Nazi references, Part Deux

[Tellos Athenaios]

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]

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]

Yes lets arrest people for sharing there views that'll protect freedom

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.
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.

[Husar]

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.

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]

I thought being pacifistic was being pro-peace and not being pro-gassing and pro-beating.

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.

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.

[Beskar]

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]

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"?

[Beskar]

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]

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.

[Beskar]

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. 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]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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]

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.

[Husar]

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]

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]

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]

Do German chicks have hairy pits?

[Husar]

Do German chicks have hairy pits?

If I can pass as a chick, then yes.

[al Roumi]

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?

[Fragony]

Ask any history teacher on a school with enrichment about holocaust denial.

[al Roumi]

Ask any history teacher on a school with enrichment about holocaust denial.

1. That's not evidence
2. That's not madrassahs

[Fragony]

1. That's not evidence
2. That's not madrassahs

You recognise the fruit by the tree. They get teached somewhere

[gaelic cowboy]

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 who are also from Ireland and are the umbrella organisation for all of Europe headed by 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]

Ask any history teacher on a school with enrichment about holocaust denial.

'Enrichment about Holocaust denial' - that's just perfect.

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]

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.

[al Roumi]

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]

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.

[Beskar]

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]

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.