tension mounts over the motion suggesting that school textbooks “should particularly teach the positive sides of French colonialism,” which was adopted in the French parliament in February; a decision that shocked French historians.

---

Who would have thought that Austria would have been so touchy about Nazi propaganda and rabble-rousing? I mean, I wonder what historical reason they could have for having such laws?

It is part of their penence, part of the debt they and every country which surrendered its Jews must pay in some form. Who else should be the guardians of the Holocaust's horrors than those who were involved? A fitting task I think.

If a foolish man like Irving wants to challenge that then fair enough, and he will pay the price if found guilty. It happens to be prison because fines obviously have no effect, and I doubt such a man fears humiliation either. Besides which he was warned that he faced arrest and still went back, presumably as some kind of stunt. Maybe they should find him a Jewish cellmate.

Just another Orgite weighing in, saying that this idiot should not be imprisoned. He is not directly inciting murder or violence, he's just being a obnoxious jerk. He should have the right to be as big of an ass as he'd like to be, and the rest of us should heartily mock him. Jeers and laughter (with lots of finger pointing) are the appropriate response, not jail time.

Things you cannot be put in jail for:

• Denying the Rwandan genocide
• Denying the Cambodian genocide
• Denying Stalin's purges
• Denying the mass starvation of the Great Leap Forward
• Denying that anything naughty happened when Yugoslavia broke up
• Denying that any Turk ever laid a hand on an Armenian
• Denying the Native American genocide (North America, by English, Dutch, French and Ameriacns)
• Denying the Native American genocide (Central America, by Spain)
• Denying the Native American genocide (South America, by Spain and Portugal)
• Denying the Native American genocide (Carribean, by everybody in Europe with a boat)
• Denying the Congo genocide (by the Belgians)
• Denying the Congo genocide (by the Congolese)
• Denying the Congo genocide (by five neighboring countries)
• Denying the Darfur genocide

When I lived in Chicago, there was a synagouge that had the confusing sign out front for a year: "Never again means now." I think they got mixed up when writing the slogan, but the literal meaning is surprisingly accurate, if not what they intended.

Who would have thought that Austria would have been so touchy about Nazi propaganda and rabble-rousing? I mean, I wonder what historical reason they could have for having such laws?” The fact that Hitler was Austrian?

“People who deny the mistreatment of Germans by the Russians after WWII insult me” Nobody deny it. The debate is about who started? Who can expect the Russian soldiers, after Minsk, Kiev and thousands of villages burned, family killed, tortured, deported, not to take revenge on their unsuccessful aggressor? It is very easy to say now they shouldn’t but they lost really a lot of people…

Now, I want to be clear. I am not in favour of jail for Irving. What he said was insulting and absurd. Everybody with eyes travelling in Europe can still see the reality of Nazism. I also think the law against the denial is stupid and counter productive. It gives to the negationists to much audience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

It is part of their penence, part of the debt they and every country which surrendered its Jews must pay in some form. Who else should be the guardians of the Holocaust's horrors than those who were involved? A fitting task I think.

---

You do realise that most of the people in power in Germany and other countries were at the most teenagers? There is no such thing as hereditory guilt, you are not responsible for the actions of your ancestors and you have no obligation to make up for them any more than any one else.

The British are no longer in any way responsible for slavery and in another 20-30s America will no longer be responsible for black/white segregation.

Irving should not be in prison because then he has no freedom of speech. What if one day saying the Holocaust happened is made against the law? You can't have laws like this; purely as a matter of principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

To answer your question - yes, I think that statements like this violate the human dignity of the victims.

---

This is a slippery slope and not one we should be willing to start on. Should someone be jailed for supporting Marxist theory because doing so would violate the human dignity of the victims of the USSR? This is an idea we need to stay away from, there is almost nothing a person can say that won't deeply offend at least one person on the planet. I, for one, do not like the idea of creating a hierarchy of victims and tell people what does or what does not amount to an affront to their human dignity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

This is a slippery slope and not one we should be willing to start on. Should someone be jailed for supporting Marxist theory because doing so would violate the human dignity of the victims of the USSR?

---

I disagree - the Marxist comparison you make is quite different from this case. Apparently Irving did not get his sentence for supporting some abstract theory, but for directly mocking the victims of the Holocaust, i.e. basically saying that those victims who were talking about gas chambers were not right in their head.
This goes, IMO, clearly beyond having an "opinion" that people could strongly disagree with and therefore might consider to be offensive - it is a direct insult.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

You do realise that most of the people in power in Germany and other countries were at the most teenagers? There is no such thing as hereditory guilt, you are not responsible for the actions of your ancestors and you have no obligation to make up for them any more than any one else.

---

Yes, any Austrian or German below the age of 75 is by definition innocent.

But, Austria and the German Bundesrepublik also represent the continuity of the Austrian and German states. Their taking full responsibility for what happened is precisely the way by which they could reclaim their place amongst the civilized nations.

To put it differently, the individuals are innocent, the states can (perhaps: could) be held accountable.

A zero tolerance policy on mockery of the victims of nazism is therefore prudent for Austria. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

To put it differently, the individuals are innocent, the states can (perhaps: could) be held accountable.

---

But that accountability cannot infringe on the freedom of individuals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

But that accountability cannot infringe on the freedom of individuals.

---

I'm not sure if I can follow your line of reasoning here.

Anyway, it's not out of any concern for Irving's individual rights that I very reluctantly agree that he shouldn't be put to jail. If his rights were the only thing at stake, I'd sentence him to the lash.

I'm more concerned about the awkward position you manouver yourself in as a state when you start to jail people for what borders on the fine line between insults and slanderous lies. The former warrants a jail sentence. The latter, erm, too. But the little devil is smart enough to play the role of idiot convincingly.

A judge should allow a lot of leeway for idiocy when touching on freedom of expression. Everybody knows that whoever does research into WWII and manages to reach the conclusion that there was no organised mass murder of Jews is an imbecile. A judge however, can not be in the business of deciding what is correct history.

That this allows for a large area in which the anti-semite can freely defame Jews if only he presents his filth as history, is most unfortunate. And painful. But perhaps necessary for the greater good of a free society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

But that accountability cannot infringe on the freedom of individuals.

---

Correct. I wonder how many will understand that comment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I wonder how many will understand that comment?

---

I'm still clueless. ~:mecry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

But that accountability cannot infringe on the freedom of individuals.

---

Well - it's not unusual that a law protects rights of some individuals by infringing on the freedom of other individuals.
The question always is - do you value certain rights higher than certain freedoms.

In this particular case Mr. Irving's freedom to make certain statements infringes on the human dignity of Holocaust victims.
That some countries (e.g., Germany, Austria) are particularly harsh in this context is justified by the fact that any slander coming from these countries can certainly be seen as a more serious violation of the victims' dignity.

So accountability can infringe on the freedom of individuals - as it does in more than in this particular case (war reparations are another case)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

The strongest argument would be that by denying the Holocaust, Irving offends the victims both dead and alive.

---

The dead don't take offense. Are there any living survivors of Auschwitz? I don't know.

He basically retracted the statement during his trial. Imprisoning him is silly, but so are the Holocaust speech laws.

I too reluctantly say he should be allowed to utter his terrible lies. Show the images from KZ camps to people, is enough to disgust any one with Irving. In general it is good to test theories of history, but the ones very false as well as offensive are better left behind.

In some cases it is not allowed to lie.. Content declaration of food...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia

People who deny the Armenian and Hellenic Genocides offend the victims of those, alive or dead, but there are no laws against that.

---

Ironic that Turkey has strict law against not denying this :no: :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

The dead don't take offense.

---

But the living take offense on their behalf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorebag

Are there any living survivors of Auschwitz? I don't know.

---

Sure. There are Auschwitz (survivors') committees in Australia, Hungary, Russia, Austria, Israel, Slovakia, Belgium, Italy, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Ukraine, France, The Netherlands USA, Germany, Poland, Greece and Rumania. Of course many survivors have died over the years, and most living survivors are well over 60 years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Of course many survivors have died over the years, and most living survivors are well over 60 years old.

---

If that isn't actually all, then there's something wrong with the space-time continuum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Well - it's not unusual that a law protects rights of some individuals by infringing on the freedom of other individuals.
The question always is - do you value certain rights higher than certain freedoms.

---

Yes, but the accountability may not create special cases, which precisely is what holocaust victims are at the moment. If the state outlaws the denial of the holocaust, it must also outlaw the denial of other atrocities to be morally consistent. Otherwise, it would imply that other victims have less reason to be offended if the cause of their suffering is denied.
Thus consistency would lead to laws against argueing about any cause of death and suffering where involved people may get offended, which would seriously constrict science and political debate.

As has been said in another thread, offence is unavoidable, therefore it cannot be a reason to restrict freedom of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

As has been said in another thread, offence is unavoidable, therefore it cannot be a reason to restrict freedom of speech.

---

So consequently all racist speech (as long as it does not result in tangible discrimination or does not incite violence) should be allowed as well as all forms of slander or personal insults, as those would only cause "unavoidable offence", which cannot be a "reason to restrict freedom of speech"?

Thanks, but "no thanks".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

If that isn't actually all, then there's something wrong with the space-time continuum.

---

Think again please. On the very day Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army, Jan. 27, 1945, a boy by the name of Gyorgy Faludi was born to a Hungarian prisoner with the help of a Russian doctor.

Just as I wrote above, most living survivors are well into their sixties.

Quote:

---

Yes, but the accountability may not create special cases, which precisely is what holocaust victims are at the moment. If the state outlaws the denial of the holocaust, it must also outlaw the denial of other atrocities to be morally consistent. Otherwise, it would imply that other victims have less reason to be offended if the cause of their suffering is denied.

---

I suppose the Austrian (and other nations who ban holocaust denial) would argue that the holocaust is different from other atrocities because of its scale and its location. At least one camp (Mauthausen-Gusen) was in Austria and Jews (and others) from Austria were victims. In Austria, the holocaust is, therefore, different from say, Rwanda or Stalin's purges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

So consequently all racist speech (as long as it does not result in tangible discrimination or does not incite violence) should be allowed as well as all forms of slander or personal insults, as those would only cause "unavoidable offence", which cannot be a "reason to restrict freedom of speech"?

Thanks, but "no thanks".

---

I expected this would come. Personal insults are something else entirely. They are statements that refer directly to an individual, by that invoking the individual semantically. Therefore the personality rights of that individual apply. But Irving spoke AFAIK only indirectly about the victims, thus their personality rights do not apply.
As for racism, yes, generally it should be allowed (unless it involves discrimination, personal insult or incites violence).

But I may change may mind if you can either
1)show beyond the shadow of a doubt that Irving intended to offend holocaust victims and didn't say what he did for other political or scientifical reasons and that the offence was not just a side-effect he had to consider.

or

2)formulate a consistent rule that would allow to punish Irving and that doesn't refer to any historical event - and is therefore general in nature - without having possible undesirable consequences for science or political debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Think again please. On the very day Auschwitz was liberated by the Red Army, Jan. 27, 1945, a boy by the name of Gyorgy Faludi was born to a Hungarian prisoner with the help of a Russian doctor.

Just as I wrote above, most living survivors are well into their sixties.

---

That means Gyorgy Faludi is now 61, which is - argueably - well over 60. In as much as he can be considered a holocaust victim (yes, yes, malnutrition), he's no danger to my view on time and space. Any more problematic cases for me to think yet again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

I expected this would come. Personal insults are something else entirely. They are statements that refer directly to an individual, by that invoking the individual semantically.

---

I don't quite see the difference between an individual and a clearly defined group of individuals.
Weere does personal insult end in your opinion? A group of 2? 10? 100?

Quote:

---

But I may change may mind if you can either
1)show beyond the shadow of a doubt that Irving intended to offend holocaust victims and didn't say what he did for other political or scientifical reasons and that the offence was not just a side-effect he had to consider.

or

2)formulate a consistent rule that would allow to punish Irving and that doesn't refer to any historical event - and is therefore general in nature - without having possible undesirable consequences for science or political debate.

---

As I, personally, do not consider either of the two to be a prerequisite for the law that has been applied in Irving's case, I don't think that this would be a particular useful exercise for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

That means Gyorgy Faludi is now 61, which is - argueably - well over 60. In as much as he can be considered a holocaust victim (yes, yes, malnutrition), he's no danger to my view on time and space. Any more problematic cases for me to think yet again?

---

'Well' means 'to a considerable extent'. Faludi would be 'just over 60', not 'well over 60'.

And apart from 'yes, yes, malnutrition' he may have been victimised by his father's death, his mother's possibly traumatised condition and a host of other possible consequences. Something any yes, yes, professional psychologist would immediately understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

I don't quite see the difference between an individual and a clearly defined group of individuals.
Weere does personal insult end in your opinion? A group of 2? 10? 100?

---

Personal insult isn't tied to a number. Obviously you can insult 20 million individuals as easily as one. But that isn't the point.

Quote:

---

As I, personally, do not consider either of the two to be a prerequisite for the law that has been applied in Irving's case, I don't think that this would be a particular useful exercise for me.

---

It might be a useful exercise to convince others, since I, for one, do consider these to be prerequisite for such a law. At least, for a just law.