Harry’s Place

Thanks David T for picking this one up. Now I’ll read and comment.

What is the motive for Holocaust Denial? Its not simply that someone denies the existence of The Holocaust at all but seeks to minimise its scope. Why? Why would you want to minimise what The Holocaust was?

One reason is the right-wing fascist and Nazi program to demonise Jews. Remember that The Holocaust was the ultimate evil culmination of a program of Antisemitism. The dead can’t be hurt but the living can.

The purpose of Holocaust Denial (and Minimalisation) is simply to re-assert the Nazi program against the living Jews. By Denial/Minimisisng you seek to assert a canard against Jews. It says

“You are wingeing Jews who want to control and manipulate the World and dominate it. For that reason you bumped up the scale of The Holocaust to make us feel guilty and give you a free ride. Its all part of your plan, We are on to you. The Holocaust was a pin-prick and just another part of your plan to make us feel guilty and walk all over us”

In the Arab/Muslim World it goes one step further. It says:-

“You Jews manipulated The Holocaust and made it seem worse than it really is because you wanted sympathy to create Israel. Well we know its all lies”

Denial/Revision tries to hide itself as some intellectual exercise solely for the persuit of Truth. It seeks to revise the truth ONLY to create another reason why people should hate Jews.

Its root is undoubtedly Antisemitism. If you disagree then tell us what the purpose is.

Finally, while the number of survivors is dimishing is this any reason to ignore THEIR pain and suiffering by Holocaust Denial/Revision? What if such Denial/Revision took place in 1950, 1960 - when many of us could see the hollow eyes of Holocaust survivors and read the number tatooed on their flesh.

Its a generational thing. I have already declared my approximate age and so I think I rank in front of many of you with personal experience and not just articles.

Head:

Chris Huhne is right, but not for the reason you say David. It has nothing to do with the issues surrounding whether Denial should be a crime.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002F0584:EN:NOT

It is to do with the wording of the Directive on the European Arrest Warrant. Specifically Article 2 clause 2 and Article 4 clause 1.

2/2 sets out the offences for which EAW can be used and Holocaust Denial isn’t one of them.

That’s sufficient for the UK Judge to refuse Toben’s extradition.

But in addition Article 4, 1 says that even if Holocaust Denial WAS in the 2/2 list, the UK cannot issue an EAW if Holocaust Denial is not an offence in the UK - which it isn’t.

There is also the issue that Germany regards the whole Internet as being within national jurisdiction (Toben committed the offence while sitting at a keyboard in Australia, not in Germany)

Heart:

String the b*stard ….. and the UK should respect Germany’s laws…

Another fallacy. “Let The Holocaust Denier go free because we can desatroy him/her with debate”

NO!!!!!

They aren’t interested in debate. They are only interested in broadcast and events with supporters. They only want to recruit new Jew haters

“See, Ali, I told you there was no Holocaust. Those theiving Jews stole Palestine on a lie. Allah Akhbar!”

Have you forgotten Asghar Bukhari’s cheque to David Irving and offers to get him support via some websites (presumably Islamist websites). You see, if we don’t strongly punish Holocaust Denial/Revision then people will just use it for the next Holocaust to finish the job (as we often read on extremist Nazi and Jihadist websites).

(Sorry I had two goes. I feel VERY passionate about this)

But in addition Article 4, 1 says that even if Holocaust Denial WAS in the 2/2 list, the UK cannot issue an EAW if Holocaust Denial is not an offence in the UK - which it isn’t.

But Antisemitism IS a race hate crime! You want to argue that his (Toben’s) motive is NOT Antisemitic?

There is also the issue that Germany regards the whole Internet as being within national jurisdiction (Toben committed the offence while sitting at a keyboard in Australia, not in Germany)

Gary Glitter commited his paedophilia in a bedroom outside the UK but would have been arrested for it in the UK.

If Chris Huhne believes in freedom of speech then I challenge him to host a conference called “Why Paedophilia is Good for Kids”. (Ughh!)

David T: “looks set to be deported to Germany”

£5 you’re wrong … ok?

Look, these people are liars. Not only are they liars, they are deliberately lying, either to persuade others that their lies are true, or merely to enjoy the spectacle of the bereaved, upset.

What sort of person does that? We know the answer to that perfectly well.

The thing is: you either stick up for the principle of freedom of expression, or you don’t.

Jonathan

I really don’t know what the courts will decide.

The legal argument, which you’ve sent out above, would give the courts an opportunity to reject the warrant, on sensible grounds. I had considered the application of Article 10 of the ECHR: but Article 10 has not struck down Germany’s anti-denial laws, so I would imagine it will be of little assistance to Toben.

Nevertheless, I can’t quite believe that this man will be extradited to Germany.

So, I won’t take that bet.

Maven

“Racism and xenophobia” is indeed on the 2/2 list. But Article 4, 1 then comes into play. ‘Holocaust Denial’ is not an offence in the UK so my reading is that the letter of the law is: the UK cannot issue an EAW to extradite Toben to Germany.

David

I’m glad you didn’t take the bet - I’m feeling less confident

I am totally opposed to judicial extra-territorialism. No nation state has a right to impose it’s jurisdiction on another, and if it did we might find ourselves being subjected to some very oppressive measures none of us ever voted for. (And our paedophilia laws are no exception. Regardless of popular revulsion at that obscenity, we have no right to meddle with the sovereignty of other nations.)

If this Toben character could be shown to have committed an offence in English Law, I would support his extradition. But it appears he has not.

And I do wish governments would stop regarding the web as some sort of extension of their authority. That’s the kind of anschluss we can all do without.

Maven -

People distort history for all sorts of reasons. We know that Israelis have at various times distorted history by denying there is a “Palestinian” people. Before you give me a lecture about the Ottoman Empire, remember there wasn’t a state called Israel before the late forties and there were no Israelis. If you are going to tell me there was a Jewish nation, well we are back to square one, because clearly there are millions of Jews around the world who have made a decision not to be a part of the Israeli state, despite the welcome awaiting them if they chose to seek Israeli citizenship. My point is that plenty of Israelis have denied the right of Palestinians to self-determination, and have distorted history in order to do so, just as Palestinians seek to deny Israelis the right to self-determination and distort history to do so (e.g. trying to make out the foundation of Israel was exclusively a reaction to the Holocaust).

We can’t right every historical wrong by legislation. Even if we could it would be unethical because in the process we destroy free speech.

But perhaps you don’t care about free speech.

Can you confirm that it is your view that anyone who challenges the right of Jewish people to have a state in Palestine should be held guilty of a crime (antisemitism i.e. race hatred) and should be arrestable anywhere on the globe?

And can you confirm that you also consider any Native American who challenges the legitimacy of the USA, or Australian Aborigine who challenges the legitimacy of the Australian state or Maori that challenges the legitimacy of the New Zealand state or Tibetan who challenges the legitimacy of the Chinese state should in your view similarly be arrestable anywhere on the globe and subject to legal sanction?

I’m going to watch a repeat of Who Do You Think You Are, and so I’m just going to park this short comment here. Try not to get too distracted by it - I just want to make this point quickly.

Although I generally oppose the use of the law, illegitimately to punish or otherwise restrict, speech - except in the cases that I’ve discussed above and previously - I do not think that there are any circumstances in which a private enterprise - a blog, a newspaper, a theatre - should be obliged to publish speech. The denial of a private platform to a person is not a free speech issue.

field/Maven

This is a discussion worth happening. Can you try to do it in a way which focuses on the issues of principle, rather than the specifics of the examples. Otherwise, this will get completely off topic.

David, I’m not sure whether or not you include incitement to racism or racist abuse in your definition of “free speech to be defended”. Free speech seems to me to be about expression of opinions, but not incitement to harm others.

Holocaust deniers are not people who merely express opinions. They promote and disseminate fraudulent “evidence” as well as racist assertions about the role of Jews, with the purpose of inciting racist hatred of Jews and support for political action against Jews. Do you think the relevant sections of the Race Relations Act should be repealed? Should it be possible to publish articles advocating the benefits of paedophile sex acts?

I hope they extradite Toben. And that the Germans lock him up for a good long stretch.

Good point David. But what’s the relevance to the Toben case?

Lying about history should not be a crime. Even when it is done from the mosy godawful hate-filled motives.

Does anyone else think that the BBC’s headline horribly misrepresents Chris Huhne? He doesn’t “back” Toben, merely supports his right to free speech.

Ross

I agree completely

The BBC headline is:

“MP backing for ‘Holocaust denier’ “

It’s an awful misrepresentation

BBC:

“MP backing for ‘Holocaust denier’ ”

You’re right, Jonathan. That a real sorry deal.

You too, Ross.

Jonathan:

I just thought that the conversation might get diverted into that discussion and wanted to head it off.

Judy

I do think that the ‘incitement’ laws ought to be restricted, in their application, to cases in which there is direct encouragement of violence. So, I think that a preacher telling the faithful that they should attack members of another faith or ethnic group, should be unlawful. However, I don’t think that a preacher who tells his flock that members of another faith or ethnic group are going to hell should be prosecuted.

The incitement laws are overbroad. Their effect is mitigated by the fact that the Attorney General rarely consents to ‘bad’ prosecutions. However, that discretion is no way to run a legal system.

Ross

Yes, I thought precisely that. I suspect that it was deliberately designed to create a false impression of Huhne’s argument, and was - at best - mischievous. I nearly mentioned it in the post, but I wanted to concentrate on the main issue. I wish I had, now.

Actually, I will.

Do holocaust denial laws actually do anything to prevent the rise of extremist parties anyway?

As David Irving found out Austria has such laws, yet when you look at the recent election results over there it is hard to argue that they are effective.

The fact that some other EU Member States allow themselves derogations from the EAW Directive (always in the direction of non-extradition) may well encourage the British Judge not to extradite Toben. Chris Huhne points out that Belgium refuses to send suspects to Poland on murder charges which relate to abortion (Poland has the strictest abortion laws in the EU).

Judy -

The problem is you cannot restrict this principle you are enunciating to Holocaust deniers. Chinese state officials who distort the historical record, do so with a view to persecuting millions of people - Tibetans who want rid of their Han Chinese oppressors.

Most Muslim commentators deny Hindu claims that millions of Muslims were massacred and enslaved by Muslim invaders.

I agree with David T that the laws on incitement need to be carefully framed so as to catch direct incitement to violence.

We know Muslim preachers say horrible things about Kuffars like myself, citing our alleged moral deficiencies compared with the famous ethical followers of Islam. I can take that in a free society. But if they say “let’s plot together to bomb the Kuffars” or “let’s subvert their democracy and bring it down so we can install Shariah law” that’s a different matter.

Germany actually has very good laws that prevent extremists like Nazis subverting democracy. It is a shame they have muddied the waters with their (understandable, given their history) wish to outlaw Holocaust denial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7652000/7652212.stm

The discussion this morning on ‘Today’ between Chris Huhne and Joshua Rozenberg is worth listening to…..

Posh university boy can’t spell ‘Adelaide’.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7652000/7652212.stm

The dicussion this morning on BBC R4 ‘Today’ (Chis Huhne, Joshua Rozenberg) is worth listening to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7652000/7652212.stm

The debate on this morning’s ‘Today’ is worth listening to (Chris Huhne and Joshua Rozenberg)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7652000/7652212.stm

This morning’s ‘Today’ is worth listening to (Chris Huhne, Joshua Rozenberg)

BTW, how exactly are you planning to defend Töben? Are you going to stand outside the court with a placard? Link arms with fellow Saucers and form a cordon around him? Go in ‘tooled-up’ and set about his ‘oppressors’? Or are you going to offer him your lawyerly services? The rights and freedoms of those he denies went up a fucking chimney. There is a direct, causal link between denial and violence and murder of minorities you ignorant, repugnant, thick twat.

the UK cannot issue an EAW to extradite Toben to Germany.

You should have thought of that before you voted for or supported the EU.

Mayhaps Chris Hunhe will now rethink his fanatical Europhilia now that he seen first hand the effects that it has?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7652000/7652212.stm

The debate on BBCR4 Today this morning is worth listening to

(Chris Huhne, Joshua Rozenberg)

Morgoth: It would be no different if the EU did not exist: the Courts would still be very reluctant to extradite someone for something that isn’t a crime in the UK.

Lapel -

On my Lapel is “Fight Fascism - Defend Free Speech”. Suppressing free speech is a sign of a fascist society not a free one.

Your intemperate abuse towards those who disagree with you is rather revealing.

So, I think that a preacher telling the faithful that they should attack members of another faith or ethnic group, should be unlawful. However, I don’t think that a preacher who tells his flock that members of another faith or ethnic group are going to hell should be prosecuted.

This seems to me to present a much too simplistic view of what does and doesn’t constitute incitement to racial hatred. Even the Nazis did not openly tell non-Jewish Germans to attack Jews. Instead, they poured out endless vicious lies about Jews, designed to convince their fellow Germans that they were acting to control and enslave them, and then talked about the “spontaneous boiling over of rage” of the German people in response to the “crimes” of the Jews.

Contemporary anti-semitic invective uses similar tactics–it’s always about hidden Jewish control of leaders against the interests of the people they should serve, about cheating the people out of money etc etc. Ideas like these do incite towards acts as well as attitudes of racism. It’s hardly an accident that the suicide bombers of Hamas and Al Qaeda are indoctrinated with ideologies which are saturated with extreme anti-semitism and regard themselves as being at war with all Jews.

The outpourings of Toben are certainly not about portraying the Jews as a people going to hell. They’re about representing Jews as subverting and controlling the political power and wealth of ordinary people. And they are intended to rouse those people to act against them.

Coincidentally, how about this story?. I think the circulation of a DVD like that would be illegal under UK law. Do you support its publication without prosecution?

Judy is spot on.

If I hadn’t read Field’s comments before I would have been astonished at his historical illiteracy, and I hope that he goes out and purchases a Deborah Lipstadt book shortly.

However, we are not just talking about lies here, there is a wider picture, and posters should consider these issues.

Holocaust deniers have one long-term objective, the rehabilitation of National Socialism, the Nazi philosophy, that is their underlying aim.

And to draw simplistic analogies with other “lies” is to miss the point.

Holocaust deniers are happy to get support from anyone, even naive and gullible liberals who somehow feel the freedom of speech to rehabilitate Adolf Hitler is defensible or worthwhile.

Let us not forget that no one restricted the Nazis freedom of speech, that’s what they play on, pouring out poison, monopolising the airways for their xenophobic and racist filth, eventually gaining control of the streets and by that time any, and I mean, any “debating the issue” will long since be gone.

So when you think about directly or indirectly assisting these Holocaust deniers please try to remember Emil Fackenheim’s point:

“Thou Shalt Not Give Hitler a Posthumous Victory”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7652000/7652212.stm

BBC R4 Today on the Toben case is worth listening to (Chris Huhne and Joshua Rozenberg)

Morgoth: If there was no EU, it would probably not be different: UK Judges would be most unlikely to extradite to Germany for something that isn’t a crime in the UK.

“Let us not forget that no one restricted the Nazis freedom of speech”

Not the case:

“There is, in fact, little historical basis to the claim that the Weimar Republic was a bastion of free speech, tragically overwhelmed by unfettered Nazi agitation. Paragraph 166 of the Weimar Criminal Code stated ‘whoever publicly insults one of the Christian churches or another existing religious society with rights of corporation in the federal jurisdiction, its institutions, or customs … will be punished with a prison term of up to three years’ (emphasis added).(21) This included hate speech against Jews, and there were plenty of such convictions under Paragraph 166 and other provisions. For example, the oft-prosecuted Nazi publisher Julius Streicher (author of the anti-Semitic weekly newspaper Der Sturmer and a contemptible and marginal individual widely hated by his own party colleagues), was handed a two-month prison sentence in 1929 for ‘libelling the Jewish religion under Paragraph 166 of the Weimar Penal Code.’ As a result of the jail sentence, ‘Streicher’s racial views received more publicity than if Der Sturmer had been allowed to publish unchallenged … within weeks of the verdict, the Nazi Party tripled its 1927 vote in the Thuringian Landtag elections’—an outcome that should give pause to any aspiring censors.(22) “

http://www.cis.org.au/policy/spring_08/edwards_spring08.html

For those who support Germany in this matter - do you seriously support and advocate the acceptability of a legally enforceable state mandated version of history?

Seriously?

Dr Goebbels may have had quibbles with the details in this case, but he was in full agreement with the principle you are supporting. Is this really and truly the company you want to keep?

as it happens I suspect that Goebbels would have thrown his full support behind Toben

The whole point here is that within our own territory, we are bound only by the laws of our own democracy, and that is how it must stay. Parliament has no right to subject us to foreign laws.

If English Law allows Toben to be extradited for something that is not illegal here, it won’t protect you or me from being extradited for voicing critical opinions.

Those commenters who want to see Holocaust denial criminalised in the UK should campaign for Parliament to do so. But don’t do it through the back door method of ushering in the laws of foreign states over which we have no democratic influence.

And invoking the spectre of Hitler isn’t exactly helpful, when you take the time to work out just how he would be using this warrant were he alive today. We would all be under arrest.

I guess free speech stops here at denying the holocaust in WWII Germany. However, freedom of speech to lie that causes the killing of hundreds of thousands around the world is quite alright amongst democratic nations. — While I understand the point, it is not just nor logical.

We are seeing signs of the world waking up to the hypocrisy and as is mentioned in the teachings of Muslims, the Christian-Islamo alliance that will fight injustices around the world. 5pillar.wordpress.com

“Let us not forget that no one restricted the Nazis freedom of speech, that’s what they play on, pouring out poison, monopolising the airways for their xenophobic and racist filth, eventually gaining control of the streets ”

They gained control because every voice raised against them was silenced by violence. They wiped out freedom of speech.

“Those commenters who want to see Holocaust denial criminalised in the UK should campaign for Parliament to do so”

that’s not the issue, I personally don’t, but I think it is the height of foolishness to assist, aid or other help Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis or the real thing in ANY way shape or form.

Freedom of speech protects even the vile. No doubt if he added the right jargon he could find a job in higher ed.

I have read the Lipstadt books but they do not tell the full picture of this story. Holocaust denial is an abuse of history but it is one on many abuses.

One can read about slavery and the crimes against American Indian and even the most patriotic American acknowledges them. In general history
neglects the subject of non western colonialism and Jim Crow treatment
of non Muslim minorities. No American should ever defend Jim Crow, but talk to most Muslims about the treatment of religious minorities and you will get denial and rationalizations.

This man’s work is vile but even Lipstadt herself did not argue for imprisonment. Her response was to ignore this type and do not give them the benefit of a respose

I think it is the height of foolishness to assist, aid or other help Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis or the real thing in ANY way shape or form.

Even to the extent of granting them the rights and protections which make us different to them?

Even they allow speech they agree with.

Modernity -

Adopting a patronising tone is not the same thing as proving the superiority of your argument.

I can assure you that there is nothing you can teach me about Nazism, neo-Nazism or German history. I have read extensively on the subject. I’ve also read extensively on other forms of totalitarianism such as Islam and Communism.

The fragility of your argument is exposed when you say later that you yourself don’t actually support the introduction of holocaust denial legislation in the UK. So it appears that in reality all you are concerned about is that it is unseemly to defend a Nazi from being persecuted for voicing his opinions.

The Nazis gained control in Germany not through the operation of free speech - the reality was quite different. The truth is the state was weak. Its courts with its Volkisch judges in effect refused to defend the constitution. It did nothing to stop the growth of private armies. It slapped the Pustchists on the wrist when it should have hanged them. Its constitutional laws allowed people dedicated to the overthrowing democracy the right to participate in democracy and subvert it from within. Large parts of the political establishment were secretly or not so secretly antipathetic to democracy.

It was that which allowed the Nazis to get into power as part of a coalition and then allowed them to proceed to wreck the constitution by legalising the illegal.

It was nothing to do with allowing free speech.

First, what kind of truth requires State enforcement?

Second, has anyone read the Universal Declaration on Human Rights recently?

It is rather unambiguous. Here’s Article 19:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Finally, if the Nazi plot to exterminate millions of civilian Jews using homicidal gas chambers is indubitable as claimed, please explain why de Gaulle, Churchill and Eisenhower never mentioned the topic once in their memoirs?

These memoirs amount to more than 7,000 pages, written in the fifteen years following World War Two (at a time when the term ‘Holocaust’ was yet to be coined to signify World War Two events - that came later).

None of those authors were noted for sympathy to the Nazi cause.

Were Winston, Charles and Ike all ‘Holocaust Deniers”?

Well Syd - you sound like a holocaust denier but it is an interesting point.

Even more interesting is the way the Palestinian JEWISH press ignored the holocaust while it was taking place. Apart from a few stray articles, there was v. little said about it.

That doesn’t lead me to doubt it. It just shows how complex are these historical currents.

In fact the absence of comment I think gives the lie to the idea that the holocaust was a plot to get support for a Jewish state in Palestine.

The reality was that the Jewish press in Palestine was v. much focussed on Palestine and that Jews there had a certain disdain for those Jews left behind in Europe who had not had the courage to make a bid for freedom.

Yes, free speech is important.

But I am much more in agreement with Karl Pfeifer in the post below than I am with David in this one. It is not that I do not think his defence of free speech admirable - in some ways I do.

But free speech is not the be-all-and-end-all.

I consider Germany’s anti-Holocaust Denial laws absolutely reasonable and acceptable. There is nothing about such laws which offend against the true principles of a liberal democratic society. That does not mean I would argue for such laws to be introduced here; I would not. It isn’t necessary to do so. And free speech is important. But it is emphatically not incapable of being weighed in a pragmatic balancing of positive and pernicious effects.

Should this scumbag be extradited? Well, on a very legalistic point, I think it rather retrograde that Germany should attempt some sort of universal jurisdication on this matter. The fact the offense (which was not one in the place it was committed) wss committed in Australia is relevant. So on that basis alone I would oppose his extradition. If he had done it in Germany, then I would very much be in favour of extradition.

On the othjer hand, fuck it. He’s a scumbag. I don’t think the Germans would be particularly untender in their ministrations.

On balance, I just don’t care. Or, rather, I can see pros and cons to each eventuality. I certainly will not weep or think it outrageous if he gets clapped in irons by the Germans. I’m all moral-outraged out for scum like Toben, I fear.

Syd -

My instinct about you appears correct.

Look at this link and it is clear Churchill had no doubt that the holocaust took place.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/churchill_holocaust_03.shtml

Ben -

Well how about looking at the principle rather than the person.

Toben is a moral imbecile, agreed.

But so are many people who come before our courts.

Should we abandon the principle of a fair trial?

And many horrible people harbour information about equally horrible crimes and perpetrators who may go on to commit further horrible crimes. Should we torture these people to stop these future crimes?

I believe that the good society is impossible without free speech. To the extent that Toben expresses his opinions, he does society a great service. It improves the standards of our historical scholarship. Historians, rather than simply accepting certain things as fact, now redouble their efforts to find the evidence. It makes us examine our own moral standards (can we defend all our conduct in WW2?). Finally it challenges our commitment to free speech - in the same way that an athlete should relish the challenging stretches and timed runs that make him super-fit.

Syd is providing a textbook example of how cranks operate. Cranks like Syd (as opposed to clowns like Flaker) take an inconsistent fact such as the lack of mention of the Holocaust in some diaries add some bigotry and conjecture and come up with a crackpot theory. These crackpot theories almost always involve dem joooos such as the plethora of 9-11 conspiracy idiocy.

I will demonstrate how easy it is to invent a new conspiracy. Both planes that crashed into the WTC carried salted snacks. The stores in the concourse sold thousands of bags of potato chips. This proves that
the salt deprived Klingons were the true culprits of 9-11. The missing potato chips was the inconvenient fact and I added my hatred of Klingons and we have a conspiracy theory.

Of course the Klingons could have purchased the chips at the supermarket but that is a trivial detail.

mesquito Lying about history should not be a crime. Even when it is done from the mosy godawful hate-filled motives.

Strange statement. If a person publishers a ‘history’ book full of lies, are you saying that there should be no recourse to the courts to stop publication???

Even if no hate is involved. A book full of lies. Historical lies. It can just stand. No legal recourse????

Let’s say that the UK was provocative in 1939 - 40 and actually ‘forced’ Nazi Germany to attack Poland. If that’s published in a book, no possibility of causing the author and the publisher worries through any legal procedure?????

Just let it stand and hope that serious knowledgeable people who would recognise that falsehood wouldn’t buy the book?

Only hate filled Nazi sympathisers would buy it.

On the subject of free speech, how about asking Mr Huhne to protest Pat Condell’s banning by YouTube?

No need to stoop to abusive language, Ben.

You wrote:

>>> “On the othjer hand, fuck it. He’s a scumbag. I don’t think the Germans would be particularly untender in their ministrations.”

That, Ben, is a textbook example of why I - like most normal people - prefer fredom of opinion, speech and religion to State-enforced ‘consensus’.

In part, that’s because it may quite accurately reflect the thought process of a London magistrate or judge, under pressure from very powerful interest groups whom he know can make him or her suffer, and who wants little more than to get back to the golf course and continue enjoying a comfortable life.

It’s shows clearly why magistrates and judges should NEVER be free to punish others for their opinions.

That one sentence betrays a mentality which is angry, incoherent, vulgar, evades the real moral and intellectual issues at stake - and is ultimately brutal in its effects.

I totally agree with David T’s post. And Oliver Kamm. There’s a rare thing.

I do support laws which criminalise speech that directly incites violence, particularly where there is a serious problem of (say) terrorism or racist attacks on cultural minorities. However, that connection has to be a close one.

A case can be made for criminalizing direct calls to violence.

However, that’s not the case with Holocaust denial. While it may be used by antisemitic agitators, it’s not a call to violence. The notion of punishing someone simply because he tells a lie is preposterous.

They aren’t interested in debate.

Not many people are actually interested in debate.

If a person publishers a ‘history’ book full of lies, are you saying that there should be no recourse to the courts to stop publication?

That’s right, there should be no recourse. On the other hand, if a techer uses the book for his classes, he can be fired, because he does have the obligation to make his students learn the truth.

I consider Germany’s anti-Holocaust Denial laws absolutely reasonable and acceptable. There is nothing about such laws which offend against the true principles of a liberal democratic society.

They may not offend any principle, but they certainly offend intelligence.

Incidentally, while the three allied war leaders were too preoccupied with other details to notice the “Holocaust” or mention it in thier memoirs, one man did promulgate the indubitable truth.

His name was Lord Victor Rothschild.

In a speech to the House of Lords in 1946, Victor reversed his previous reputation for ‘anti-Zionism and said:

“almost all the young Jews in Palestine had fathers, mothers and relations who were among the six million Jews tortured or gassed to death by Hitler”.

Rothschild was well-placed to make these definite statements. He had played a central role in ‘British Intelligence’ during the war.

As we all know, ‘British Intelligence’ - especially in times of war - is always 100% accurate in its assessments, never allows partisan advantage to stand in the way of the truth and has never made untrue allegation about its designated enemies.

This is a welcome shift to the left. Much better than taking out racist journalists in the Guardian and all that right wing stuff.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7652000/7652212.stm

BBC R4 Today on Saturday on the Toben case is worth listening to (Chris Huhne and Joshua Rozenberg)

Morgoth: If there was no EU, it would probably not be different: UK Judges would be most unlikely to extradite to Germany for something that isn’t a crime in the UK.

Even if no hate is involved. A book full of lies. Historical lies. It can just stand. No legal recourse????

On the subject of free speech, how about asking Mr Huhne to protest Pat Condell’s banning by YouTube?

Youtube is a private organisation, and it is under no obligation to give anyone a platform for any reason. Much as I am disappointed with Youtube, this is not a free speech issue. In fact, a representative of the state pressuring Youtube to reinstate Pat Condell would be an infringement of Youtubes free speech rights.

This is a welcome shift to the left. Much better than taking out racist journalists in the Guardian and all that right wing stuff.

Um, as someone who regards himself as right wing precisely because I argue for these principles of freedom I have some difficulty with this claim.

Judy - “Free speech seems to me to be about expression of opinions, but not incitement to harm others.”

You are entitled to your opinion but these laws do not ban the incitement to harm others. They ban questioning the official (and I hasten to add, true) narrative about the Holocaust. Toben has not called for anyone to be harmed. Why should he be punished even by your standards?

“Holocaust deniers are not people who merely express opinions. They promote and disseminate fraudulent “evidence” as well as racist assertions about the role of Jews, with the purpose of inciting racist hatred of Jews and support for political action against Jews.”

I am sorry but how can you make any such claim about a wide and disparate group of pathetic sad old men? You have read every single one of their works to know this? You are asserting a purpose to their work you do not and cannot know. Even if it were true, so what? Why should that be illegal?

“Do you think the relevant sections of the Race Relations Act should be repealed? Should it be possible to publish articles advocating the benefits of paedophile sex acts?”

I think the entire RRA ought to be abolished and why shouldn’t such articles be published given we already allow Plato’s works to be studied?

“I hope they extradite Toben. And that the Germans lock him up for a good long stretch.”

Well the spiteful response would be I hope they make a mistake and you rot in a Bulgarian prison for twenty years before they realise it, but that would be mean. Instead I will point out that countries that allow people like Tobin to express their opinion do not have a problem with Neo-Nazis. Those that pass laws to prevent them from doing so, do. Austria for instance. Since the Canadians started doing so, as Ezra Levant has pointed out, the number of such people has grown in Canada as well. Partly funded, it seems, by Jewish groups and the Canadian government.

Free societies do not need to fear free speech. Only those who think the nutters might be right. As much as I hate Tobin, he has a right to be heard, and then ignored.

What about this scenario …

Germany decided that only pre-processed food with less than 100 calories per serving had the right to be labeled ‘Reduced Calorie’.

I make a certain food product that has 150 calories per serving - but that is 50 calories less than a similar food produced by my chief competitor.

It is certainly a Reduced Calorie food compared to that of my chief competitor, and that is what I want to highlight during my advertising campaign.

But while my food product is popular in England, where I can call it a Reduced Calorie food; I now