by minimus 45 Replies latest jw friends
There is no way you should be jailed just for saying something - no matter how wrong or bad it is.
Would someone be jailed for claiming that no bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, for instance?
If he was calling for harm against anyone now, rather than just talking rubbish about history, however, that would be a different matter, of course.
slimboyfat
His speech IS incitement to harm others NOW. He is essentially a propoganda officer for violent neo-nazis. The entire philosophy his revisonism supports ends in violence. There is no 'Shiny Happy National Socialism' movement; Irving is directly associated with people who support the use of terror in Germany to destabilize the given social and political system to pave the way to a new NS revolution.
There are similar links between Irving and violent neo-Nazis as there are between the mad Muslim Priest with a hook (jailed in the UK last week) and violent Jihadies.
Don't fall for the neo-nazis pleas for freedom of speech; the speech they seek to defend is not protected as free speech as it is as important a part of the call to violence as "Kick the Yids in!". Don't be fooled that this is about 'closing history books'; the revisonists paint it as such, but scholarly research is not curtailled by this, nor is discussion. What is prevented is LYING.
What is restricted, in the two countries where Hitler and Naziism spawned, is denying the past as to do so attracts the disaffected ignoramouses of the present. There are still groups that would overthrow the German goverment by any means possible and restore a 'Greater Germany' where Hitler was a secular saint and non-Aryans were 'cleansed'. Do some research.
And do remember, they might whine about their infringed rights, but people with such politics would only give you the right to kiss the sole of their boot as they stamp on your face.
His speech IS incitement to harm others NOW. He is essentially a propoganda officer for violent neo-nazis. The entire philosophy his revisonism supports ends in violence. There is no 'Shiny Happy National Socialism' movement; Irving is directly associated with people who support the use of terror in Germany to destabilize the given social and political system to pave the way to a new NS revolution.
This ignores the responsibility of the acting agent. I can say all day that I hate Jews or blacks or white folks from Michigan, but I'm not killing them. If some wanker decides he likes what I say and decides to kill someone, the killer is responsible for the murder. Placing blame on what someone says and not on the actual murderer's act is the same logic that the Nazis themseleves used.
"Hitler ordered me to do it! It wasn't my fault! I was only following orders!" No, it doesn't work that way. We all have ultimate responsibility for our actions.
Saying something negative about a person doesn't harm that person. Basic human rights don't include the right not to be offended. Once we squelch speech, we only make it more attractive to engage in. I never considered burning a flag, but if it was illegal here, I would promptly burn one, just because it is a violation of my natural rights to restrict my speech where no one is harmed by it.
irving can be summed up by not just that he is a holocaust dennier, but that fact that he was stupid enough to go back to a country where he broke a law knowing full well he would be arrested and tried. it's one thing to question historical analysis of an event, but quite another to twist data to the point where you start to propagandize evil, and use it as a tool to create division, unrest and hatred. unfortunately the 2 get mixed up and viewed as the same thing by people who have a political agenda or just dont have a brain.
jstalin
This ignores the responsibility of the acting agent.
No it doesn't. No where do I address the punishment for acting on such propoganda as such punishments are not being dusputed here. What is being disputed is whether punishment for propoganda designed to lead others to violence is appropriate..
I can say all day that I hate Jews or blacks or white folks from Michigan, but I'm not killing them. If some wanker decides he likes what I say and decides to kill someone, the killer is responsible for the murder. Placing blame on what someone says and not on the actual murderer's act is the same logic that the Nazis themseleves used.
The murderer and the one inciting to murder both have responsibilities.
"Hitler ordered me to do it! It wasn't my fault! I was only following orders!" No, it doesn't work that way. We all have ultimate responsibility for our actions.
Yes, I agree we all have ulitinate responsibility for our actions. The one following the orders, the one giving the orders, and the ones creating propoganda ro create an environment where such orders could be carried out.
That is why propogandists connected with the Rwandan genocide have been sent to jail, even if they never said 'hit that man' or weilded a machette themselves.
Saying something negative about a person doesn't harm that person.
Simplistic spherical objects. If nothing results from saying something negative about a person then they are unharnmed by such speech. You also miss out an important factor. This isn't "Monty Lovering is a bad boy". This is, ultimately "Jews are stinking evil scum who deserve what they get as they're trying to take over the world".
This isn't some personal assault based on something someone may or may have not done. This is race-based hate speech direcetd against millions of innocent people not even known to the author of that speech, based on fantasy, speech that not only CAN lead to violence against Jews, BUT DOES LEAD TO VIOLENCE AGAINST JEWS.
Basic human rights don't include the right not to be offended.
This is not about offence.
Draw silly pictures of Allah, Jesus and Abraham in a circle jerk for all I care. No Westerner has killed a Muslim because some Dane drew a picture of the prop[het Mo' with a fuse coming out of his turban.
This is about how some forms of speech lead to violence or injustice against others.
Whereas there are those whom Irving has given lectures to, there are those who consume his writings, there are those who are members of groups he has contacts with... they have acted violently based upon the lies in his lectures and writings.
Once we squelch speech, we only make it more attractive to engage in. I never considered burning a flag, but if it was illegal here, I would promptly burn one, just because it is a violation of my natural rights to restrict my speech where no one is harmed by it.
Again, you seem to be mixing up acts which harm no one (flag burning) and acts which can reasonably lead to violence (inciting racial hate). Chalk and cheese old chap. There's a direct link between Irving and violent neo-Nazi's, what else do you want?
And STILL not a single word from anyone about how the alternative (letting scum like Irving spread their propoganda) unavoidably infringes the freedoms of the group targetted by such propoganda.
Why is everyone so concerned about the freedom of speech of people like Irving and are not even willing to answer questions regarding the rights of groups whose freedoms are infringed by such speech?
Pleasuredome
I love the fact he was hoist by his own petard. Again - the UK court case in which he was so severelty criticised by the court was actually a libel action he bought against someone who called him a holocaust revisionist, LOL.
He's a nasty, racist old man whose hate has financially ruined him and turned him into a pariah amongst all but those who hang upon his words. He was banned from entering Austria, he broke the ban in additon to breaking the law back then. I don't know if it was hubris or a misguided attempt to bolster sales of his books by getting publicity. As I mentioned earlier, entering court he was making damn sure people got a good pack shot of Hitler's War. This book in itself is a good indication of his true atttitudes. Later editions of the book have had all mention of the Holocaust and Death Camps removed. And he denies he's a revisionist! LOL.
He didn't understand international relations - he had never even been out of the country. Militarily he was a disaster. He surrounded himself with buffoons.
Hmm cant agree with that.The Man did have some idiots on his staff (Goering comes to mind)but if you look at his Generals,some were brilliant...well,it could be argued that if THEY had had a free reign many military mistakes made by the Wehrmacht (read Hitler)certainly wouldnt have happened, possibly with differing outcomes to the war.
But their sycophantic obedience to Hitler was the German Armies biggest undoing.
That is one reason i could never accept Irvings claim that Hitler didnt have knowledge of the true extent of the holocaust.He ingratiated himself in every facet of Government and military intelligence.
It would be inconceivable that he didnt know what was going on.Just because Hitler wasnt at Wannsee conference..there is no doubt his cronies would have gone running to him to crow about what they had planned for the Jews!
Irving is a wanker like his hero was.
If Hitler didn't understand International relations, it's funny how he played the brinkmanship game so well he pulled the same routine three times before War was declared, took full advantage of US reluctance to be involved, created yet more treaties of convenience to buy himself time on the Western front, which he than broke (effectively pulling the same trick four times - Austria, Czechoslovakia, Danzig, Eastern Poland), and created links with his only potential allies in Japan.
As for him not knowing about the Holocaust, the fact is BEFORE the war he said if Jews caused war again (the propoganda was they'd started WWI) he would wipe them out. I can find the quote; it's quite unambiguous and was repeated on other occasions.
It is also very true to say that if Hitler had allowed MORE free reign to his General and not been such a control freak, Germany may have won the war before the US got involved, of have fared far better after the US did get involved.
Abaddon-
So, no one supporting Irving's 'freedom of speech' has any comment about;
- the unavoidable restriction of freedoms to those targetted by his speech? What about their freedom ladies and gentlemen?
- the fact that there are recognised restrictions on freedoms of speech when they can result in harm?
- why it's okay to infringe human rights to defend the West, but not to defend Jews?
To my knowledge he has never advocated violence against anyone. While his views are certainly ridiculous, I don't buy the tired old "yelling 'Fire!' in a movie theater" analogy. He should be free to express his (imo) twisted view of history, without being jailed.
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.
No, it's not. Just because a statement can be proven wrong doesn't make it a lie. Do you honestly feel that he doesn't believe these views he expresses?
... 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.
That's your conclusion. Please show an example where violence is specifically advocated by him.
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!
How about "Columbus discovered America"? We even have a national Holiday for him here.
I went to an average American public school, where many unflattering subjects are omitted or glossed over.
Such as, the extermination (holocaust?) of the Native Americans; the fact that, all but one of the founding fathers of our "great democracy" were slave owners ("...all men are created equal"?); hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (can you say "terrorism"?).
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.
No, I don't believe I have fallen for anything. I believe that a person can come to whatever conclusion they want to. And criminalizing someones take on history (as repugnant, and ridiculous as it may be), is wrong.
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?Doesn't having to justify what you say kind of defeat the purpose of freedom of speech?
So, no one supporting Irving's 'freedom of speech' has any comment about;
- the unavoidable restriction of freedoms to those targetted by his speech? What about their freedom ladies and gentlemen?
- the fact that there are recognised restrictions on freedoms of speech when they can result in harm?
- why it's okay to infringe human rights to defend the West, but not to defend Jews?
- Seems like you made a leap to the conclusion that some peoples' freedoms are restricted. As a matter of fact, they have every right, and seemingly enough incentive, to speak up and refute this moron's beliefs.
- The test for 'restrictable speech' must be very strict. I don't think the speech in question has immediate dangerous affect on anyone.
- I think you would find that most free speech advocates decry the limits we are building in the U.S. as well. (Nice try at deflecting, though)
Freedom of speech is not for nice, agreeable, pleasant, middle-of-the-road, non-controversial stuff. Freedom of Speech is to protect assertive, non-compliant, abrasive, and offensive speech.
Buster
I thought that thread had died, thanks for ytaking an interest...
- Seems like you made a leap to the conclusion that some peoples' freedoms are restricted. As a matter of fact, they have every right, and seemingly enough incentive, to speak up and refute this moron's beliefs.
No leaping. Check out the real ultra-right groups he's had connections with. This is fact.
Do you think the existenece of violent racist and anti-semetic gangs infringes the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the people those gangs attack?
This goes way beyond those attacked by Irving's speech defending themselves verbally; of course they have the right to do that - I never implied otherwise. I'm
This is about the infringement of their liberty by Irving's speech directly increasing the risk of attack by those groups who use scumbags like Irving for their justifications and propoganda.
- The test for 'restrictable speech' must be very strict. I don't think the speech in question has immediate dangerous affect on anyone.
The speech in question boils down to 'Jews had what they got coming to them as they were trying to take over the world and they are at it again'. This is essentially the message Irving and his ilk try to deliver. The Holocaust denial and Nazi apologisms are just part of the package he's trying to sell.
It is a call to arms, just as the pre-genocide propoganda in Rwanda was a call to arms to trigger genocide.
Are the dead at the end of a long deliberate campaign to dehumanise a group of people so that they can be turned against (such as happened in Nazi Germany, such as nazi-apologists engage in, such as the Hutu enaged in against the Tutsi) any less dead than those at the end of a pointed finger and a screamed command to open fire?
Irving doesn't give names and addresses of those to be attacked and other direct orders. Hitler never gassed a Jew, there's not one trace of a direct order... but his writings and speeches? Oh boy... I doubt if General Bizimungu ever machetted a Tutsi to death, but he helped make the policy. Just as with those two dogs abortions, with Irving - despite the 'distance' he ensures between him and the beating, the murder, and the petrol bomb - violence is still the logical end-result of what he says.
If someone deliberately incites violence but argues there was no immediate danger, is that's okay? Is that protected free speech?
- I think you would find that most free speech advocates decry the limits we are building in the U.S. as well. (Nice try at deflecting, though)
Given knee-jerk patriotism and an obsession with 'freedom' even when it costs others that some might have, I just wanted to avoid a dumb argument where someone would be supporting Guantanamo Bay AND arguing that Irving was hard done by. It seems to have worked.
Freedom of speech is not for nice, agreeable, pleasant, middle-of-the-road, non-controversial stuff. Freedom of Speech is to protect assertive, non-compliant, abrasive, and offensive speech.
With respect I have even given examples where this fact you state is bourne out. Freedom of speech is NOT to protect the deliberate incitement of racial hatred that has in the past and is now giving rise to inter-racial violence.
