Austria holds 'Holocaust denier'

UK revisionist historian David Irving has been arrested in Austria under laws against denying the Holocaust.

Mr Irving was detained after a routine check on a motorway last Friday by police acting on a 1989 arrest warrant issued by a Vienna court, police said.

He told a libel hearing in London in 2000 that the Nazi gas chambers had never existed - that they were "completely fictitious".

He lost the case and the judge branded him "an active Holocaust denier".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4446646.stm


YIPPEEEEE!

Finally nailed the sum'bitch. Tell me that does not look like the face of someone totally consumed by hatred. Maybe his parents didn't hug him enough as a child...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

while i vehemently disagree with him, and think he's a fucking racist moron, i don't much like the implications for free speech

Not only is he racist, but a freakin ignorant idiot, but either way...idiots should be able to say what they want, as long as they aren't inciting violence.

...when you have the same troubles with Neo-Nazis that Germany and Austria have had.

I haven't lived nor even visited either place...I can imagine it is a needed law..but I still think its an ugly one.

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauScrapbook/KZDachau/CrematoriaArea/descriptions.html

Many American soldiers and newspaper reporters, who were there during the liberation or shortly afterwards, wrote their eyewitness descriptions of the Dachau gas chamber, including the following:

"We were then shown a room which looked something similar to a reception room, and off it was another room with the marking 'Showers' on it. Actually it was a gas chamber used by the Germans to kill the prisoners." From Report on the Surrender of the Concentration Camp at Dachau by Lt. W. J. Cowling, III written on May 2, 1945

"Several newspaper people arrived about that time and wanted to go through the camp so we took them through with a guide furnished by the prisoners. The first thing we came to were piles of clothing, shoes, pants, shirts, coats, etc. Then we went into a room with a table with flowers on it and some soap and towels. Another door with the word showers lead off of this and upon going through this room it appeared to be a shower room but instead of water, gas came out." From a letter to his parents, written by Lt. William J. Cowling, III after the liberation of Dachau.

"It really was a gas chamber, a low ceilinged room about 30 feet square. After 15 or 20 persons were inside the doors were firmly sealed and the faucets were turned on and poison gas issued." From article in Chicago Daily Times, April 30, 1945 by Howard Cowan

"Inside as well as outside were gas chambers with adjacent crematory ovens. Sid Olsen of Time Magazine, Walter Riddler of the St. Paul Dispatch and I followed a fresh trail of blood into the brick building with a huge smokestack. Almost 100 naked bodies were stacked neatly in the barren room with cement floors. They had come from a room on the left marked "brausebad" for "shower bath." From the story in the News York Times, April 30, 1945 by Associated Press War Writer, Howard Cowan

...more...

I have a copy of the original report that William W. Quinn Colonel, C.S.C., A C of S, G-2, 7th U.S. Army, filed about Dachau. It's definitely sobering and disturbing. I contains reports, analysis, pictures and summaries.

But I don't see how we can tell someone what they can or can not believe.

The next thing you know the Christian fundies will create a law saying Jesus-deniers are going to prison.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

After the Freepers get abortion outlawed, would it be right for them to outlaw certain viewpoints concerning what life was like during an era of reproductive choice?

Would/should the Freakonomics guys get 1-10 years in jail for saying what they said about abortion and declining crime rates, whether or not their argument had any merit? :shrug:

This is happening in Austria. In Austria, these people *are* the freepers. Only about a thousand times worse.

There are some cultural diffrences between australia and the US.
Personaly I would not want such a law here. But making the statement you did seems at odds with history. It does not seem to have become a slipery slope for them at all. Its just the way it is there.

BTW you might note that we have slander torts and other limits on speach here as well and in many countries they are stronger than they are here but they do not automaticaly lead to extreamist or fasist states.

I agree that all people should have the right to self-determination, and I think it is absurd to think that every people, every culture would come to the same set of "rights" and "freedoms" that we came to here in the US.

I don't argue that there law isn't good for them..if it wasn't there would be people pushing for its abolition, and there isnt.

I am just saying that I...me...couched in my born-in-the-USA mindset...have a hard time agreeing to put someone in prison for 1-10 years based on something they believe to be true (regardless of how moronic that thought may be).

I imagine they see it the same as we might see sending someone to jail for 1-10 years for beleiving (and advocating to others) that it is a good idea to burn the whitehouse (ie as a national security issue). Lesser extent obviously but I agree that I its not a law I would particularly want. In our culture I would be firmly against it.

:)

The gas chambers at Dachau were actually delousing facilities. They were originally mistakenly believed to be gas chambers. No Holocaust scholar would now claim that Dachau had a gas chamber

Only 5 camps actually had gas chambers. Auschwitz-Birkenau had by far the largest gassing facilities. It was also a slave labor camp, so people did survive Auschwitz. The other 4 only a handful of survivors are known. Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno and Majdanek were the other "Death camps" where prisoners were executed on arrival. While millions died in other camps of disease, malnourishment and inhuman treatment none other than these 5 camps located in the "Government General" section of Poland had gas chambers, aside from some buildings used for experiments in the late 1930s in Aktion Reinhard euthanasia killings of the disabled.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/dachau-gas-chambers/

It is true they were originally used for de-lousing.

It is almost certain that the fumigation or disinfestation chambers were used for their designed purpose. Bishop Neuhäusler quotes Michelet's Street of Liberty:

Although the administrative authorities at Dachau, some famous prisoners and many historians are quick to point out that the large gas chamber at the camp was never used for homicidal purposes, there is at least some evidence to the contrary. Bishop Neuhäusler, for example, states:

It is a LONG article. The info you are after is about half way down.

(cannot resolve domain name holocaust-history.org)

I had to view it through google cache. I wonder if the website is currently being attacked again?

I am not sure what is going on with that site. I couldn't access it from the link I provided either, but I could get the main site. So I did a search and found it again and could open it. :wtf: Anyway...here is another way to get to it. The link I quoted above is the first link in the response to a question.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/questions/dachau-gas-chamber.shtml

Hopefully this will work! If not PM me!

I live about 10 miles away from it and work within spitting distance of the place. I've been there, plenty of times.

The gas chambers(look like showers) were never used.

Dachau wasn't an extermination camp, the reason it's so infamous (compared to totally unknown camps) was that it was the first concentration camp established by the nazis.

About 35000 people died in Dachau between 1933 and 1945

It seems there are some contradictory reports. While most historians will say they were not used on humans, they will also say the possibility was there, especially in the last year of the war and months before the liberation. (please read the link I provided above. it is a long read, but very interesting.)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Have the right to have these laws on the books.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We have NO moral or legal right to bitch at them for that. We did not live through this.

This is not true censorship, it is literally public safety. Especially in Austria, where there are many neo-Nazis just itching to drag people out of houses. And, Austria and Germany have more freedom than we do, I warrant.

Kinda ballsy calling Austria evil and authoritarian. I applaud them for trying to make up for their government's wrongs in the past. Austria welcomed Hitler with open arms. Hell, they rounded up their Jews before they were made to. They even elected a ex-concentration camp officer as Prseident in the 80's.

This is NOT what Hitler and Stalin did -- apples and oranges. To the Austrians' sense of safety and right, this is no more censorship than saying Robert Novak didn't have a right to out Plame. Hey, thats' censorship, right? Well, isn't it? Under your definition, it is. It is an issue of national security and safety.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

f the Austrians want to worry about something else it should be their declining birth rates and the geriatrification of their society which is slowly giving political power in their country to non-Austrian and non-German immigrants who most certainly will have a different agenda and plans for Austria or Germany than what the current governments have now.

Yes... Certianly wouldn't want immigrants to have any power now, would we?

As for what Hitler or Stalin did - they banned free speech didn't they? That's exactly what they did.

You cannot possibly be attempting to compare banning a SPECIFIC TYPE OF HATE SPEECH with banning all criticism of the government. That, my friend, is silly.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm not going to get into an argument with you about the consequences of Muslim immigration to Western Europe. It is entirely irrelevant to this topic, and I'm sorry I ever responded to your original post on the topic.



As for the comparing hate speech and political criticism, I am comparing them. The Supreme Court has noted many times that hate speech is protected speech. Why do you think the ACLU still defends the Klan?

Austria is not the United States. US Supreme Court decisions are completely irrelevant. If you think the Austrian system is wrong, so be it. But USSC court decisions have as much relevance to Austria as Austria's anti-fascism laws have to the US - essentially none.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Turkey has an interesting way of governing. Someone came to power a few years ago (10?) who tried to insist women cover their heads. The military took over, threw him out, held power for a couple of years then held elections. (They did that once before when the leader was too liberal.)

I've been to many parts of Turkey (all but the very far eastern part which is mostly Kurdish) and very few women cover their heads. I'd guess less than 15% do.

Turkey is not perfect but it's not Iran. For that kind of oppression, go to Greece. (Hold off on the flaming. Parts of Greece are very oppressive. Yes, I know, parts are not. But Turkey is much more "western" than Greece.)

Americans' absolute inability to learn from the experience of others. When LIES are accepted as common currency events like the Holocaust, Rwanda and your present condition in the good ol' U.S. of A prevail.

"Free speech" is not an absolute in civilized society. I know that is a hard concept to grasp, particularly as yours has been so polluted by the corporate takeover of your media while your "purist myths" are still in place. The result is LIES, misinformation and disinformation rule.

Germany and Austria have been there, done that.

This is their choice. They have had plenty of time to demonstrate that they are not on a slipery slope or fasist because of it.

Here we ban advocating the violent overthrough of the govenrment. In some ways this is very similar. They view denial of the holocost as THAT important to their country, including its safety.

habit ...
SNIP:
Irving was arrested on November 11 near the town of Hartberg in the southern province of Styria under a warrant issued in 1989, interior ministry spokesman Rudolf Gollia said.

"He is on remand in Vienna," Gollia said.

Asked what Irving had been arrested for, Gollia said: "It is to do with ... Holocaust denial."

Denying the holocaust is a crime in Austria which carries a sentence of 1-10 years.


http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-11-17T161524Z_01_SIB758152_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRVING-AUSTRIA.xml

if they have those wonderful Viennese pastries in the slammer?

come over all talkative....

8^)

that the Holocaust never happened, I could be thrown in jail?

That seems very strange.

They don't have the same Common Law traditions.

were rather more close up than ours... Waldheim? Arnuld's daddy? The nice family next door who ratted on their neighbors hiding Jews so they could have the nicer apartment? Or, that nice old man down the street who smashed Jewish babies' heads against the wall when he was young?

The neo-nazis are not some artifact of history. It would be as if the KKK in the US were a third political party on par with the Greens in terms of popularity. Fascism didn't disappear after WW2. It is still alive and well. And recruiting. And this guy is a force for that.

Too many are also still alive who lived through this travesty -- as victims, perpetrators, scared or/and apathetic bystanders.

It would be like the KLan had run a dictatorship in the US for a decade, rounding up and murdering the bulk of blacks in the country before being overthrown.

.. Denmark recently held local elections for the new region councils, and in my region Denmarks National-Socialist Movement were running for a seat. These guys are neo-nazis & make no effort in hiding it. Unfortunately, they were able to get 611 votes (out of a total of 439,859 votes cast).

I don't blame the Germanic folk for being absolutist in purging this kind of crap from their discourse.

They have every right to do what they feel is necisary to keep that from every happening again. As the other poster pointed out fasism/nazism is alive and well and they see it as a serious threat to their country.

Bet hollicost denires have a lot more rights there than 'suspected terrorists' here.

This is not like claiming the earth is flat or something to them. I think they see it more as a matter of national security. They refuse to let those elements take over agian.

Here in the US we also ban discussion of violently overthrowing the government, as well as threatening other people. These are in some ways very similar to holocost dinial in germany or austrailia.

n/t

Guess they like to do it long-distance.

But you'd only do that if you were a racist, Jew-hating revisionist historian.

Fantastic.

RELATION to Mr Irving....but...take a look at the pic:

Chap.

denied holding him then destroyed all his identity records.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Common Law culture onto another country, especially one who was literally and figuratively raped and ravaged and destroyed by the Holocaust. He is more than an anti-Semitic bigot. My uncle's that. Irving is scum.

To them, this isn't censorship, it's a public safety issue -- literally. Much like we can't yell "Fire" in a threater, or burn a cross on someone else's lawn.

Try to imagine if the Holocaust had happened here. Just THINK about it. Then think why that SOB was arrested.

And, your use of fascist is incorrect.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and the US. Learn about it and I'll love to discuss this issue further. Until then, we can't have an informed discussion.

You're right, it does have everything to do with common decency -- but you have it backwards. Learn about this some.

This is not a thought-crime -- give em a break. A THOUGHT CRIME? READ what Irving does in other countries, okay? READ about his libel trial. Educate yourself on common law, censorship, holocaust denial, and the very real threat of Neo-Fascists in Western Europe. This si not an abstract to them.

He has no right to spew his filth. He has a right under US law, but he has no right in Austria. And, he also has no moral right to. Sorry. Being Progressive doesn;'t mean we have to allow fascism to rise.

And yes, your use of the word was completely incorrect. You are using a slang term for fascism. IRVING IS THE FASCIST, NOT THE AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENT! Your argument is ludicrous because of this. You call a holocaust denier who ADVOCATES the rise of Neo-Fascism, and who advocates replacing democratic/republican governments with fascist ones a VICTIM, and the democratic government protecting themselves from this very real threat FASCIST? Oi.

As I said, no more discussion until you understand what the background and history of this is.

And, I've earned my progressive cred here.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And not others.

It seems to me they are viewing the (very real to them) threat of neo-nazism much as we view ploting against our government.

Do I think its a great law that I would want here... NO and I don't think we have the sensibility or maturity to deal with such a law witout going completely downhill into banning all kinds of speach.

But am I going to try to push my sesibilities on them? Heck no. They are doing just fine and trying to force them into some absolutist mold without understanding is IMO very silly.

>I doubt it's a public safety issue.

Perhaps you should read up on the current state of the neo-nazi political parties in Germany and Austria. They are NOT going away.

>I don't believe in arresting somebody for a thought-crime.
>And that's exactly what this is. That's what the Nazis did.

No... That isn't what the Nazis did. At all.

>This man has just as much right to spit his rabid hate
>speech as you do your political ideas.

Not in Austria, he doesn't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Don't feel too bad - I'm sure there are plenty of others who support your ideas about free speech. Either its for everybody or it doesn't mean much. I see a greater danger of governments legislating against thought crimes than the possibility of Irving causing another Holocaust. There's no point in making Irving some kind of martyr and suppressing his free speech won't convince any neo-Nazis of the errors of their ways, but rather is likely to only embolden them.

And welcome to the other newbies on this thread too.

I agree with you, and am disappointed to see so many "progressives" willing to suppress speech, even when the intent behind the law is a good one. The best response to hate speech is more speech- not the curtailment of liberties or the enlargement of governmental authority over the individual.

their laws differ a bit from ours. Post 50 makes a good point. Not that I wan't that law here (we definately could not handle it repsonsibly) but they have a very diffrent legal structure, history, and culture than we do. I think once you understand all the factors it becomes increasingly clear that it is a reasonable set of laws. Perhapse not a set you want but a reasonable set that respects the right to individual beleifs.

but instead attempts to impose a groupthink, mandated belief on people whether they actually agree with it or not by refusing to allow discussion on the topic at all. And that is the problem.

Again, just as in this country and just as in any country in which civil liberties are prized, the best response to hate speech such as this is a truthful rebuttal with the horrifyingly detailed facts surrounding the Holocaust.

And just as in this country, it is often that speech which "normal" people find most repugnant which needs the most protection. It is usually neither nice phrases nor nice people for whom civil liberty protections are crafted.

In addition they treat a single massively important part of their history a bit diffrent than other parts. We don't allow advocating the violent overthrow of the government. Nor do we allow slander (though the standards are diffrent). They have a right to their system and I do not think we here without fully understanding their culture and legal system are right to condem it.

I agree that such a system can backfire. But if they beleive it is the best way... thats their choice and its not like they generaly restrict free speach.

If by group think you mean asserting the historical fact that the holocaust took place; and that denial thereof is societally and historically dangerous. Cause' if that's what you meant then... right on.

As for responding with the horrifying facts: the horrifying facts have been out and public and EVERYWHERE for the last half-century. Hell, there are a LOT of people who claim to be "just plain sick of the holocaust" (as dumbs as that is, but anyhoo...). And yet this phenominon, this obsession with rewriting history to fit a narrowminded and DANGEROUS worldview persists. Methinks that the facts can only get you so far; just look at politics in the U.S.! In 2004 the Democrats had ALL the facts on their side, but I think we all know who came out on top.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I was going to give a reasonable response, until I hit this:

Israel justifies its existence and extracts vast sums of money by "selling" the memory of the holocaust to the rest of the world.

Mike Rivero can go fuck himself.

Irving doesn't deny that the Holocaust ever happened, but he does question details and particulars. That much is actually true, regardless of the source.

"The Holocaust suffered by the Germans in Dresden was real. The one against the Jews in the gas chambers of Auschwitz is complete fiction."

You may be interested in:

From Revisionism to Holocaust Denial - David Irving as a Case Study
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/irving.html

Are "Revisionists" Holocaust-deniers?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/revision-or-denial/index.html

and the Lipstadt case

and his publishing of the thoroughly discredited "Lechter Report", with introduction:

"Nobody likes to be swindled, still less where considerable sums of money are involved. (Since 1949 the State of Israel has received over 90 billion Deutschmarks in voluntary reparations from West Germany, essentially in atonement for the "gas chambers of Auschwitz".) And this myth will not die easily: Too many hundreds of millions of honest, intelligent people have been duped by the well-financed and brilliantly successful postwar publicity campaign which followed on from the original ingenious plan of the British Psychological Warfare Executive (PWE,) in 1942 to spread to the world the propaganda story that the Germans were using "gas chambers" to kill millions of Jews and other "undesirables".

(I won't post the link as I don't want this post deleted, but he has the above on his site.)

:: chuckle :: You got me there.

I know that many ACLU-type liberals believe in the universality of "free speech." However, there is a right and a wrong, and I think that advocacy of fascism is akin to advocating the rape of children. It is a legitimate criminal law issue, but primarily a political one--people should be mobilized to confront and shut these people down.

Advocacy of fascism shoudn't be protected speech. It would be like advocacy of fires. In crowded theaters. ;)

There are some here that have a problem with this assholes FREE SPEECH??

Look, they STILL want to get rid of the Jews, and this sort of "Free Speech" emboldens the nazi bastards to get active again.

Sheesh, yeah, lets let racist nazi bastards say anything they want, and whip the skinheads into a frenzy...after all it's a FREE SPEECH ISSUE.

Taking political correctness a bit to far in my opinion.

When did Irving advocate a facsist takeover of Austria? Or getting rid of any Jews? Is he trying to take over the government or is he engaging in revisonist history? Two different things. No, one should not be allowed to yell "fire!" in a theater. Also one should not be thrown in jail for saying "I don't believe that many people have died in theater fires" regardless of whether the statement is true or not.

Popular free speech doesn't require protection.

How do you know they won't come after your speech next? Are you aware that a lot Freepers out there compare typical progressive ideas to Stalinism?

A Speaker to Neo-Nazis

On September 20, 1996, David Irving was the featured speaker at a meeting of the National Alliance.

The National Alliance is "the largest neo-Nazi group in America," according to Klanwatch. It gained notoriety when its leader's book The Turner Diaries, which is a battle plan for race war, was Exhibit A in Timothy McVeigh's trial. Its membership handbook talks about using National Socialism (Nazism) to recruit:

The recruiter who is working with the right sort of member ... can use the National Socialist idea ... for opening the mind of his prospect to the Alliance message.

But in an Australian radio interview just two months later, Irving said "I don't give speeches to neo-Nazis." And he has threatened a lawsuit to keep a recording of his secret speech off the internet.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/pamphlets/irving/pamphlet.shtml

Please don't tell me there's a difference between speaking at a neo-nazi convention and saying "fascism is good." Please.

Well, in some people's minds there are things worse than fascism. Like imperiling peoples' immortal souls by spreading atheism and heresy. Do you deny the divinity of Christ? Do you dare to speak this heresy publicly? Then not only are you going to hell for eternity, but you are taking others with you. So then we get the Spanish Inquisition all over again.

When the Fundies take over do you think they'll respect your freedom of speech any more than you respect Irving's?

Of course it's quite possible that Irving is a lying Nazi pigfucker. Don't think you hate Nazis any more than the rest of us.

Nazi Punks Fuck Off!

...is in no danger of being taken over by religious fundamentalists.

Neither austrailia nor Germany (which IIRC has the same type of law) have become fasist dictatorships or fundementalist states in the what about 60 years since WWII? And as far as I know neither one has expanded such a policy beyond the holocost.

Australia has plenty of kangaroos.

Keep that in mind as it makes quite a deal of difference in this discussion.

Oh, and Hitler was from Austria, one less 'a' and one less 'l'

Sorry for the typeo/mistake/wtf was I on??

Anyway its austria in the initial story. Sorry for the mistake.

From what I gather of this situation is there's a lot of hate towards this man -- and he says a lot of things that are completely out of line. Yet to arrest him for saying a lesser of these things sets a bad example. It almost sets the example that it's okay to say the things he does, but it's not okay to have freedom of speech.

It isn't the individual in question -- by all means, I say he got what he deserved from what people are saying. Looking at it in a standard from when I was a former moderator (though I know this isn't an equal comparison, but the mindset is still there). There was one guy I HATED at this forum. He constantly berated people, promoted people do this or that to the forum. He was the second-admin to a competing forum and was, successfully, attempting to take it down.

I had a personal vendetta with him because at the time I was christian and was apalled by the way he treated those who shared my religion on the forum. So a friend and I devised a plan -- for you see, we didn't need truth, we only needed myself, my friend, and the support of others who hated him, to simply say he /did/ break a rule. He was promptly banned, but for reasons unsatisfactory to what should have been.

What happened after that? I inadvertantly sparked a 3 year long spark of hackers, mudslinging and spam. The competing forum eventually crashed and the forum I worked for became total hell. From that moment forward, I've vowed not to stand up for bilegerance in the way of truth. If you don't like someone, that's fine, but if you arrest them on a count of something that's less than you should arrest them for -- you're going to gain repercussion. As someone in this thread already pointed out, the point is to teach the neonazis the error in their way, not piss them off by telling them they have no freedom of speech.

There is a right and wrong way....we as democrats should support the correct way.

what he is doing, he is throwing GASOLINE on a fire...big difference.

And folks can get hurt by his actions, the government is right in stopping this sort of thing.

Most here live in a context based on the anglo-american common law; the central European countries operate with Roman law, which behaves differently.

Despite that, freedom of opinion is part of the European human rights accord and the Austrian constitution (via the Staatsgrundgesetz). This may be the misunderstanding: Saying "I believe that..." is protected.

But when stating a "fact", you have to be able to back it up. In the case of Holocaust denial stated as a fact, we are looking at libel, sedition and insulting the honor of the fallen.

Thanks.


now that I think of it... its the best post so far on this topic.

It is as my friend says, "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

I wonder what you good, Democratic folks think of legally banning Communist ideology; for instance, making advocacy of Dialectical Materialism a hate crime punishable by imprisonment?

To people whose home countries had been subjugated by Communism, the gleeful acceptance of Che, Fidel, and modern Euro-Communists is akin to people like David Irving (or Ernst Zundel, who really is a repulsive character, and a favorite of Jeff Rense) -- rubbing their holocaust fictions in the faces of survivors of the Nazi terror.

As a decendant of survivors of Nazi, Communist, and British Imperial aggression, I've learned that there are commonalities to hatred and oppression, and that NO ONE is exempt, not even our own. (Your own ancestors may have suffered and survived genocides -- it is remarkably common; it is tragically common.)

The Nazis weren't "special". That's the lesson of the Holocaust, that so-called "good" people could be induced to commit atrocities. If we continue to demonize one special group of bad guys for some feel-good moralizing about how wonderful we are, we risk missing our own mistakes -- the kinds of mistakes that can later grow into mass murder and genocide.

So, I support Free Speech, because it works both ways: Let the fools speak, and let us speak against the fools. But I have trouble with laws that shut fools up and incarcerate them.

There can be no rest for those who are vigilant against tyranny, but recently, our own dedication to this cause has slackened. With the Bushistas intent on turning America into a New World Reich, we have a great deal of lost time and opportunities to make up for.

--p!

It would apear that saying... "comunism is a good idea" is diffrent from "the holocost didn't happen" because the first is a statement of political idiology and the second is a statement of a 'fact' which must be backed up under their laws.

As far as the Nazis being 'special' you need to remember you are talking about Austrailia and Germany (similar law) to those countries there IS something special about the Nazis as they pertain to that countries history.

There are a number of statements about Communism that could be made that parallel those of the Holocaust deniers, but they would still be legal -- and I would think it wrong to outlaw the new nonsense, too. Appeals to the differences in the legal systems of the USA and Europe are similar, using arbitrary criteria designed to justify the denial of free speech.

And this isn't just an issue of free speech; it's an issue of the consequences of free speech. They are in danger of trading the risk of getting pissed-off for the greater risk of encouraging Naziism and its underlying philosophy.

The problem I see, which no one seems to have addressed, is that it makes Naziism "special" in a perverse way. It not only gives Naziism power it doesn't deserve, it deceives us into thinking that we're incapable of being at all like Nazis, when the contrary is proved often in small, but frightening, ways.

Finally, speech bans drive neo-Naziism underground, when it should be fully exposed for everyone to see. It is usually "cool" to be a contrarian, but this only makes Naziism "cool", too. And that's exactly what many young Nazis and Nazi-admirers say. "If Naziism is so bad, then it must be good" -- and the Big Lie is kept alive, like a hungry zombie.

Sunlight, fresh air and exposure kills germs, fungi, putrescence, and repulsive ideologies. I strongly believe that Europe (and some other countries) have taken the wrong approach to keeping the ghost of Hitler in his grave. Only confrontation with this perennial evil, in its every manifestation, will keep it from seducing future generations.

I know, the pain of hearing those lies must be wrenching for Jews and non-Jews alike. Europe was torn in half and broken by Hitler and his fellow fascist thugs. But Europe will lose the ability to fully confront and combat the menace of totalitarianism and fascism if it relies on simple speech laws for its convenience. It will risk losing the ability to make "Never Again -- Never Forget!" an active part of European intellectual and social culture.

--p!

Its part of their history and culture.

And all of europe can probobly not be included as IIRC most countries don't have that law.

and i don't have any problem with that whatsoever. However, you bet your ass i'm out there protesting against them. Imprisoning those who think differently, is plain old fashioned fascism. Call it what you want, but that's what it is. The point of free speech is that those who think things that are unpopular can still speak. Popular ideas don't need free speech.


and, another thing: don't give me stuff about how this is different, this is WRONG. That's approaching what fundamentalists do with regards to homosexuality. And just because we're "imposing our common law culture" doesn't mean we don't have a point. they torture people in saudi arabia, yet i still think that's wrong. am i imposing my culture then?

Theres a very good reason we let the KKK march in the US and it doesn't have anything to do with sympathy for their cause or an ignorance of the crimes their forebarers have committed in the past.

The principle of free speech should be applicable universally or not at all. One can't make ad hoc arguments like free speech is great except for groups X, Y and Z.

Of course there are broad exceptions to free speech, such as "fire!" in a theater or inciting a mob to violence or advocating the violent overthrow of the government. But the exceptions are also applicable universally and not just because the speaker belongs to some out group.

If Irving stepped over one of these lines then let him fry, if not let him speak, even if he is factually wrong.

I tend to agree. However I wonder if perhapse its ok in the case of germany (which IIRC has the same/similar law). I could see a country deciding that they never want to forget the most horible vile thing their country has ever been directly responsible for and saying no you can't claim it didn't happen we won't stand for it.

OTOH I happen to still agree but I am not sure I would go so far as to call it fasism... It does not seem to have spread into other subjects. Just the one over many years.

but it seems that there STILL shouldn't be a limit on what is or is not right to say. yes, TERRIBLE fucking things happened, no matter what assholes like this say, but i don't think that imprisoning this guy does anything to stop neo nazis and the like. in fact, i would say it furthers their cause, in reality

and, thank you for approaching this rationally :hi:

I think we are mostly on the same page. I would not advocate for such a law. But the culture and History of Austrailia and Germany are VERY diffrent both now and during the WWII era with reguards to Nazism so I am not going to count it agaisnt them. They have certainly shown they can handle limiting the law to that issue. Even here we allow imprisoning people for seeking the violent overthrow of the government. I emagine they see it in a similar light to that.

Wither it is effective... hard to say. It certainly helps them preach to the zellots... but then they would be able to recruit them anyway. It might limit their recruiting with broader audiences... I have no idea. I imagine a lot depends on the culture there and I am not qualified to speak to it.

I seriously doubt we could reasonably handle such a law here and would be strongly against it.

BTW thanks to you to for the rational debate. I tend to enjoy them reguardless of the side I take as long as it goes rationaly etc. You can learn a lot by trying to defend something thats wrong or that you don't fully beleive in.

It definately sheads a difrent light on the issue.

lets throw him in one of those "so called" showers, put some "so called" poison caplets in, turn them on, then see what happens. I figure if they are gonna put their money where their mouth is they should perform this little expirement, and if they walk out alive, they will have proved their point, if not, they will have imporved the gene pool. :mad:


Ironically, In Austria in Germany, its illegal to deny the holocaust, but in Turkey, its still illegal to NOT deny the Armenian genocide.

I think you're missing a freeper...

whether it's left wing or right wing.

I read he could be behind bars for 10-20 years for questioning a historical event, listen guys even though I dont like the sound of this guy and his far right some would say racist views, I dont think he should be doing 10-20 years. That is just ridiculous. Why didn't they just kick him out of the Country?

Can you imagine if people were getting 10-20 years for questioning the slaughter of the Native Americans? This is just crazy!

I'm actually quite suprised by a lot of you guys.

First, it is not 10-20 years, it is one to ten years.

Secondly, it isn't that he questions it, he presents falsehoods as fact.

Austria and Germany have different rules considering this type of thing. I find it interesting that so many are applying (or trying to apply) our laws to them.

If your version of facts on the iraq war is different than the offical government version, then you should go to jail.

That seems to be the opinion of many people here.

A very sad thead at DU.

First, this is taking place in a country devastated by Nazis. Second, it is not about saying the Holocaust, but about presenting false facts as truth. One is entitled to their own opinions in Austria about the Holocaust, just not their own facts.

Things are a little different in Europe than they are here. Perhaps, they should conform to our way of thought or be invaded?

We live in a country devestated by republicans. Should we advocate taking away the republicans' freedom of speech?

now that you put it that way, I think we should arrest the republicans for being anti-democracy and anti-freedom. I'm sure there's a clause for that in the patriot act. And yeah, take away their right to speak - they're trying to bring down our country - financially and resource wise.

...that once again we are back to this issue of looking at other countries and judging them based upon our legal system and values. Simply put - what works in the USA does not necessarily work in Austria, Iraq, Antarctica, or anywhere else. Very few people here are advocating for any such legislation in the United States. It would be patently unconstitutional and, quite frankly, unnecessary. It is necessary in Austria, however. Austria is not the same as the United States. They face a different set of problems, and they are tackling them in a different way. I see very few people advocating that the US begin using the Austrian model of legislation, so why do I see so many people insisting that Austria must adopt ours?

It is austria's business. I just felt it strange many DUers were quick to insult our constructive criticism on their process, but just as fast to adopt the good of their systems also, being we do not hold any precidence there.

I don't chastise austria. I chastise the DUers who are willing to look at the pros and not the cons of the situation, for our own well being.

You know SLAVERY DENIER - Real Jesse Helms - Sr tom Thurmond - George Wallace type history of the Ante-Bellum South:

"Happiest folks in the world" - "Always well treated" - "Laughing and singing and dancing" - "Proselytized to the word of God" - "Never maltreated or whipped" - "Families Were Kept Together"

And that stuff was and is out there.

(Yes I did have 9 credits of American History in college - and yes I know the Slavery Denier line is pure bull)

The question then would be, could they arrest me....

that would likely be punishable. Not sure how severely but making factual mis-reptresentations is a bit diffrent there than here.

a parade for something or other, and as we walked uptown , we came across a cordoned off area, with about a dozen NYPD officers looking somewhat bored,protecting a speaker and some of his followers. My first encounter with a nazi was about to begin.

My friend and I stood there and wondered why these people had the right to speak hatred and vitriol to a few assembled listeners...after all, my father had fought people like these some 24 years before, and although he came back from Europe unscathed; many of his comrades in arms came home in coffins and mangled beyond description.

On my left, there stood an elderly lady, paying, what appeared to me,
very close attention to what came from the bullhorn. I asked her if she found the "speech" interesting. She looked at me, and quietly said, "It benefits you to know your enemies". I saw, on her left
forearm, the unmistakable tattoo that so many survivors in NYC had. Proof that she had seen firsthand what evil could come from the mind of man.

She went on to say that not just 6 million Jews died at the hands of the nazi's, but some 7 million others were exterminated as well, communists, political dissenters, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and many members of various christian churches who stood up against the horror of the time.

Now, 47 years later, I can see her face again, and I know why I
despise these people who purvey blind hatred. All tolled WWII took away some 30 million lives...but gave us a reason to battle these despicable people at every turn. Delusion is their stock in trade, and they must be exposed at every turn.

I believe in Free Speech, but I also believe, and with great fervor, that I can speak against them, and I sure as hell don't have to agree with them.

He berated fellow historians for their idleness over research, as he had unearthed a vast collection of previously unexploited Nazi documents and had conducted many interviews with members of Hitler's personal staff while writing the book.

The vast work, which took 13 years to produce, contained the astounding thesis that, until late 1943, Hitler knew nothing of the Holocaust and that he never gave the order for the physical destruction of European Jewry.

He offered £1,000 to anyone who could produce a written document showing that Hitler had given such an order.

Indeed in the following years, Irving went even further, stating that gas chambers did not exist and that six million did not die.


Hugh Trevor-Roper, author of The Last Days of Hitler, and the man who erroneously authenticated the bogus "Hitler diaries" wrote, "No praise can be too high for his indefatigable scholarly industry" and AJP Taylor commended his "good scholarship".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4449948.stm

SNIP:
Matters came to a head in 2000, when he took the American academic, Deborah Lipstadt, to court for libel after she branded him a "Holocaust denier" in her book, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.

A key element in the Lipstadt case was a report compiled for the defence by Richard Evans, professor of Modern History at Cambridge University. His conclusion was damning.

Mr Irving, surmised Professor Evans, had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics.

And he concluded: "Irving has fallen so far short of the standards of scholarship customary amongst historians that he does not deserve to be called a historian at all."

And, if the judge's comments, branding David Irving "a racist, an anti-Semite and an active Holocaust denier" were not enough in themselves, the financial cost, an estimated £3m, bankrupted him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4449948.stm

The guy is a moron, but this tramples upon the notion of free speech that we often take for granted here in America.

..and even in the US, free-speech has it's limits...

Violet...

I've seen him in his full pathetic Holocaust denial mode -if my memory serves me accurately he even had the gall to appear on Australian TV and argue that the Holocaust didn't exist against a someone who had been in the concentration camps or who had lost family there (I can't remember which one). He also addressed a meeting of white supremacists in the US where his audience later came out speaking about how wonderful it was that David Irving was speaking out against the "mud people" -it was shown in a documentary on Australian TV.

Which should tell you a lot about the audience he caters to

I'm not disappointed this happened to him. He deserves this and a lot more

Personally I really think the whole issue regarding this guy is a matter of free speech and I think he's being arrested for a thought crime.

But then again, he's not on American soil so our laws and customs do not apply there in Austria so I guess whatever.

This isn't a thought crime!

A thought crime is trying to control the THOUGHTS of people, as in "1984." Read post #50. In Austria, you are absolutely allows you have your own thoughts and opinions. You cannot, however, make up your own facts. Which is what Irving does. He states the Holocaust never happened, he has called survivors LIARS to their faces and ridiculed them publicly. He has illegally spoken at Neo-Nazi rallies, etc.

This is not the US, They have no First Amendment, They are not censoring speech, they just banning a specific kind of hate crime/speech. And, the US does not have Free Speech, so why do pe0ople on this thread say so??? You can't slander someone, defame someone, say you want the President dead, nor advocate the violent overthrow of the government. WE have limits, they have limits.

We didn't live through the Holocaust, nitrogen US citizens nor the country.

You put that much better than I ever could have...

Violet...

You say:

----

A thought crime is trying to control the THOUGHTS of people, as in "1984." Read post #50. In Austria, you are absolutely allows you have your own thoughts and opinions. You cannot, however, make up your own facts. Which is what Irving does. He states the Holocaust never happened, he has called survivors LIARS to their faces and ridiculed them publicly. He has illegally spoken at Neo-Nazi rallies, etc.

----

Uh buddy, technically speaking if I want to say that 1 + 1 = 8 and I actually believe that junk and provide pseudo-evidence then still I am stating it as my opinion. That's freedom of speech. This is a violation of freedom of speech - which is different and not quite as free in Austria. Like I said, this is America, not Austria so our laws do not apply. But this is silencing this man's incorrect opinion and in my opinion that's not correct.

No matter how you want to try to spin it. You and everyone else on this thread saying this is showcase the arrogance that we Americans are so rightly often accused of.

The next time you live a Holocaust like the one they did, then you can say anything you want. Until then, none of us have any right to judge these people for doing this. It is a very real issue of National Security, and it is a wound still raw. One that will never fully heal. They are doing the best they can, and are doing a pretty decent job. Most European countries have FREER speech than our country, no matter how much we all like to think the First Amendment is sacrosanct.

And, your example doesn't wash. 1+1=8 isn't a FACT. The existence of the Holocaust is a FACT. You are purposely ignoring the FACTS of their laws so that you can spin why they're wrong.

Uh...okay... BUDDY.And thus ends any posts of mine on this subject. Time to "Hide Thread."

so, should I be thrown in prison if I say it never happened?

I don't think this is about American arrogance. I think it really shows that, in fact, freedom of speech is a freedom that we "know how to do better" than any other country on earth.

Should they go to jail?

What if people say that Indians got what they deserved?

What if someone denies that women are equal to men?

It's a thought crime no matter how you spin it.

You do not put people in jail in a free country for disagreeing with the government's version of history.

Are they breaking laws about slander and libel?

If Irving said "I think differently", that's one thing, but he has accused all Jews of being liars. Repeatedly. With intent to harm or defame.

Saying "I think Democat eats babies and rapes women for fun" is a statement of thought. Saying that "Democat eats babies and rapes women for fun" is a statement of fact, intended to hurt the target.

n/m

No longer LBN.