by minimus 45 Replies latest jw friends
Min:
I'm all for freedom of speech.....
Okay so far. Then:
... it is morally wrong and punishable. Good for them!
True, if the man realizes he is lying to the masses, then he is morally wrong. If he believes what he is saying, he is wrong. And it is obviously punishable. But, you're for freedom of speech, and in the same post, you're for incarceration of a man that tries to use it?
I have to say even though I have personal reasons to feel that Holocaust denial is repugnant and scary as hell, he had the right to say whatever he wanted without being jailed (I know, I'm being Amerocentric, but I think the whole western world espouses some form of Freedom of Speech, correct me if I'm wrong). If we allow people to be jailed for what they say, it is a very slippery slope.
Let whatever lies there are die under the scrutiny of open, honest debate. Shine light on the darkness. Trying to shut people up by force only makes them stronger, imo.
~Brigid (who asks if the Holocaust did not happen where are members of my son's grandfather's family?)
I would disagree with the assesment that this is free speech.
Point one;
This is expensive speech. And as with any hate speech - whether directed at 'the West', 'America', 'Blacks', whilst you might argue those saying it have a freedom to say it, what of those who PAY for that freedom?
Are we going to defend one person's freedom of speech if it means their speech will unavoidably restrict the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of those targetted by that 'freedom' of speech? What about the victim?
Point two;
It is agreed that shouting 'Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not an exercise of free speech. As the lies and apologisms of Holocaust deniers and Nazi apologists are quoted the next day on websites representing active violent anti-Semetic gangs, some of whom enage in terrorist activity as well as other race-motivated attacks, there is as direct a link to harm as shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre. Based on imparted data others act in a way liable to lead to the injury of third parties.
Many happily accept that some human rights must be infringed to protect the West against terror. The 'intellectual' fire-brands forming the philosophy and agendas of violent Islamist gangs are identical to Irving in their importance to violent Islamic groups. Many would gladly see the incitement and agitation caused by such people nutralised by imprisonment. The fact that such action would infringe freedom of speech is considered acceptable in view of the risk such people represent.
If such infringement of freedom of speech is okay to defend the West, why not to defend Jews?
Personally, I feel such things as Guantanamo Bay represent things going too far... but some people there are as 'innocent', if not more so, than Irving - and much of the world feels their human rights are not being respected. If you support such actions in the name of the 'War on Terror', you can't be consistent in your attitudes if you maintain Irving's in jail unjustly.
Point four;
Just as with any group using 'toxic thinking', once you've accepted the first few 'facts' (the West hate Muslims, the Jews control the world (if you're a Muslim fundy), there wasn't a Holocaust and they had it coming as they were taking the world over and they're doing it again (if you're a neo-Nazi)), you are ultimately lead to a conclusion which supports violent action against the target group of the hate speech. These are sets of beliefs that can cannot support themselves independently. They are packages of beliefs that act as a call to violence. Those like Irving, or the mad Muslism Priest with a hook that got chucked in jail in the UK last week, they sell the package. They're the heart of the tumour. You can't ignore them.
Point five;
It is not credible to believe the nazi-apologists attempting to present themselves as credible professionals don't know the effect their words have - those Muslims who incite violence know the desired outcome of their actions. The only real difference is the Nazi's spin their message more, make it more palitable. Fity years more experience at PR.The violent Muslims don't spin, LOL. But, when you get down to it, ff the government protects the stupid by putting warnings on cigatettes, why can't they protect the stupid by putting those that would mislead them to harmful ends in jail?
For me, if someone acting in a professional capacity by their words or actions causes harm or is liable to cause harm (politician, doctor, plumber), they are legally responsible. If a accountant would go to jail for lying to people about the past so as to get them as a client, why can't a person presenting themsleves as a professional go to jail for lying to people about the past so as to attract their allegence?
Point six (important);
We are all on the 'same side' here, this is just a discusssion.
Al Capone was not knowing about some killings, because he don't wanted to know.
He just ordered to "take care of the problem" !
Hitler was quick learner. He was not "aware " of the gas chambers. He just wanted to
" SOLVE " the jewish question. He know nothing about killing. He was also doing the will of the Almighty.
In court he will swear that he NEWER used the word "whack", to "prevent" the jews from exploiting the German State. He was " DEFENDING" the Germany from Jews invasion.
Well, The Sadistic Killers, are very carefull with the "use" of proper words, so you can't blame them for ANYTHING, they claim that they are ACCTUALLY THE BENEFACTORS of human race.
Sounds familiar ? So is JW Occult "benefactor" to us....
You shoulda be grateful for their hard work and "love" for humankind....
If you do any research into Holocaust denial, you'll find that such claims are incitement to those who accept them.
But those who accept this nonsense already must have some pretty extreme views toward the Nazis and Jews.
It's insane that questioning something can land a person in jail.
Free speech is relative. As was mentioned, to yell "FIRE" where there is no fire and people run out and get trampled to death, the yeller is responsible for the deaths. With free speech comes responsibility. It is irresponsible to be a "historian" purposely espousing lies that do have an effect upon young and older minds like neo-nazis. Adding fuel to their fire is wrong.
It is irresponsible to be a "historian" purposely espousing lies that do have an effect upon young and older minds like neo-nazis. Adding fuel to their fire is wrong.
He's not "purposely espousing lies", as he most certainly believes what he speaks and writes.
I don't agree with his beliefs, but I think it's dangerous to "close the history books", and not let anyone have a differing
opinion from the "accepted" version of events.
Who says he believes it??? He renounced it in court.
Maybe we should just round up all the holocaust deniers into some kind of camp so we can concentrate them all in one area. That wouldn't be the least bit hypocrital.
So, no one supporting Irving's 'freedom of speech' has any comment about;
sixsixsixtynine
He did not deny that Jews were killed,
No one said he did. He did say;
I don't think there was any overall Reich policy to kill the Jews. If there was, they would have been killed and there would not be now so many millions of survivors.
This is a LIE. It is not an opinion. Just as a physicist saying g=3.4 m/s/s at sea-level would be lying, and demonstrably so, so to someone making this statement is lying, and demonstrably so. If is not a protected freedom of speech, as lying about facts for gain is fraud, not freedom of speech.
Don't think I am opposed to freedom of speech; I just think those who apply it to Holocaust denial are missing the point. For example; as a student journalist he claimed the media were run by the Jews, called Hitler 'Herr Hitler', supported apartheid in South AFrica, and was quoted as describing himself as a 'mild facist'. Now, all of this is freedom of speech, valid expression of opinion, even if it makes him a scumbag.
Here's a poem he wrote for his daughter;
I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian.
That's freedom of speech. Makes him contemptable, but it's his freedom.
A quote from a speech referencing the UK's first black news anchor, Trevor McDonald;
I am not anti-coloured, take it from me; nothing pleases me more than when I arrive at an airport, or a station, or a seaport, and I see a coloured family there — the black father, the black wife and the black children.... When I see these families arriving at the airport I am happy, and when I see them leaving at London airport I am happy.
But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way…the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me. If I was a chauvinist I would say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.
...But now we have women reading out news to us. If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us, I suppose [laughter], it would be very interesting.
For the time being, for a transitional period I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts...
He is perfectly at liberty to tell people what a misogynistic racist piece of shit he is.
All of this is different from LYING, DECEPETION & FRAUD, for example;
I don't see any reason to be tasteful about Auschwitz. It's baloney, it's a legend. Once we admit the fact that it was a brutal slave labour camp and large numbers of people did die, as large numbers of innocent people died elsewhere in the war, why believe the rest of the baloney?
I say quite tastelessly, in fact, that more women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than ever died in a gas chamber in Auschwitz.Oh, you think that's tasteless, how about this? There are so many Auschwitz survivors going around, in fact the number increases as the years go past, which is biologically very odd to say the least. Because I'm going to form an Association of Auschwitz survivors, survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, or the ASSHOLS.
... this is lying with a deliberate end in mind; recruitment of people to his 'cause' of anti-Semetic, nazi-apologism, Holocaust denial. And the end product of those causes is VIOLENCE.
rather he disputed major parts of accepted history (i.e. gas chambers at Auschwitz,
He said there weren't any when he knew the Germans blew them up before Auschwitz was captured.
how much Hitler knew about the killings, etc.).
He redefines a word used by Hitler in speeches about dealing with the Jews from 'kill' to 'stamp-out', when that word has always meant 'kill'.
These are not matters of opinion. They are matters of fact.
Why is it okay for other professionals who lie for gain to be punished legally, but not okay to punish someone legally when (in a professional capacity) they lie about the deaths of millions of people for gain? Why won't anyone deal with this point?
He also admitted that he no longer believed many of the things he said, in the 1989 speech that he was tried for.
The guy has lied in court (in Canada) before. This is the judgement from the UK case, which leaves no doubt about his truthfullness or lack of it;
Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism
The court apparently believed he was lying again.
Even on the steps of the court he was still refusing to describe the deaths of Jews in WWII as the Holocaust, as he persists in his revisonist belief the Holocaust has been used as a money making scheme by Jews(he calls it a 'brand name'), so one can't blame the court for treating him like the lying scumbag he is.
I don't agree with his views on the subject, but I don't find it anymore offensive that the bullshit history I was taught in school.
When did you get told a lie at school comparable to "six million people didn't die, those who did died of disease rather than gassing, no one planned it, especially not Hitler, and the Jews had it coming and are still trying to control the world"? What school did you go to!
glitter
But those who accept this nonsense already must have some pretty extreme views toward the Nazis and Jews.
Incitement is incitement. The fact some people are more vulnurable to it than others is not the point.
He's not "purposely espousing lies", as he most certainly believes what he speaks and writes.
So, if a Muslim SINCERELY advocates the deaths of Christians due to his beliefs, using lies to attract an audience of likely supporteres, that's okay? And you seem to be happy to accept his good character, despite evidence he has none (based on accuracy of previous statements to courts).
I don't agree with his beliefs, but I think it's dangerous to "close the history books", and not let anyone have a differing opinion from the "accepted" version of events
Unfortunately if you believe this is about differing opinions you have fallen for the story Nazi revisonists use to justify their denial of fact. There is, nor has there been, nor will there be any limit of scholarly research into WWII and the Holocaust. The Holocaust revisonists make it out that this is what it is about. It isn't.
What this is about is stopping people lying about established fact so as to deceieve others and get them involved in anti-Semetism.
minimus
It is irresponsible to be a "historian" purposely espousing lies that do have an effect upon young and older minds like neo-nazis. Adding fuel to their fire is wrong.
Yup.
MungoBaobab
Maybe we should just round up all the holocaust deniers into some kind of camp so we can concentrate them all in one area. That wouldn't be the least bit hypocrital.
Why not answer the points I made and show me what he does is a justified use of freedom of speech? I know sarcasm is easy, how about a little structured debate?
