Holacaust Denier Gets 3 Years In Prison In Austria!

by minimus 45 Replies latest jw friends

  • minimus

    I like the idea about putting all the Neo-Nazis in a "concentrated" area.

  • Pleasuredome

    something to think about is this also, austria punishes people for a thoughtcrime, and yet it allows a nazi officer, kurt waldheim, who US Justice Department probers found that he "assisted or participated" in Nazi deportations and the executions of Jews and soldiers in the Balkans during World War II, to be president of their country for 6 years from 1986 - 1992.

    so bascially you can be a nazi war criminal and be the president of austria, but if you happen to have the opinion (rightly or wrongly) that there were no gas chambers etc, then u get a prison term.

    but not any old nazi war criminal can get to be president of austria. no, because 'waldy' is a well connected man, dont you know. so well connected is he, that he was the UN secretary general from 1972-1982, and has been receiving a pension from the UN since 1982, which is now in excess of $120,000 per annum. try finding a page on waldheim being a nazi on the UN websites.

    so lets praise the media for focussing on someone that nobody really cares about for thoughtcrime, whilst we reward real life nazis, who the media have no real interest in exposing.

  • Pleasuredome

    and here's another thing to think about. if i go to Austria and deny Pol Pot's holocaust in Cambodia will i be sentenced and jailed too?

  • acadian

    I wonder how many people have to be killed before we call it a holocaust.

    Yeah 6 million Jews were murdered, but did anyone remember the other 8-9 milliom people who were murderd with them?

    Yeah, there's a man going around saying/teaching the holocaust didn't happen, so what! Does he preach violence? You know it's funny in this country (USA) our history books denigh (don't mention) all sorts of acts like the holocaust, (against native American's) And you don't hear to much about that.

    So, what do you call a person who lies (WMD) to get people to back him in murdering thousands of innocent woman and children? In this country we call him "Mr.President".

    I don't know, I think peoples priorities are screwed up. Why don't we go after those who are lying and killing today?
    One man goes to jail for denighing people were murdered in the holocaust.
    Another man lies, and thousands are killed/murdered, and he gets a pat on the back, That's Sick!
    History will repeat it's self... What kind of people are we?


  • Pleasuredome

    i agree acadian. the words strain and gnat come to mind.

  • Buster


    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?

    Sorry, it is too bad you cannot see the leap you just made. In a prior post you refer the infringements of rights based on speech. But here you you refer the attacks made by extremist gangs. You can't see that? The infringement is in the attack, not in the speech.

    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'.

    I agree that that is the detestable message he is trying to deliver. Seems like a pretty easy message to refute. Seems like he exposes himself to ridicule every time he opens his mouth. I would much rather have his message out in the open, then have the people and governments expose it for the absurdity it is. Passing laws and restricting people from expressing views is no way to refute those views. The views may get pushed underground. But if they survive long enough, they will eventaully spring up, stronger than ever. I would cite this exact episode as evidence.

    If someone deliberately incites violence but argues there was no immediate danger, is that's okay? Is that protected free speech?

    Now you venture into the grey area. Even staunch 'free speeech' countries (if there are any left) do not protect speech designed to incite immediate violence. But the judgement lies in the immediacy. As relates to this issue, I got no sense that the speaker was inciting anyone to act out against anyone. I think that should be the test.

    Freedoms do, and should come at a cost. We all have to hear speech that we disagree with. It is not a freedom if you don't have a chance to use it. And many men paid the very real price to secure those freedoms. I, for one, would rather not see our freedom tossed out like a two-day-old newspaper.

    Feel free to have the last word.

Share this