Should David Irving go to jail for holocaust denial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

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.

---

It is the point, as Irving insulted a defined group of individuals

Quote:

---

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.

---

Then the meaningful discussion would be about why these should be prerequisites or not.
Why should I, e.g., provide proof for Irving's intentions if they are not subject of our disagreement in this issue? There is no reason to convince anybody based on arguments I do not consider to be relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

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

---

Ahh, semantics. So "most living survivors are well over 60 years old" meant "except for those who are just over 60". Ok, I didn't know your definition for 'well'. Case closed.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Look, I'm really sorry for that guy, but just what are the boundaries for being a holocaust victim? Is everyone who`s father was murdered then a holocaust victim? How about grandfathers?

Quote:

---

Something any yes, yes, professional psychologist would immediately understand.

---

A useful example, thank you. You see, Ser, while this can be considered an underhand slander and is likely to have been motivated to offend, I don't think it should be seen as personal insult.
Would I, on the other hand answer that my opponent knows a rat's dung about what a professional psychologist would understand, then that would probably be a personal insult.
So instead I say "Adrian, how do you feel about that?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Look, I'm really sorry for that guy, but just what are the boundaries for being a holocaust victim? Is everyone who`s father was murdered then a holocaust victim? How about grandfathers?

---

Instead of just saying 'Oh, OK, I miscalculated' -- you have to go and make this huge show of indifference towards Holocaust victims. How silly can you get.

Ι agree with the imprisonment.
If one nation wins the war it should annhiliate and destroy even the memory of its oponnents.
Any supporting voices of the losers must be shut and imprisoned.
Mass media brainwashing should be carried out with huge doses of guilt implated in the psychic of the losers' decendants.
All this should be culminated with the creation of a global state that winners will govern a grey mass of subjects who will lack any idea of identity, history or belief.
And only then the established order will be secure from the mistakes and omissions of the past.

Hellenes

He should not be punished but his arguments torn apart. Freedom of Speech requires one to endure such falsehoods. The line should always be at inciting violence and no closer than that. Holocaust charities can, of course, sue him, and I would encourage them to.

But the situation with Holocaust laws in Europe is unique; it is, as someone stated earlier, an attempt to rectify past crimes by repentant Europeans, and I think it had its use during the earliest period of reconstruction, when Nazism still refused to die. But now, it is an irrelevant law that needs removal to prevent conflict of principles.

I think I'm an advocate of expiration date for laws...

A lie of any proportion, remains a lie. Denial of historical fact is simply reorganizing facts to match the premise one would like to believe in . It implies ignorance, while propending an unseen knowledge most simply do not comprehend. [sound familiar?]

Realize, the Turks are still in denial for what they did to the Armenians. Everyone knows it is a fact (1 1/2 - 2 1/2 million died, depending on which stats one prefers - fact remains ... over a million perished), but the Turks still deny it after nearly a hundred years . Understand the reasons for the denials, and one begins to grasp the political reasons for attempting to create myths - illusions. As in the world today.
It is better that the world ignore the present holocaust in the Sudan than react to it - AFTER ALL IT'S JUST BLACKS BEING SLAUGHTERED BY ARABS (were they WASPs, imagine the numbers of Marines tossed in there by GB alone?). It is something all the Western nations are very good at - ignoring genecide, ignoring poverty, and ignoring the mores of ethnics not of the appropriate race ... it just is, always has been .... and will not change in our life times (because it is easier to ignore the problems that create genecidal situations than solve them....so why bother....might cost something we can give to, er .. say an oil company? Or, maybe it will benefit our religion ... some how - after all the Pope supported Hitler in WWII - past and present).

My point (and I do have one, honest), is that David Irving is irrelevant - his prattelling montra of an imaginary history has as much meaning as Howdy Doody does on todays youths. Howdy maybe remembered by some, but his ideals and hatreds are long forgotten (~;p ). So soon will Mr. Irving's. Unfortunately, our nations will still mask the problem people like Irving create by blaming the irvings' rather than coping with the racial, ethnic, religious, common mores of a society, or the resistance to compromize by various groups in the worlds' society.

Thing is, until all of mankind becomes 'mankind' - genocide will become the norm. Not a horrendous deed committed by lunatics. It seems to be as acceptable today as it was in 1939 - so why change? Why bother with the ideas or ideals of some weakminded frop like Irving? To show we actually somehow care? Sure! that's the ticket. :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Obviously you can insult 20 million individuals as easily as one.

---

This is not obvious to me!
:idea2: It is more easier today, because you can write a blog:laugh4:

Poor guy, getting jailed for simply presenting his research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Instead of just saying 'Oh, OK, I miscalculated' -- you have to go and make this huge show of indifference towards Holocaust victims. How silly can you get.

---

---

edit: ahh, scrap it. Neither you nor me should be subject of this thread. I didn't intend to start this sideline discussion anyway and that's not the place for a wittiness contest. Thus, whatever...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Narayanese

Poor guy, getting jailed for simply presenting his research.

---

Its called:
SELECTIVE DEMOCRACY.

Hellenes

I did find a rather interesting documentory, made by David Coleman. It does raise a question or two. I'll post it if the mods allow it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

It is the point, as Irving insulted a defined group of individuals

---

That's the question. Irving said the holocaust didn't happen. You take that as insult to a group. But the connection is undoubtly indirect. A direct insult would be "these so called victims are all crazy liars". His case is much more ambiguous than that. If you treat indirect insult like direct insult, that unavoidable-offence-problem reappears. With all sympathy to the victims, that they feel insulted is not enough to call it an insult.

Quote:

---

Then the meaningful discussion would be about why these should be prerequisites or not.
Why should I, e.g., provide proof for Irving's intentions if they are not subject of our disagreement in this issue? There is no reason to convince anybody based on arguments I do not consider to be relevant.

---

Intent is an important concept in most jurisdical systems. I'm not sure insult is even legally possible if intent cannot be assumed. Therefore the question of his intent is relevant.
But mostly that second option seems rather intuitive. I challenged you to formulate a consistent rule. Don't you think such a rule would be a good - or necessary - basis to judge Irving from a morally high ground? After all inconsistent rules are usually not considered very fair. As for not making any historical reference, don't you think general rules are better than exceptions? It is currently a fact that the history of the holocaust, and its victims, is treated differently than that of other events, even though the victims of other atrocities suffered no less. I don't consider that a particular good state of affairs and if you want to convince anyone like me, it's not enough to call it insult but explain what makes it different from other cases that can be considered insult just as much but aren't decided equally.

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.

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.

---

As Loius has already indicated I was referring to the nations, not the people.

Er? Gah! Why now? After all this book and his premise was first put out in like 1989? So why bother with it now? The hooplah about it has long passed. Why revisit it?

Why now? Have all the governments of the world lost their minds? Or, why are they attempting to divert our attention from things that actually mean something to us ... like better health benefits, or wages, or housing, or loans to the poor, or (say) rebuild N.O. - 82% of requests to FEMA by blacks have been denied (and by all other associated agencies), or that none of them are actually waging a war on "terrorists" (after all it is their hole card to play when ever their poles drop).

It is beyond silly. Irving is a frop, a nazi moron ... and to give credance to his being a moron only lends credance that he ever had a point to sell. It simply plays into the idea that maybe the holocaust never happened. It allows a platform for it to be argued (again .. as it was 20 years ago) - and it shames all of us (that know the facts of the genecide promoted by the Nazis against the Jewish community in Europe). Read, "While We Slept (the story of 6miilion Jewish deaths, and 12 million+ and 20million Russians, 3million Poles. a few hundred thousand French, etc)" to know the truth. The powers that be in the USA (and Britain) did all in their powere to hide the truth from their peoples - that men, women, and children were being marched into gas chambers and turned into ash in the chimnys of Germany. Not one Concentration Camp was ever bombed by an allied force - not one. So, we complied ... why give a new platform today for the denial? WTF is truely going on?

Wiser to ignore ignorance, than to become a part of it. :shame:

http://reportersnotebook.com/video/d...resolution.wmv

big fat disclaimer, not my views, but I would like to see some stuff explained.

should work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

http://reportersnotebook.com/video/d...resolution.wmv

big fat disclaimer, not my views, but I would like to see some stuff explained.

---

I still get an error.

I would kind of like to see a law that would put people in jail when they say stupid things. Maybe people would think before they speak a little more often. But then I would probably end up in jail, so I reluctantly say, no jail.
(But I would look the other way, or deny it ever happened, if a group of holocaust survivors used him as a punching bag)

Bottom line is he did something against the law and now he gets punished. If you really want to be able to say whatever you want, write for a tabloid or move to the US.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Bottom line is he did something against the law and now he gets punished. If you really want to be able to say whatever you want, write for a tabloid or move to the US.:laugh4:

---

As a race, we are all fortunate that stupidity is not a crime -- or we would have too few people to work as guards over the rest.

You make a good point, however. Austria is free to concoct any laws its people will accept and to enforce them -- at least on its own citizens -- as it sees fit.

To me, this law is unconstitutional. Mr. Irving, in the USA, would have a perfect right to utter such obviously wrong and insulting statements whenever he wished. Holding or stating a stupid and insulting opinion is a protected right -- actively discriminating against someone is not. Mr. Irving would not be subject to any government censure or penalty here, though he might get taken to court privately for slander and might lose -- which would serve the idiot right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

To me, this law is unconstitutional. Mr. Irving, in the USA, would have a perfect right to utter such obviously wrong and insulting statements whenever he wished. Holding or stating a stupid and insulting opinion is a protected right -- actively discriminating against someone is not. Mr. Irving would not be subject to any government censure or penalty here, though he might get taken to court privately for slander and might lose -- which would serve the idiot right.

---

I agree. For all of the faults in the US (and simular) judicial system there is a system in place that allows freedom of speech but also ensures that you cant say anything without the possibility of repercussions, like getting sued for slander. often the damage is done before the courts can shut some fools up but it is still the best gig in town.

As a historian said on the radio this morning in the UK, lots of authors have said stuff like this in books. They haven't been arrested.

Irving was a arrested because he said it in a speech to a neo-facist group.

It's funny when two people meet with totally different beliefs and someone has to ask: "Is that for or against his imprisonment?"

Edit: hmm... that could be taken several different ways. The statement is not meant to imply that I am a neo-facist or nazi.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kanamori

Edit: hmm... that could be taken several different ways. The statement is not meant to imply that I am a neo-facist or nazi.

---

So is it:

1) meant to imply that you are not

2) meant as an outright declaration of your everlasting support of fascism

3) meant to suggest that neo-fascists are a little whacky

4) meant as an opportunity for me to give you grief for no good reason.

....choose carefully.


~D ~D ~D

Gah! I think I'm still somehow high from Amsterdam; lights still feel weird.:balloon2:

I was simply commenting on what BDC said. He wrote "neo-facist group," as if it had consequence somehow. I found it odd that to BDC the conclusion to be drawn from his statement was entirely obvious, yet the inclusion of "neo-facist" made it worse to jail him in my mind.

To discriminate by allowing speech from one group and not to allow the same speech to another group seems to make the restriction of the freedom worse in my mind.


Now it's not even close to funny.:shame:
verbose... verbose... verbose...:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

As a historian said on the radio this morning in the UK, lots of authors have said stuff like this in books. They haven't been arrested.

Irving was a arrested because he said it in a speech to a neo-facist group.

---

Name three.:juggle2:

Name three
Butz , Toben , Raven , Faurisson , Verall , Barnes .....would you like some more ?
Or how about a list of those that have been arrested ? Irving is not alone in that category , there are lots of these idiots around .

Edit: can't be bothered

big fat disclaimer, not my views, but I would like to see some stuff explained.
Interesting stuff , I wonder if Coleman will make another documentary now that Piper has done more research and obtained more documents on the holocaust .

He Gets Jailed for Saying about the Holocuast, but it is Ok for People to Talk About Stalin who Killed Millions of People, or About The Caroontists in Denmark who made that Mohammd Picture without being jailed.. That odd?? Millions of People died in Russia From Stalin Aslo, but we allow to talk about him and this and this,but say something about the Holocuast,boom,your butt is in Jail. IF we can say anything we what, Why Have Free Speech then?? FREE Speech, not 99.9% Free Speech and .1% Restricted Speech..

But, BHC, the concept of Free Speech is highly-disputed in its limits, or even its existence. Unlimited Free Speech is only one of the concepts.

I have not reviewed Irving's case personally to fully make a judgement about this. I suspect, however, that it might not fit well with my--the generic American--version of Free Speech, for Europe had wounds that, some might argue, are still unhealed, making it rather too sensitive on the issue.

For those who are familiar with the Irving case: did he cry "Fire!" in the Theater?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BHCWarman88

He Gets Jailed for Saying about the Holocuast, but it is Ok for People to Talk About Stalin who Killed Millions of People, or About The Caroontists in Denmark who made that Mohammd Picture without being jailed.. That odd?? Millions of People died in Russia From Stalin Aslo, but we allow to talk about him and this and this,but say something about the Holocuast,boom,your butt is in Jail. IF we can say anything we what, Why Have Free Speech then?? FREE Speech, not 99.9% Free Speech and .1% Restricted Speech..

---

All countries in the EU, and also the USA, claim to have free speech, but in reality if you say something that reveals the rotten side of their history, their government, or contradicts what they are taught and believe, suddenly the person who says it realises that 'free speech' is something that never existed in the first place. Of course, to maintain the illusion that free speech exists, if people bash other countries or faiths such as Islam, the government just stays out of it and ignores this.

“He Gets Jailed for Saying about the Holocuast, but it is Ok for People to Talk About Stalin who Killed Millions of People, or About The Caroontists in Denmark who made that Mohammd Picture without being jailed.. That odd?? Millions of People died in Russia From Stalin Aslo, but we allow to talk about him and this and this,but say something about the Holocuast,boom,your butt is in Jail. IF we can say anything we what, Why Have Free Speech then?? FREE Speech, not 99.9% Free Speech and .1% Restricted Speech..”
I had some difficulties to follow you on this one. We, in Europe, universities or public places, can speak and write, and study, the Holocaust, the Crime under Stalin, the Crimes under the Romanov, Pot Pot etc. We can speak about subject freely. What we can’t do, by the law, is to DENY the genocide… Is that clear?
It wasn’t boom, in jail, but he had lawyer(s), right of appeal and he wasn’t tortured…
Now, you put in the same sentence two gigantic crimes (Hitler and Stalin’s ones) and a drawing… I am speechless… That just poetic licence, don’t worry. To draw a caricature of Mohamed isn’t against the law. And, by the way, nobody was jailed because he/she wrote a book about Stalin’s crimes. It’s even a good system to sell a book nowadays.
“All countries in the EU, and also the USA, claim to have free speech, but in reality if you say something that reveals the rotten side of their history, their government, or contradicts what they are taught and believe, suddenly the person who says it realises that 'free speech' is something that never existed in the first place.” Give examples, please… In France we have books written against each of our national heroes, from Vercingetorix to General de Gaulle, and Joan of Arc. The French Revolution is still warmly debated, and Napoleon legacy… The myth of the French Resistance built after the WW2 is now resolved and we have a better and more accurate view on it, thank to an American historian, Paxton if I remember well. In England, historians are questioning their own myths. There is NO subject which can’t be studied and discussed. That is what we call History. That is the aim of this study.
And to bush others religions or all religions is a right. To criticise religions, beliefs and certitudes is a right. To mock all aspect of human life is a right. And we do.
And fortunately, no government told us what to say and what to think.:2thumbsup:

Who cares? If he wants to look away at such atrocities let him.

I by no means condone what the Nazi regime did, but that's just extreme war. Extreme yes, but war as well. They were the victors and they imposed whatever condition they pleased, as horid as it may be.

Just give this whole thing a rest.:wall:

EDIT:Bad word choice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiberius

All countries in the EU, and also the USA, claim to have free speech, but in reality if you say something that reveals the rotten side of their history, their government, or contradicts what they are taught and believe, suddenly the person who says it realises that 'free speech' is something that never existed in the first place. Of course, to maintain the illusion that free speech exists, if people bash other countries or faiths such as Islam, the government just stays out of it and ignores this.

---

Your own statement is disproved by the very topic of this thread.

David Irving was sent to jail not because he revealed the rotten side of Austrian History. He was sent to jail for denying the rotten side of Austrian History.

“but that's just extreme war”: No, it wasn’t. It was a premeditate crime, going against the German effort to win the war. How many trains used to deport to death elderly people, women and children who weren’t a menace for the German Army, when the Eastern Front desperately needed reinforcement, ammunition, fuel and tanks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

Who cares? If he wants to look away at such atrocities let him.

I by no means condemn what the Nazi regime did, but that's just extreme war. Extreme yes, but war as well. They were the victors and they imposed whatever condition they pleased, as horid as it may be.

Just give this whole thing a rest.:wall:

---

Quite an amusing post. I assume you mean "condone" not "condemn"? Still it fits well with the rest of the nonsense. There is a difference between war and extermination.

Maybe you're right, I'm not going to argue this point. You really missed the point of my thread but my point was that I think people need to give it a rest...

Especially this, when it's just a guy in denial about the holocaust...