Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mr Blek

Irving Sentenced To Three Years

Recommended Posts

Its ironic. Most countries that have laws again Holocaust denial were the ones that published those muslim cartoons.

Freedom of speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its ironic. Most countries that have laws again Holocaust denial were the ones that published those muslim cartoons.

Freedom of speech?

Well, I guess there are issues there, but taken as a self-contained case, I think it's a great result. Contesting historical fact when apparently motivated by racial hate is a tad different from publishing cartoons that were considered to be disrespectful by some. I see what you'e saying, but I don't think it's a clear comparison. And freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. There's no such thing as total freedom. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess there are issues there, but taken as a self-contained case, I think it's a great result. Contesting historical fact when apparently motivated by racial hate is a tad different from publishing cartoons that were considered to be disrespectful by some. I see what you'e saying, but I don't think it's a clear comparison. And freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. There's no such thing as total freedom. :)

Freedom of speech is not worth a damn if people are not free to say things that are offensive. In my opinion, unless you incite violence you should be able to say whatever you want.

I believe that the best way to deal with ignorance and bigotry is to argue against it. Banning people from expressing their opinion, no matter how outrageous is no way to deal with extremism. Current government legislation is starting to look increasingly Orwellian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is not worth a damn if people are not free to say things that are offensive. In my opinion, unless you incite violence you should be able to say whatever you want.

I believe that the best way to deal with ignorance and bigotry is to argue against it. Banning people from expressing their opinion, no matter how outrageous is no way to deal with extremism. Current government legislation is starting to look increasingly Orwellian.

Yes I agree with a lot of this, but many would argue that he was inciting violence and racial hatred. The impact of anti-semitism is often under-estimated. It is a daily reality for Jewish communities all over the world, attacked by those citing the likes of Irving. Austrian courts take this incredibly seriously, not surprisingly. Sometimes an example needs to be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech is not worth a damn if people are not free to say things that are offensive. In my opinion, unless you incite violence you should be able to say whatever you want.

I believe that the best way to deal with ignorance and bigotry is to argue against it. Banning people from expressing their opinion, no matter how outrageous is no way to deal with extremism. Current government legislation is starting to look increasingly Orwellian.

Agreed, well put (it good to hear form a fellow pastafarian)

Sometimes an example needs to be made

Its at too higher cost in my opinion, its a slippery slope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its at too higher cost in my opinion, its a slippery slope

Too high for who? Anti-semetics? So what would you rather? The slippery slope to racial hatred going unchecked in 'civilised' society? Come on! A little bit of empathy is all it takes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he not subsequently accept that it did happen, having seen original records of killings? In which case he has just been jailed for something he no longer believes (if you take him at face-value of course).

I am uncomfortable with jailing people for beliefs. In essence this is what has happened, even though it is for "denying the holocaust".

Surely anyone who is a real danger with respect to anti-semitism would be able to be pinned on a number of other things rather than simply "holocaust denial". Actual inciting of racial hatred, for example, (assuming laws like this exist in Austria)?

Displaying the swastika is illegal in Germany. Could it not be argued that this is really a form of denial of the past too? Are the German authorities 'guilty' of holocaust denial too? Are they sweeping their history under the carpet?

I think that laws like these are not particularly helpful. Those who seek to deny could actually benefit from them because they can argue that there is something to hide by outlawing the opposing viewpoint.

It also makes it difficult for legitimate research or even telling the story if it is banned to even display the symbols.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What aspect?

The fact that someone can go to prison for three years for an opinion, that is so ridiculous it is almost laughable.

All this does is give an undeserved gravitas to his argument.

The problem is essentially that it is seen as anti Semitic. If he had said that the whole of WW2 didn`t take place, then people would have just laughed, even though this included the holocaust.

It is this creeping protection of religion that winds me up. Religion is nothing less than control of the masses and as such would not be able to survive without legalised child abuse in the form of indoctrination.

How long will it be before people want to make it illegal for that kind of opinion to be expressed.

Anyone would think that the Enlightenment never happened :angry:

Limpet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that someone can go to prison for three years for an opinion, that is so ridiculous it is almost laughable.

All this does is give an undeserved gravitas to his argument.

The problem is essentially that it is seen as anti Semitic. If he had said that the whole of WW2 didn`t take place, then people would have just laughed, even though this included the holocaust.

It is this creeping protection of religion that winds me up. Religion is nothing less than control of the masses and as such would not be able to survive without legalised child abuse in the form of indoctrination.

How long will it be before people want to make it illegal for that kind of opinion to be expressed.

Anyone would think that the Enlightenment never happened :angry:

Limpet

But this isn't as much to do with religion as it is to do with race. It's not a protection of religion - it's a protection of historical fact and of a race, some of which may not be particularly religious, but are still directly impacted by this kind of anti-semetic sentiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But this isn't as much to do with religion as it is to do with race. It's not a protection of religion - it's a protection of historical fact and of a race, some of which may not be particularly religious, but are still directly impacted by this kind of anti-semetic sentiment.

Ah yes the old race versus religion deal eh?

I take your point that race can be seperate from religion, even in a race that, to many of us, is almost defined by it`s religion.

Regarding the question of race , I find it disturbing that so many peoples opinions are centred around the subject of race at all.

I personally am more of a live and let live , and if you go back far enough we`re all the same, kind of guy.

My problem though is that by reacting in such a way, they are in fact dignifying his stance with an answer, instead of us all ridiculing him for the loony that he is.

After all if making an @rse of yourself got you locked up, I would have spent half my life in the pokey.

Limpet :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes the old race versus religion deal eh?

I take your point that race can be seperate from religion, even in a race that, to many of us, is almost defined by it`s religion.

Regarding the question of race , I find it disturbing that so many peoples opinions are centred around the subject of race at all.

I personally am more of a live and let live , and if you go back far enough we`re all the same, kind of guy.

My problem though is that by reacting in such a way, they are in fact dignifying his stance with an answer, instead of us all ridiculing him for the loony that he is.

After all if making an @rse of yourself got you locked up, I would have spent half my life in the pokey.

Limpet :(

Lol! I think it's just a reflection of the harm that his views have done. There are loads of laws that protect people from what others say. This is just one of them. By utilising such laws countries aren't giving credence to the views expressed. They are simply saying, what you are doing is so damaging that you need to be punished for it. A line has been crossed that's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Displaying the swastika is illegal in Germany. Could it not be argued that this is really a form of denial of the past too? Are the German authorities 'guilty' of holocaust denial too? Are they sweeping their history under the carpet?

I think that laws like these are not particularly helpful. Those who seek to deny could actually benefit from them because they can argue that there is something to hide by outlawing the opposing viewpoint.

It also makes it difficult for legitimate research or even telling the story if it is banned to even display the symbols.

This also effects us. Many computer games which use WW2 as part of their story line cannot use the Swastika in it's correct historical context because such games could not then be sold in Germany. So games made for the European market (UK included) have the Swasika "airbrushed out of history.

More worryingly games publishers have taken to replacing the Swastika with a black cross which may give the impression that the Nazi Party was in some way "christian".

As for Irving I don't think he deserved to be imprisoned for his views rather his views should be countered with evidence thats supports "the Holocaust". What kind of truth is so weak that it must imprison reasoning skeptics who dare to question it?

Question is why did Austria decide to arrest and try him now as opposed to the many other times he has visited that country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This also effects us. Many computer games which use WW2 as part of their story line cannot use the Swastika in it's correct historical context because such games could not then be sold in Germany. So games made for the European market (UK included) have the Swasika "airbrushed out of history.

More worryingly games publishers have taken to replacing the Swastika with a black cross which may give the impression that the Nazi Party was in some way "christian".

As for Irving I don't think he deserved to be imprisoned for his views rather his views should be countered with evidence thats supports "the Holocaust". What kind of truth is so weak that it must imprison reasoning skeptics who dare to question it?

Question is why did Austria decide to arrest and try him now as opposed to the many other times he has visited that country?

It's not weak. That's the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not weak. That's the point.

So why does it need a law banning discussion? The truth will out.

(BTW I believe that "the holocaust" occured...whether it was 6 million by gassing or 1 million by gassing and the rest by starvation/disease makes little difference to the scale of the crime or its inhumanity IMHO.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why does it need a law banning discussion? The truth will out.

(BTW I believe that "the holocaust" occured...whether it was 6 million by gassing or 1 million by gassing and the rest by starvation/disease makes little difference to the scale of the crime or its inhumanity IMHO.)

Why do we need any such laws (eg libel and slander)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we need any such laws (eg libel and slander)?

Because libel and slander are to do with comments made about individuals. These individuals have little or no avenues of correcting any inaccurate statements whereas statements that a highly documented and widely understood event did not take place are easily countered.

I take the argument that the 6 million victims can not defend themselves at all, but there is really no danger of serious doubt arising as to whether or not the holocaust actually happened hence to have laws to specifically protect this assertion is neither helpful nor necessary.

Libel and slander laws are important, although the practicalities of it mean that it's still not feasible for the small man to actually use them. This does not mean that the laws themselves should not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because libel and slander are to do with comments made about individuals. These individuals have little or no avenues of correcting any inaccurate statements whereas statements that a highly documented and widely understood event did not take place are easily countered.

I take the argument that the 6 million victims can not defend themselves at all, but there is really no danger of serious doubt arising as to whether or not the holocaust actually happened hence to have laws to specifically protect this assertion is neither helpful nor necessary.

Libel and slander laws are important, although the practicalities of it mean that it's still not feasible for the small man to actually use them. This does not mean that the laws themselves should not exist.

I believe we need laws that protect too. The problem with this particular case is that holocaust denial does exist, usually for racially motivated reasons, rather than as a debate about the minutiae of historical fact. Don't forget that racial hatred is a daily reality for many, not just Jews. The Austrian legal system has these laws in place. If he'd wanted to avoid jail (and he still might through appeal) then he knew what he needed to do. Don't underestimate the harm done by holocaust denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man is a prize ****, nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is, and, I suspect, has a self-destructive streak that means he's probably quite happy to go to prison as a martyr to his deranged beliefs. I don't believe we should give him the satisfaction. He ought to be free to peddle his crackpot theories to whatever sad lunatics want to listen. The rest of us can just laugh at him.

Read one of the books he wrote when he was still a semi-respectable historian: Biography of Rommel. Even that was suspect in a few places e.g. he claimed German 88mm guns were ineffective against Sherman tanks. Not true, as many allied tank crews found out to their cost. If he can't even get well established technical details like that right why should he be taken seriously on anything else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 336 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.