Some more Nazism...

[GreenCloudCLF]

Just curious on people's thoughts on this article...and the punishment.

Fair/Unfair??

Interesting story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060220/ap_on_re_eu/austria_holocaust_denial)

[Shaolinlueb]

theres a difference between committing a crime and being a complete and utter ***hole.

this guy didnt committ any crime in my eyes. he is jsut a complete and utter ***hole if he says stuff like that. no reason to put him in jail. reason enough to educate him and show them there was.

[Chief Fox]

Well Austria is a Federal Republic so I would say in the eyes of the Austrian people, he has commited a crime.

In addition to that, he's also a dumb@ss.

[CLFLPstudent]

Irving has had numerous run-ins with the law over the years.

In 1992, a judge in Germany fined him the equivalent of $6,000 for publicly insisting the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax.



Well, he's either a dumb@ss for doing the same thing a second time, or he really believes his statements. Either way, he broke his country's law. He shouldn't be upset or shocked at his punishment.

-DS

[Ultimatewingchun]

Irving has had numerous run-ins with the law over the years.

In 1992, a judge in Germany fined him the equivalent of $6,000 for publicly insisting the Nazi gas chambers at Auschwitz were a hoax.



Well, he's either a dumb@ss for doing the same thing a second time, or he really believes his statements. Either way, he broke his country's law. He shouldn't be upset or shocked at his punishment.

-DS


***THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT!

When you deny the murder of 6 million people - you are a Nazi criminal in your heart - and deserve to be punished and made an example of. The first step any serious neo-Nazi has to do in order to restart the whole filthy business is to lie about what happened within Hitler's Nazi Germany.

Stop them in their tracks - and put them in jail.

And the same, btw, for the Turks....who still deny to this day the genocide they committed against 1 million Armenians.

They're also a bunch of criminals.

[Radhnoti]

I'd say...you have to follow the law. The guy is a British citizen stirring up trouble in Austria
But, as a U.S. citizen, I think freedom of speech...even freedom to say STUPID things...should be protected in my country.

[Ou Ji]

The battle of the loonies. Ones as crazy and dangerous as the other.

Which one is worse, denying the slaughter of innocents or legislating thoughts and beliefs.

Extremism is bad no matter which end you're on.

[SimonM]

Technically he broke the law of his country.

And holocaust deniers get no sympathy from me.

Last I heard (David J, perhaps you can back this up) half of the big ones in Canada are on trial or have served time for dissemination of hate literature and in Canada holocaust denying isn't actually against the law.

[Mr Punch]

I haven't read the article, but I know who you're talking about.

He's very astute. I know from reading about him in the past that he chose Austria for his lecture tour BECAUSE they have the law on Holocaust denial. He's milking it for martyrdom. He's a (unt and he makes me ashamed to be British.

But since we're talking atrocities, other things that make me ashamed to be British are the active contribution to the starvation of 29 million Indians, several thousand Irish, and the attempted extermination of aboriginals in Australia, New Zealand and umpteen other places, down through the trail of the 'kill-a-nig ger zones' in Kenya in the '50s to those soldiers beating those boys in Iraq. In this day and age, with current sensitivities, there is no excuse for that kind of behaviour. And in no case do I remember the British government apologizing or making substantial reparations.

And before you jump in championing the States Radhnoti I hope you support Cindy Sheehan (is that her name) in her action in the public gallery or wherever it was she was arrested!;)

[Ben Gash]

Technically he broke the law of his country.
Um, no, he broke the law in someone else's country. In England as long as you don't incite murder, terrorism or racial and/or religious hatred you can say whatever you like.

Well, he's either a dumb@ss for doing the same thing a second time, or he really believes his statements
Again,no, the charges in Austria stem from 1989! To be fair to him he has in fact revised what he says these days, but he's still an a**hole.
HOWEVER surely imprisoning someone for 3 F***ING YEARS for expressing an unpopular belief IS NEO FACISM!!!

[Hieronim]

http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=600024397&tstart=0&start=-1

http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=600019524&start=0&tstart=15

http://cbs11tv.com/topstories/topstories_story_353140011.html

[CFT]

Mat, you can add to that state sponsored drugs trafficking, re: Opium Wars.

[SimonM]

Um, no, he broke the law in someone else's country. In England as long as you don't incite murder, terrorism or racial and/or religious hatred you can say whatever you like.



Whoops! For some reason I thought he was an Austrian.

Well regardless he broke the law of the land. If I break Chinese law and get caught I end up in Chinese prison. It's the same the world over.

[Ben Gash]

[QUOTE][Well Austria is a Federal Republic so I would say in the eyes of the Austrian people, he has commited a crime.
/QUOTE]
Actually this law will likely soon be removed from the statutes, which makes it all the more puzzling that they should prosecute him this hard after 17 years.

[David Jamieson]

The whole idea of imprisoning someone who has a conflicting view of history is tantamount to "thought crime" and is very orwellian.

The person has been arrested, convicted and made to do prison time because of his thoughts and ideas and not for anything he has incited, or done.


'criminals in their hearts'? as ultimatewingchun put it. This would make everyone an evil and bad person if they ever had a grudging thought or a doubt.

I find this view narrow, I alos find teh pursuit of holocaust deniers to be ludicrous. For pete's sake, let them deny whatever they like, it's not the end of the world for people to have differing views and opinions. It is the actions taken and whethere harm is done to another or not that is important.

The epeople who perpetuate ideas need to be dealt with with a return of ideas, an exchange and a discourse that settles it one way or another.

The current way of dealing with holocaust deniers isn't very different from the attitudes of nazism towards dissent.

s such a tragic event to be the foundation for more of the same in a different coat?

putting them in jail martyrs them. I don't suppose that has been given consideration?

when will the world learn to stop feeding the trolls entirely?

[GreenCloudCLF]

Now, according to the article, the crime was from 1989 but the law for which he was convicted was not on the books until 1992...three years later....

What about that?

[CLFLPstudent]

Why was he in Austria to begin with? I find it hard to believe that Great Britain whould extradite him to Austria.

Are you sure the law was only on the books in 1992? I know that Germany has very strict laws regarding Nazism ( for example, WWII computer games must remove swastika's from the German Army because otherwise it would be illegal to sell those games in Germany) and had them for a long time.

It is a conundrum because the sentence is bordering Fascism, which is what the country is trying to avoid.

The question is if you know there are people looking to prosecute you in another country, why go there? Other than to stir up trouble, I can't think of a reason. So I guess he got what was coming to him - even if you don't agree with the sentence.

-DS

[Radhnoti]

Mat - "And before you jump in championing the States Radhnoti I hope you support Cindy Sheehan (is that her name) in her action in the public gallery or wherever it was she was arrested!"

I support her right to say whatever she wants, however she wants...assuming she respects the rights of others to do the same. Her hope was to curtail the President's right to communicate...or at least to alter the way it would be heard. I certainly wouldn't expect a Bush sympathizer to be allowed to walk into somewhere she'd been asked to speak and create a disturbance. In fact, I'd EXPECT the local authorities to PROTECT her right to speak, just as the local authorities protected the President's right to do the same.

David Jamieson - "The current way of dealing with holocaust deniers isn't very different from the attitudes of nazism towards dissent."

Very well said, I think.

[GreenCloudCLF]

Are you sure the law was only on the books in 1992?



Irving has been in custody since his November arrest on charges stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he was accused of denying the Nazis' extermination of 6 million Jews.

Irving, handcuffed and wearing a navy blue suit, arrived at the court carrying one of his most controversial books — "Hitler's War," which challenges the extent of the Holocaust.

Throughout the day, Irving sat quietly and attentively in the stifling courtroom.

Irving's trial was held amid new — and fierce — debate over freedom of expression in Europe, where the printing and reprinting of unflattering cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad has triggered violent protests worldwide.

"Of course it's a question of freedom of speech," Irving said. "The law is an ass."

The court convicted Irving after his guilty plea under the 1992 law, which applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media."

Poster added boldface.

So now it not only becomes a question of freedom of speech, and whether or not Austria is acting Facist in that sense, but also there is an ex post facto factor as well. (Granted I understand these rights are part of the US criminal justice system and not everyone else's.

[Mr Punch]

Why was he in Austria to begin with?He went in the full knowledge that he was wanted and banned from the country. In fact, and in answer to DJ's 'why does Holocaust denial matter' mewlings, he is banned from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Germany. This is for incitement to racial hatred and similar crimes. I tell you what too: I'm very happy that Abu Hamza is in prison too. I just hope they get Nick Griffin on his retrial and he gets to share a cell with Hamza. Denying the Holocaust is IMO tantamount to encouraging racial hatred, and even one shade away from incitement to murder/terrorism.

His common law wife said:
"He was not jailed just for his views but because he's banned from Austria and still went. David doesn't take advice from anyone. He thought it was a bit of fun, to provoke a little bit."

When '...asked by the Observer last month why he appeared deliberately to court trouble in Austria by returning when he knew he could be arrested and prosecuted, he replied: "I'm from a family of officers and I'm an Englishman. We march towards the gunfire."...'

Wanker.

He also wrote this little poem for his daughter when she was born:
'"I am a baby Aryan/Not Jewish or sectarian/I have no plans to marry an/Ape or Rastafarian." '

Nothing to do with this case but shows what a wanker he is.

I think the whole thing was a publicity stunt to get some money since he lost it all when he went bankrupt after a libeling someone.


It is a conundrum because the sentence is bordering Fascism, which is what the country is trying to avoid.**** him. String him up. How's that for fascism?!:D

My granddad's generation is full of people who died fighting ****s like that, and why is it important David Jameson!? Because they're on the ****ing rise again that's why: in the US, in Australia, in Denmark, in Germany, in Sweden, in the UK, in France, in the EU parliament. Gas em!

[Mr Punch]

Radhnoti, thanks for the reply. Very reasonable.


I support her right to say whatever she wants, however she wants...assuming she respects the rights of others to do the same. I think that sums up my feelings towards stamping out Nazism... they're not respecting other people's rights to free speech, and furthermore, they're not respecting other people's rights to a peaceful (if any) existance.

[David Jamieson]

mat, you make it sound like only your family was involved in the war with the remarks you toss out about my views of tolerance to all bethey contrary to your views or not.

I think it is entirely appropriate to point out the contradictions of history vs the facts.

There is no shortage of contrversy when it comes to the holocaust.
There is an effort to only focus on one group despite the fact that the nazis did this to many social sub groups.

It is interesting that no one pulls out the fact that Stalin was statistically speaking a greater offender of human rights, or for that matter mao tze tung. Or how figures like pol pot, idi amin, recent leaders in somalia and rwanda all take a back seat to an event of decades ago that has most certainly been embellished to some degree by groups like b'nai brith and others.

How is that agenda any different from another attempt at putting out a meme that relegates other peoples in favour of focusing only on the hardships associated with only one group.

The whole idea of thought crime in my opinion is wrong. It is what leads to rigid and unbending thought, which in turn leads to more hate.

If you force someone to do things, or control them in what they are allowed to say or feel, this is naziism at it's finest and it doesn't matter who is putting it forth.

If you table something in the form of a question towards the authorities or wish to see the facts on the table, then this should not be a crime, it should be answered with facts and inteleect, not with emotions, sophism and tautology.

It is not so difficult for me to see how this law and conviction are incorrect in the big picture.

You don't wnat holocaust deniers? It should be as simple as putting the facts on the table and saying 'here it is in black and white' Now there are people who take that approach and provide us with a picture of what happened.

The grandsons message of events that occured to the grandfather are not entirely accurate at the best of times and should certainly not be used as evidence in anyway.

my family fought in ww1, ww2 as well as other wars that defined the geo-politcal interests of various leaders at different times.

they died for what they believed in, and for ideas they had no knowledge of as well. The fact one was a soldier fighting for one ideology over another doesn't give weight to whetehr or not what was done was correct or not. It's a whole lots of speculation and conjecture when it gets to the 'what if hitler this' or 'what if truman that' or what if what if what if.

war crimes were commited by each and every side in each and every war, to think that one side is more just than another in their cause depends entirely on ones beliefs and point of view of the world.

Take a look at the arab world for a cleare picture on that last point.

[CLFLPstudent]

The court convicted Irving after his guilty plea under the 1992 law, which applies to "whoever denies, grossly plays down, approves or tries to excuse the National Socialist genocide or other National Socialist crimes against humanity in a print publication, in broadcast or other media."

Whoops, you're right. My bad. I guess Austria can convict someone for a crime when the law is passed afterwards.

He still is an @ss for going there after the fact. It can only be to stir up trouble.....


-DS

[Ou Ji]

Because they're on the ****ing rise again that's why: in the US, in Australia, in Denmark, in Germany, in Sweden, in the UK, in France, in the EU parliament. Gas em!

Thank you Mr. Hitler for that very moving response.

Now, moving on to Mr. Jamison:


If you table something in the form of a question towards the authorities or wish to see the facts on the table, then this should not be a crime, it should be answered with facts and inteleect, not with emotions, sophism and tautology.

Unfortunately it just fuels the fire when question are answered with acusations of racist, conspiracy nut, ****phobic, etc.

If there are answers then refute the claims with evidence. Anything else is an indication there may be truth in the claims.

That's why we're going around in circles with US Income Tax Laws, Holocaust, OKC Bombing and other fringe arguments.

*EDIT* Perfect example of censorship at it's finest. I can't write h o m o phobe. :D

[Mr Punch]

Thank you Mr. Hitler for that very moving response.
...

Well, I'm so glad the age of irony is still alive and kicking.

Thanks DJ, I'm actually generally with you. I'm also generally with Radhnoti. The problem is when nobody speaks out against some prejudice freely aired like that. That's the same problem we had in the UK with Abu Hamza: he was spitting hate out for years but nobody challenged him because it was accepted within his microcommunity (which is a different problem altogether), and while I find Nick Griffin highly distasteful, I do agree with the verdicts on Griffin and Hamza (though maybe not the sentences themselves). That incitement law exists for a reason and I don't think it infringes too much on civil liberties.

I still hold that Irving got what he deserved however. Much as I don't agree with that law, as I said (seriously) he knew the score in Austria.