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 want to market it in Germany.

Could I claim that my right to label my product a ‘Reduced Calorie’ product is a protected by my Freedom of Speech?

Or, must I follow labeling and packaging laws of Germany to introduce my food product on the German market?

Picking up holocaust deniers and anti-semites for expressing their demented opinions just gives them a wider audience, and also gives credence to the ongoing attempt by Islamic fascists to ban criticism of religion. If the holocaust cannot be criticized, then Islam should not be criticized, they say.

The fallacy of that comparison is obviously that the holocaust is based on historical facts and its a testable hypothesis, while the irrational, superstitious and farcical narratives of Islam can never be empirically tested.

By outlawing questioning of the holocaust, it follows that a lot of other criticism also gets outlawed.

And do you want to bet that it is mostly the anti-enlightenment illiberal post-left who are pushing for such banning of criticism and dissent?

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

BBC R4 Today yesterday 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.

‘So Much For Subtlety’ referred to “a wide and disparate group of pathetic sad old men”.

The Hasbara Buster, making a point about the limits of toleration, ventured “On the other hand, if a techer (sic) uses the book for his classes, he can be fired, because he does have the obligation to make his students learn the truth ”

Ah, I see. Teacher’s job these days is to “make his students learn the truth”. I expect they are quite good at it. 100% acceptance that 6 million Jews died in gas chambers following a Nazi extermination master-plan is probably a key performance criteria.

No wonder the only doubters left are pathetic old men… But not quite. Germar Rudolf, a chemist and researcher who was snatched a few years back from the USA and deported to Germany to answer thought crime charges… he left a young family at home.

Perhaps when he finally emerges from jail, ‘So Much For Subtlety’s description will apply to Germar Rudolf too?

Meanwhile, how is Mordechai Vanunu doing, I wonder? That brave young man got 18 years, most of them served in solitary, for whistle-blowing about Israel’s vast nuclear weaponry back in the mid 1980s. Now he’s not allowed to leave the coutnry (Israel), is forbidden to speak with journalists and foreigners - years AFTER his “release” from prison.

Amnesty International is too busy looking in any other direction to take up the case. So is Human Rights Watch.

Meanwhile, Vanunu turns from a young man into a much older man.

Amazing how time flies when you annoy powerful Zionists!

Then again, what type of behaviour can one expect of a movement that promotes an apartheid regime growing more violent by the year?

test

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

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

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.

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

BBC R4 Today (yesterday) 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.

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

It’s not letting me post URLs but you can ‘listen again’ from the BBC website

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

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.

Let him rot in jail.

“Toben has not called for anyone to be harmed. Why should he be punished even by your standards?”

If you think that calling the Jewish people a bunch of liars, intent on evil domination of the world is not incitement to violence, then what is? It is of course demonization, and you don’t invite a demon for tea.
Same with the nazis calling Jews “worms” or “parasites”. Of course that is also incitement to violence.
The problem is, most of the people who seem detached about the subject, and can consider cooly if it is an issue of free-speech, were never in the receiving end of that kind of violent rhetoric. (and historical experience of losing 1/3 of our people).

There are two threads running here (at least).

1. Should Toben be extradicted

2. Why can’t I deny/minimise The Holocaust if I want to. Note that its not simply denial that The Holocaust took place but its also about minimising it in order to prove “Then Joos manipulated the troof again”

The answer ro (1) is binary. If there is no part of British Law that recognises that he has a case to answer because we don’t prosecute in that area then we can’t extradict him.

If we recognise Holocaust Denial as Antisemitism and believe his views are likely to lead to the promotion of Antisemitism then I guess we can deport him as an undesireable.

Point (2) has never been answered by anyone here except I find some posters are positively salivating about trying to re-write history because it attacks Jews. I cannot find ANY motive other than being Antisemitically inspired to want to revise The Holocaust. As I said early on its the device that Nazis and Islamist use to try and get to the Jews who survived. They just want another stick to try and prove their Antisemitic fantasies articulated in The Protocols. Its a house of cards. Get The Holocaust revised and now you have PROOF that Jews control The World and stole Palestine on a wave of sympathy.

Its nothing to do with legitimate historical research. Why would you want to go out of your way to try and prove 6m Jews DIDN’T perish in The Holocaust?

The Huhne thing is a sideshow. Yes, BBC article is stupid. Why does Huhne have to say he is against Antisemitism? Do we suspect he is otherwise. By using this phrase then Huhne clearly defines Toben as an Antisemite. Huhne could have said he was simply against Holocaust Deniers. Huhne’s comment labels Toben an Antisemite and so it p[rovides scope for Toben’s deportation for the point I made above.

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?

One obvious reason would be that all felt rather uncomfortable discussing the issue, given all could and should have done more to both prevent and mitigate the worst effects of the Final Solution.

As you bob your grandchildren on your knee, you’re hardly likely to mention that your racist cunt, either.

It might be worth tossing in the report at The Grauniad for some balance/insight http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/02/secondworldwar.australia

I do think that the ‘incitement’ laws ought to be restricted, in their application, to cases in which there is direct encouragement of violence. ………….
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.

David T, is there a big difference between ‘incitement’ and ‘encouragement’?

Suppose I present some historical context that states The Titanic was torpedoed and never met an iceberg? Its sensational but doesn’t really change much.

Suppose you have centuries of Jew Hate and supported by conspiracy theories which are all defined as clearly Antisemitic. Then you have a revision of The Holocaust such that you make it fit with the existing Antisemitic tropes that Jews control and manipulate The World. Then I say that its ‘encouragement’ for those who already believed the other stuff to then use it to further demonise and attack Jews on the basis that they obviously are manipulators of truth in order to gain control.

Holocaust Denial is a tool to help unleash Antisemitism which we know leads to physical attacks.

Hence it INCITES people to violence by giving them further ‘evidence’ as to why people should hate Jews.

I quote George Galloway (!). “Freedom of speech isn’t freedom to shout ‘Fire’ in a crowded cinema”.

Holocaust Denial is a unique subset of historical revision that has a race hate purpose behind it. It is done to incite/encourage attacks on Jews.

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.

What happened to the Ch4 outed ranters who said of homosexuals “Kill Them! Kill Them!”

Islamic hate preachers disparage the Kuffar all the time. Refer to us a lesser people with political agendas to do down and kill Muslims.

Result? 7/7! So, where are the prosecutions for incitement to kill?

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?

HP posters, please note that Syd Walker is a Stormfront Front ( cockney rhyming slang)

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=515467

Fuck Off Antisemite Jew Hater!!

Syd Walker, you have a lot to say for yourself and all of it an affront to human dignity and the careful craft of a knuckle scraper who’s taken writing lessons from Nick Griffin. Come clean, what is your role at Stormfront?

Fabian from Israel - “If you think that calling the Jewish people a bunch of liars, intent on evil domination of the world is not incitement to violence, then what is? It is of course demonization, and you don’t invite a demon for tea.”

It is calling the Jewish people a bunch of liars intent on evil domination of the world (as am I by the way, at least that evil domination thing). That is not an incitement to violence. Calling the Jewish people a bunch of liars intent on evil domination of world who should all be shot is an incitement to violence. Even then I would want to see a pretty close link to any “incitement” and an actual act of violence. Someone who rushed out in a moment of excitement and murdered someone else.

It may be demonisation and I would not want Tobin to come for tea (and the poor citizens of Adelaide must be mortified that he uses their rather dull nondescript city’s name for his “institute”). But that does not mean he deserves to be in jail either.

“Same with the nazis calling Jews “worms” or “parasites”. Of course that is also incitement to violence.”

No it is not. It is calling Jews worms and parasites. Again, there is a simple practical issue here - in societies where Tobin is free to spill his filth, he is ignored and of no interest. Where he is not, the Neo-Nazis are doing well. It is reasonable to assume that your aims are not being served well by your means. A free society does not need to fear these pathetic men.

“The problem is, most of the people who seem detached about the subject, and can consider cooly if it is an issue of free-speech, were never in the receiving end of that kind of violent rhetoric. (and historical experience of losing 1/3 of our people).”

Perhaps. However being a victim does not make the victim right. The question that ought to be asked is how did Britain avoid Fascism - virtually the only European power without a significant Fascist group. How did America? The obvious answer may have something to do with the fact that such opinions were not banned and so everyone could see how vile these people were.

To those calling for his extradition, what if Pakistan or Iran called for Peter Tatchell’s extradition?

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?

Because, as I am sure you are well aware, a likely majority of the victims met their fates in open-air killings. Furthermore, the main centres were located behind what became the Iron Curtain, under the sway of a political force which had its own reasons for opposing Jewish political independence. Finally, the true minutiae and scale of what did happen took some decades to become publicly known. For instance, World at War televised four years after Churchill died, the year Eisenhower died and the year before de Gaulle croaked.

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

Are you suggesting they did not discuss any Jewish deaths? Or are you seizing on the non-point of gas-chambers?

That said, at least Syd is using a standard handle. Unlike the above skulking creep, WtoYL.

Posh university? Southampton?

Yesterday David was accused of taking an interest only in those forms of racism which affect him. Now he’s defending a high priest of it. Yesterday David was accused of conducting witch-hunts to get people sacked. Now he’s defending someone whom he considers repellent against extradition.

You couldn’t make it up. But WtoYL just did.

In his court appearance earlier this week, Dr Toben, 64, claimed he was the victim of a “legal ambush” and promised never to return to Britain if he was allowed to leave.

Sounds like a fair deal.

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?

Alec has dealt with this, but to put it all into some kind of context, how come none of them mentioned exactly what had happened to the remains of the dictator that they had all been fighting for several years either? How very strange - perhaps Hitler never existed at all.

Alec Macpherson

Yesterday David was accused of taking an interest only in those forms of racism which affect him. Now he’s defending a high priest of it. Yesterday David was accused of conducting witch-hunts to get people sacked. Now he’s defending someone whom he considers repellent against extradition.

That’s wot intellectuals do Alec.

If the ghastly Kamm and Huhne say he should not be extradited - which is the whole point of the extradition treaty - then he most certainly should be.

He is a German national who committed offences under German law. Full stop. He is not going to be tortured and executed without trial. Just because self-righteous utter prats like Kamm and Huhne happen not to like a piece of German legislation, does not mean that the law and our treaties should not be implemented just for the sake of the soi-disant moral superiority of these smug prats.

Even then I would want to see a pretty close link to any “incitement” and an actual act of violence. Someone who rushed out in a moment of excitement and murdered someone else.

Complete special pleading. You want to link ‘incitement to murder’ with ‘murder’. Sorry, won’t wash. The law says ‘incitement to murder’, not ‘incitement to murder followed by someone comitting murder’. You are just trying to invent your own law instead of the one that is actually and explicitly on the statute book.

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

A hugely simplistic view. You don’t seem to entertain the possibility that a line is drawn somewhere in the law. There are such lines all over the place. For example, if I take a tissue out of my pocket and a tiny corner of it is worn and the wind blows it away and it lands on the pavement and I can’t be bothered to pick it up, do you think I should be prosecuted for littering? What about if I drop the whole tissue by mistake and can’t be bothered to pick it up? What about if I do it deliberately? What about a whole box of tissues?

It is perfectly possible, which in practice is the case, to allow people to rant against abortions, but to deny them the right to add a call to murder all the involved obstetricians. It’s called a society governed by law: the law decides where the line is drawn.

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

We know nothing of the sort. YOU are of the opinion that there is, but you are resorting to the demagogic device of pretending that you speak for everyone.

remember there wasn’t a state called Israel before the late forties

Ignorant crap. There was one 3000 years ago.

For what it’s worth, I think holocaust denial should be criminalised in the UK. Because I think it creates a climate which can incite racial hatred and ultimately violence.

But if, as it appears, there is no legal case to extradite Toben then he must be free to go.

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?

Non-argument and a classic demagogic fallacy. A principle is not rendered invalid just because someone you dislike happened to support it (or you imagine that he might have supported it, which is not at all certain).

Danny, UK law is quite clear on incitement to racial hatred, of which Holocaust denial is a subset.

Field:

I can assure you that there is nothing you can teach me about Nazism, neo-Nazism or German history

How nice to see that God has started posting here. Nothing he can teach you? What pretentious nonsense.

>>> >>> 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?

>>> Alec has dealt with this, but to put it all into some kind of context, how come none of them mentioned exactly what had happened to the remains of the dictator that they had all been fighting for several years either? How very strange - perhaps Hitler never existed at all.

Hmmm. There’s a rather large difference between one corpse and six million.

5,999,999 to be precise.

Of course, many Jews died in World War Two. So did some 50+ million others. Of course, the Nazis commited atrocities (so did the allies). Sure, there were concentration camps within Nazi-controlled areas (Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and Japan also interned suspected enemy aliens, on a large scale). No-one I know disputes the use of cyanide, by the Nazis, in gas chambers designed for de-lousing (vitally important to control typhus which was a major problem in the camps).

What’s more, I don’t mind if other people want to believe, in addition to (or instead of) all those things, a lot more. That’s their business. They are welcome to pursuade, present evidence and even roll up their eyes if they think their audience is being dense

But to lock someone up because they don’t agree with your views about historical events - well, it seems to me a form a social madness.

Where does such censorship end?

How about 9/11? Why did President Bush massively falsify the number of Israelis killed on the day in his speech a month or so later? What were nearly 200 Mossad spies doing in the USA between 2000 and 2001? (as reported in The Forward, no less). What were ‘Urban Moving Systems’ (a Mossad front) doing in NYC on the day? What about all those suspicious trades made just prior to 9/11? Why did Larry Silbverstein use the words ‘pull it’ in relation to WTC-7? How did those three buildings collapse at near free fall velocity? Why did workers at an Israeli company in Manhatten get a warning of the attacks two hours early?

Should people who ask those questions be deported? Arrested? Worse?

How about one’s views about the assassination of US Presidents?

In his book Final Judgment, Michael Collins Piper has assembled a considerable body of evidence indicating central Israeli involvement in the plot to kill Kennedy (and his brother Bobby as well as his son). Should he be deported to Germany? Or to Israel?

How about people who work to bring to the world’s attention the hideous truth about Israel’s unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty in 1967, when US sailors were remorselessly attacked, then told by their own government to remain silent about what took place. Should they be deported? Locked up?

What about people who write about the Lavon Affair - a curious tale from the 1950s when Mossad agents were caught red-handed in Eygpt bombing British and American establishments in an attempt to frame the Nasser Government for their crimes? Should these people be deported too? Arrested? Or just silenced?

You see, as soon as an intelligent society is asked to punish people because of their opinions, people are going to start asking questions. They want to know where this will end.

Are you ready with the answers?

You may not like some of the questions.

Incidentally, as more perceptive particpants on this Blog may already be aware, use of the term ‘Holocaust denier’ is a deliberate strategy to ‘frame’ the debate in a way that’s unfavourable to people who may not share your opinions..

Are you a Reason and Open Debate denier?

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

Acts intended to stir up religious hatred
29B Use of words or behaviour or display of written material

(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.

(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.

(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.

(5) This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme service.
29C Publishing or distributing written material

(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.

(2) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.

- OK lawyers (Nearly, are you one?). Is this a question of demonstrating intent to stir up religious hatred on the part of the holocaust denier, be they Toben or Irving?

And having just read the antisemitic rant by ‘Syd Walker’ I think even on this very thread we have a demonstrable link between holocaust denial and jew hatred.

“Same with the nazis calling Jews “worms” or “parasites”. Of course that is also incitement to violence.” (Fabian)

“No it is not. It is calling Jews worms and parasites.” (So Much for…)

No, it is an incitement to violence. When you shout: “there are cocroaches in the kitchen!” you are not saying only “there are cocroaches in the kitchen!”, you are saying that and implicitly: “come and kill them”.

It is not rocket science. Nearly Oxfordian has argued correctly that saying “The Titanic never sunk” or I add “Shakespeare never existed” has no practical implications. On the contrary, categorizing a whole people as (and pay attention):
1. Parasites who are very dangerous to humankind.
2. Parasites who lie about being killed so they can continue being dangerous to humankind.
Is incitement to violence because there is no other point to these arguments than: “they have to be killed”.
If you can find another believable objective than the one I just mentioned, then I may agree with you. But I don’t think you can.

Just as “there are cocroaches in the kitchen!” can never be followed by “They are so pretty!”

>>> OK lawyers (Nearly, are you one?). Is this a question of demonstrating intent to stir up religious hatred on the part of the holocaust denier, be they Toben or Irving?

Take a look at yourself, Danny.

Scheming how to put people in jail because you dislike their views.

That’s sad.

Ever heard of ‘Live and Let Live’? Or ‘Get a Life’?

Another point Nearly Oxfordian is right: So much for subtletly argues that Holocaust Denial must be linked to “Someone who rushed out in a moment of excitement and murdered someone else”.
That shows ignorance about how antisemitism has worked in the modern age.
Apply the “someone who rushed out” to Muslim societies and their Farhuds, or Russia with its pogroms.
In Germany it didn’t work that way. Jews were killed by continuous demonization that led to acceptance for racial laws. Nobody rushed outside (except in the Night of the Broken Glass). But to argue that antisemitic speeched did not lead to the murder of Jews in the end is incorrect.

‘Syd’, have you ever committed any violent acts on religious or racial grounds? Would you just stop at words?

Danny

You accuse opponents of ‘anti-Semitism’ (a philological catgory). But you also relish the possibility of imprisoning them for stirring up “religious hatred”.

Can we get this clear?

What is your accusation against the people you perceive to be enemies? is it that you believe they hate a language group? An ethnicity? Or a religion?

Methinks this is really about power and fear, in roughly equal measure.

If the former, I can’t do much to help you. Expect a rising tide of opposition if you continue to seek to impose your views.

If it’s about fear, we may be able to help each other.

I submit that you have nothing to fear. What’s more, if anyone assaulted you because of your Jewishness, I would stand by you, side by side.

Like most people on this planet, I have a live and let live philosphy. And I believe that humanity is essentially one. Read the work of some of the finest contemporary Jews such as Paul Eisen and Atzmon Gilad. They realise that the goal of separateness - intrinsic to Zionism - is a false turn.

Humanity is one - like it or not. We must learn to live together. No master race. No subjugated peoples. That’s over. The future can be a lot better.

“Syd”

“Read the work of some of the finest contemporary Jews such as Paul Eisen and Atzmon Gilad.”

Thank you and goodnight.

Hmmm. There’s a rather large difference between one corpse and six million.

There is also a rather large difference between six millions corpses and those who died. Fact and accepted wisdom based on short-hand, to be precise. As with elevating the central existence of the gas-chambers as vital for the case.

Either you’re rank amateur or you think we are rank amateurs.

Are you now going to suggest Eisenhower, Churchill and de Gaulle spirited the Old Fellow away? No corpse, see.

How nice to see that God has started posting here. Nthing he can teach you? What pretentious nonsense.

Look in the mirror.

Hi Alec

>>> Are you now going to suggest Eisenhower, Churchill and de Gaulle spirited the Old Fellow away? No corpse, see.

The fate of Hitler’s corpse is a matter of no concern to me.

You are free to believe what you want about it and take the topic as seriously as you wish.

All the rest of us ask is the same freedom, in all cases.

Too much to ask?

I think not.

Points:-

1. Clearly there is always going to be a grey area between incitement to violence and expression of opinion. If I say “the leader of North Korea is a loathsome tyrant and the fate of loathsome tyrants throughout history has been to finish up with their head in a noose or separated from their body” is that me inciting violence or expressing an opinion about tyrants and history? However the German law clearly outlaws opinions that include no incitement to violence.

2. To demonstrate that all holocaust deniers are pursuing an anti-semitic agenda is not to demonstrate that the free speech principle is wrong. People speak freely for all sorts of reasons. Traditionally the law has banned only those who seek to encourage violence or to defame an individual. To move beyond those categories is to set out on a very dangerous and slippery slope. We have had people arrested in the UK for speaking out against bogus asylum seekers at a village fete and for expressing distaste for Islam. The debate on mass immigration was hobbled for many years by people’s fear of being prosecuted under our race hate laws. Only when the government started expressing people’s concern (because of what was happening in the opinion polls) was the debate allowed to proceed (by which point we’d had immigration running at 300,000 a year for many years).

Yes, we know why Nazis (let’s drop the neo shall we?) deny or minimise the holocaust. Well, let’s expose that. Let’s not suppress free speech.

3. No one who favours locking up Toben for his views has put forward a reason why this principle should not be applied to other brutal mass murders in history e.g. the Armenian genocide, the mass murder of Hindus by Muslim invaders, the mass murders in Rwanda, the current war on black people in Darfur. But if it is to be applied then who is to decide what is the “correct” version. The state? Which state?

4. Nearly O - I was suggesting (in response to his patronising tone) that Modernity had nothing to teach me about Nazism or German history, not that no one on the planet had anything to teach me about this area. I have seen nothing from Modernity to suggest that he has access to any greater knowledge of Nazism and German history than I possess.

>>> ‘Syd’, have you ever committed any violent acts on religious or racial grounds? Would you just stop at words?

A profound question, Danny.

It may surprise you to learn that the answer is no.

I once considered taking a biff at a dalek in the playground, but thought better of it.

The follow-up question “would I just stop at words?” has me scratching my head.

I think it must be a new variant on the theme “have you stopped beating your wife?”

Rather than “stopping at words”, I try to use them, constructively, to advance the truth as I see it and to converse with others.

May I ask questions too? This confessional thing is fun. I had no idea Catholicism is so popular.

‘Danny’, have you ever committed any violent acts on religious or racial grounds? Would you just stop at words?

I enquire, because many people with opinions about World War Two that you currently disagree with have been beaten up over the decades. There was at least one murder. Multiple cases of arson…

Not that I’m casting aspersions, Danny. I have no reason to put you in the frame. But since you asked…

Syd

I predicted 9-11 would be next on your retarded fantasy parade.

Two separate themes

Educators are for the most part government employees. They are charged with teaching a certain topic from a certain book. A person teaching Chemistry is assigned a certain book and is supposed to remain
on topic and not delve into Greek Mythology. Veering off the approved textbook would be malfeasance and cause for termination.

What is discussed or pictures shown in an office is governed by the Hatch Act. It is illegal to display a picture of Abraham Lincoln in a Federal office despite his being dead for over 100 years. You can place a picture of Yogi Bera or Yogi Bear in an office. You may not display any
religious items and people have been asked to place Bibles out of view.
Any discussion of politics and current events not in a job related context is banned. Lastly, any discussion of Holocaust denial at a federal job would get you suspended or fired. People have been disciplined for far less than your overt bigotry.

One does not have freedom of speech on the job. Moreover, as stated
above Federal employees speech is governed by the Hatch Act and EEO
regulations. In private industry your comments would likely get your employer sued.

In short you may vent your bigotry as a private citizen. If you did it on the job you would be suspended or terminated, and rightly so.

As far as deportation goes this is a very lengthy process in the USA even when criminal issues are not disputed. Denaturalization is a lengthy
process and for a born US citizen is next to impossible.

You are under some cheap alcohol delusion that you are a super patriot.
You are no patriot and overt mindless bigotry is unamerican. Nazism and racial goonery are antithetical to American values as written in our Constitution. I know a little about the Constitution as I swore two oaths
of office to uphold it. My coworkers who work with me come from every
race, religion and culture and I am proud of each and everyone of them.

You are not American even if you were born here. You need to find an appropriate place more conducive to your mindless bigotries like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, North Korea or Iran. Kindly take the steps required and denaturalize yourself.

You think wrong, Syd. I would oppose any extradition. Just as I oppose any attempt to place your manifestly deceitful and misrepresentative argument level pegging with belief in the existence and significance of the crimes of the Nazis

The fate of Hitler’s corpse is a matter of no concern to me.

Of course it’s not. Precisely the same asinine ‘reasoning’ could be used to doubt his death, so you pretend it doesn’t matter!

Sure, there were concentration camps within Nazi-controlled areas (Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and Japan

Are you aware that one of those examples, and by far the greatest offender, was on the Axis side?

also interned suspected enemy aliens, on a large scale).

I did not come down on the last haggis boat, and am missing the distinction between concentration and extermination camps. The reason the Nazis interned fewer people was that they were too busy slaughtering their captives.

No-one I know disputes the use of cyanide, by the Nazis, in gas chambers designed for de-lousing

Haha, this really is Denial for Dummies! The persistent insistence that I believe more than a percentage were gassed (as opposed to shot, hanged, starved) or, even, that 50% or more were not killed in open-air killings.

(vitally important to control typhus which was a major problem in the camps)

This is a paradox in Denial. News reels exist of the camps being opened, and tens of thousands of emaciated corpses being found. This cannot be denied. So, we’re told the gas, which I am not claiming was the principle method of killing, was disease-control. But why was there the need to herd millions of civilians into camps with 90% plus mortality?

Of course, sometimes the less articulate or careful, such as refugee Simon Sheppard, let the cat out of the bag by mocking photographs of condemned Jews.

Of course, many Jews died in World War Two. So did some 50+ million others.

And this is publicized/remembered somewhat. Not all the victims were Jews, but all the Jews were victims. Just how dim do you think we are?

Field:

2. “To move beyond those categories is to set out on a very dangerous and slippery slope.”

I have tried to show you that you don’t move beyond those categories in the case of Holocaust Denial, since the sole goal of it is to promote violence and murder against Jews.

“3. No one who favours locking up Toben for his views has put forward a reason why this principle should not be applied to other brutal mass murders in history”

This is a complete red herring and irrelevant to the point.

“The debate on mass immigration was hobbled for many years by people’s fear of being prosecuted under our race hate laws.”

Another irrelevant point.

Again, I would like anyone to put forward a believable argument in which Holocaust Denial is not linked with hatred of Jews and the desire to kill them.
I repeat, categorizing a whole people as (and pay attention):
1. Parasites who are very dangerous to humankind.
2. Parasites who lie about being killed so they can continue being dangerous to humankind.
Is incitement to violence because there is no other point to these arguments than: “they have to be killed”.
That is what Holocaust Deniers want, and there is no other reason for Holocaust Denial than the desire to kill the rest of the Jews.

>>> >>> Sure, there were concentration camps within Nazi-controlled areas (Britain, the USA, Canada, Australia and Japan

>>> Are you aware that one of those examples, and by far the greatest offender, was on the Axis side?

Yes of course.

Incidentally, the parents of a friend were in Japanese internment camps during World War Two. Towards war’s end, as might be expected, conditions in Japanese camps deteriorated drastically. Inmates were very emaciated on release. Many died.

Internees on the allied side were generally more fortunate, but then, the allies won the war. Their supply lines weren’t shattered. They hadn’t been bombed to smithereens.

As for beakerkin, I’m glad he doesn’t think I’m a real American.

I don’t think you have the first clue about education, beakerkin - not on the basis of your contributions on the topic so far.

But I wouldn’t seek to ban you from the profession. If you can find a school silly enough to pay you, go for it!

That’s live and let live. A good rule. Whu not try it sometime?

Fabian

How is it in Israel? Greetings from free Palestine!

>>> >>> “3. No one who favours locking up Toben for his views has put forward a reason why this principle should not be applied to other brutal mass murders in history”

>>> This is a complete red herring and irrelevant to the point.

Not from where I sit it isn’t, Fabian.

If you believe that, perhaps you can explain why?

I think Field has hit the nail on the head, precisely.

(Not that I seek to have the poor fellow tarnished with any of the foul names you guys like to call me. I’m sure he doesn’t need that).

Let’s see, Syd. Thus far you have declared as integral to any belief in the Jewish Holocaust:

[*] Assumption that gassing was the predominate method of killing;

[*] Lack of awareness of the distinction between concentration and extermination camps;

[*] Minimizing of the non-Jewish victims;

[*] Dismissal of the actions of Imperial Japan, as this would open charges of double-standards. Somehow;

[*] Position that Toben should extradited to Germany, and that his ideological fellows be silenced.

You are wrong on every one. So, you blithely move onto other fibs, such as supply lines being disrupted. Like the black earth in Ukraine? How much food was there at Babi Yar?

Like the rice-bowls of Java and Vietnam? Were the cupboards bare in Nanjing? Another tactic of Deniers is to attempt to define the East Asian war only in terms of invaded European colonies and captured colonials.

Maybe you think there were daily transport flights coming from North America, and that 30 thousand merchant sailors didn’t die, but despite this interned foreign nationals and PoWs didn’t starve.

You have also quoted a 50 millions dead figure, which is the accepted toll inflicted by the Axis-aligned powers. This is a minor error (but, as with your gas-chamber and six millions dead malarky, should crush your argument). What is not minor is that well in excess of 80% of the actual death toll was caused by the Axis-aligned powers, and that caused by the Allies were almost exclusively combat deaths or targeted for strategic reasons. Not killing civilians for the sake of it.

And you say the Allies committed atrocities as much as the Nazis.

Fairly basic Denial. Can see right through it. (And also through creeps like WtoYL, who’re too shifty to use their real names, who don’t stir to address a real Nazi.)

Also, Syd, what was the disease and illness rate amongst camp guards? Before they were forced the bury the typhoid-ridden dead, that is.

>>> And you say the Allies committed atrocities as much as the Nazis. Fairly basic Denial.

Oh, is it Alec?

You pronounce a ‘diagnosis’ like a medieval quack. Your approach to discussion is similarly irrational.

I wonder, had a freind of yours has been enjoying a picnic in the park in Hiroshima on a certain day in 1945, would you then take the same stridently moralistic tone?

Get real. War itself is the ultimate atrocity.

How silly to be moralistic with someone who doesn’t share your view about which side of a given war did nastier things to the other.

You remind me of a man in a prison with a rat that he hates, who spends all his time torturing the rat, hating the rat, berating the rat and generally giving the rat a hard time. He hates his miserable life locked up with the lousy rat.

But guess what? All he has to do is open the door and walk out. It just never occured to him, because he hated that rat so much.

And guess what? The rat was actually a human being, who had grown old and wizened trying to get across a few simple words:

“Open the door and we’re both free!”

Field

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

Presumably you mean that ‘millions of Hindus’ were massacred by Muslim invaders. Please supply any reputable academic source for this claim. I’ve always found your take on this paradoxical. Rightfully you oppose Holocaust deniers. And yet you support the Indian equivilants (the utterly ludicrous claims of Hindu Nationalists about Indian history which involves treating the whole of existing historiography as a vast conspiracy, either Muslim or British or ‘Communist’). I remember you claiming that you thought the Hindu Kush referred to the deaths of millions of Hindu’s killed being transported to slavery. The Hindu Kush simply refers to the end of Hindustan (the etymology here being the river Indus). How did you come to believe such nonsense? Where did you come across it (was it per chance in the writings of the insane bigot who believes that the Taj Mahal was actually built by Hindu’s and the British engaged in a conspiracy to cover it up?)? I put it to you that whilst you reject cranks and neo-nazies when it comes to European historiography you are utterly credulous about cranky conspiracy theories emenating from the more lunatic end of the Hindu Nationalist movement. The only reason I can think of why you would do this (such screeds are as illegible, tedious and unpleasent to read as their European equivilants) is because of an unsavoury obsession with Muslims. There is no moral or intellectual difference between the kind of thing you espouse when it comes to the subcontinent and the kind of thing espoused by the neo-nazies being discussed here. None. Cognitive dissonence anyone?

Is that one from “Hitler’s favorite tales”?

Last night, at the beginning of this thread, I wrote:

“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.”

Somebody asked me what relevant this had to the issue in question.

It is this.

I expected that Holocaust Deniers and other neo Nazis would be attracted to this thread. This has happened.

Therefore, I’m closing the thread.

OK, I’m opening it until about 11 pm.

Did the rat call the man a sheeple?

You pronounce a ‘diagnosis’ like a medieval quack. Your approach to discussion is similarly irrational.

Such a stridently moralistic tone. It’s almost as if, rather than answer the wheen of points put to you, you prefer to set the parameters of the discussion and cry foul when someone calls you to account.

I wonder, had a freind of yours has been enjoying a picnic in the park in Hiroshima on a certain day in 1945, would you then take the same stridently moralistic tone?

I would have taken the same tone as I did here. Next straw man.

You remind me of a man in a prison with a rat that he hates

Now the self-pity. Wa! wa!, not fair, teacher! No, no more. Start addressing the questions and points put to you, or forever be thought a moron who answers a question with a question.