Zundel to be deported
Rev_Blair @ Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:51 pm
Instead we keep it all secret though. How the hell was a holocaust denier a threat to national security? What about all those red-necks I grew up around? Are they a threat to national security too? I've heard far worse things than Zundel ever said come from men in suits, and I've seen otherwise intelligent people nod in agreement. Are they threats to national security too?
Scape @ Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:04 am
Mustang1 Mustang1:
How about a less biased source?
Why, is Zundel not being deported in a manner that is nothing less than a show trial? Kangaroo courts are not in the intrests of civil society. Perhaps you could better explain your preceived bias.
Zundel: His Freedom Is Our Freedom
$1:
He has been held in solitary confinement for 2 years, locked in a tiny room without so much as a chair. He has been placed in the cells of prisons used to discipline violent or disobedient prisoners. In prison parlance it is commonly called the hole. Through the pressure of the Canadian Jewish Congress he was tried in secret court in Canada by a Judge and not even his attorney was allowed to see all the evidence against him. The judge in the case is a man who sought to prosecute him years ago for his opinions. In fact, as amazing as it may sound, the very judge of his current case was in years past the same agent of the Crown who, testimony has shown, permitted a terrorist bomb to be delivered through the Canadian mails to his home! It appears that anything is permissible when one dares to challenge Jewish sensibilities.
Does the Canadian Jewish Congress have an override on the Canadian justice system that no one else has? It certainly looks to be so in this case.
Now, keep in mind that the people who are in the defence of Zundel are the like of David Duke. Not exactly I guy who is for the justice for all bit. But in the spirt of Voltaire "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
A Promise to My Grandfather: A Follow Up
In stark contrast the events however is the horror of the event. Is Zundel a threat to national security? Is he screaming fire in a theater with his denials or is the reaction by the JDL only making the situation worse and the meek acceptance by our justice system just sweeping our principals of justice under the rug?
Mustang1 @ Sat Mar 05, 2005 10:14 am
Scape Scape:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
How about a less biased source?
Why, is Zundel not being deported in a manner that is nothing less than a show trial? Kangaroo courts are not in the intrests of civil society. Perhaps you could better explain your preceived bias.
Show me where I wrote that Zundel DID NOT deserve a public trial?!?!? Don’t ascribe views to me that haven’t been expressed. I took issue with your use of a known Holocaust Revisionist’s (Robert Faurisson) take on the matters – that’s hardly an irrelevant concern.
Scape @ Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:55 pm
Don't get your panties in a knot. You dismissed the source, not me. And quit going off telling me what I can and can not say. I asked you to explain yourself. Now get a grip.
Mustang1 @ Sat Mar 05, 2005 6:04 pm
Scape Scape:
Don't get your panties in a knot. You dismissed the source, not me. And quit going off telling me what I can and can not say. I asked you to explain yourself. Now get a grip.
Hey, don’t read into the post something that’s not there. You intimated that I supported the recent deportation (the one that seemed rather rushed and secretive) and that’s not a view that I promulgated.
You want some clarification on the source that you used? You don’t know who Faurisson is? How about Irving? Perhaps you should have checked that before using it as an objective link. Don’t shoot the messenger as I merely inquired as to why someone would use Holocaust revisionists as objective commentators – aren’t they merely apologists?
Scape @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:09 am
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Scape Scape:
Don't get your panties in a knot. You dismissed the source, not me. And quit going off telling me what I can and can not say. I asked you to explain yourself. Now get a grip.
Hey, don’t read into the post something that’s not there. You intimated that I supported the recent deportation (the one that seemed rather rushed and secretive) and that’s not a view that I promulgated.
You want some clarification on the source that you used? You don’t know who Faurisson is? How about Irving? Perhaps you should have checked that before using it as an objective link. Don’t shoot the messenger as I merely inquired as to why someone would use Holocaust revisionists as objective commentators – aren’t they merely apologists?
Your concerns about Irving and Faurisson are vaild but that is not my point. How is a holocaust denier a threat to national security?
Ernst Zundel: Modern-Day Galileo
$1:
Ernst Zundel is a controversial figure who has questioned the official story of the Holocaust for years. Why is that a crime?
What precisely has Zundel done that's incurred the wrath of three powerful nations? He's questioned the accepted views of the Holocaust. Does he accept that the Nazis exterminated millions? Absolutely. Does he acknowledge Jewish persecution during the second World War? Yes. Does he agree with the official position on casualties and methods? No – and he wants a dialogue with anyone who will listen.
What precisely has Zundel done that's incurred the wrath of three powerful nations? He's questioned the accepted views of the Holocaust. Does he accept that the Nazis exterminated millions? Absolutely. Does he acknowledge Jewish persecution during the second World War? Yes. Does he agree with the official position on casualties and methods? No – and he wants a dialogue with anyone who will listen.
Zundel's Persecution: By Order of the Jews
$1:
If Ernst Zundel is not really a threat to national security, then an immense injustice has been done to this man. He's been held for two years, then, unjustly. He's a victim -- he's not a perpetrator -- he's a victim of injustice. And the question arises: Who are the perpetrators? -- and how can they be held accountable for the injustice against him and against others like him?
AdamNF @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:41 am
I didn’t know Canada was a liberal pacifist dictatorship with no civil freedoms. Last time I checked Canada was a free country, with freedom of speech laws nonetheless. This is a major blow to Canadian personal freedoms. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for making it illegal for somone to have a minority opinion. I despise Zundel and his ideas and opinions but I do not despise his right to have those opinions. I didn’t see the clause in the charter where it said only the liberal majority get the freedom of speech everyone one else can get the fuck out.
Ontario_Born @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:16 pm
Nothing done under a security certificate is kosher. I have no problem with Zundel being charged with hate crimes, but prove it in open court. If you can't prove it, too bad. Secret courts are a very bad idea.
But if you put him in open court, then you give him a platform to spread his message from. He should consider himself lucky. The 8 million people that he claims didn't die, never got a trial of any sort.
Scape @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:26 pm
What of the idea that the death of so many is being used today as a political weapon by a foreign power. And such a weapon has been fashioned to be used as justification for witch hunts in their name?
You either believe in civil liberties FOR ALL or you believe in tyranny, which is it?
Ontario_Born @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:48 pm
Scape Scape:
What of the idea that the death of so many is being used today as a political weapon by a foreign power. And such a weapon has been fashioned to be used as justification for witch hunts in their name?
You either believe in civil liberties FOR ALL or you believe in tyranny, which is it?
You either believe in civil liberties FOR ALL or you believe in tyranny, which is it?
I have very mixed feelings on this issue. No, I do not believe in censorship. However, Hitler was also “Just one man”, who was widely regarded as a nut job. Nonetheless his message spread, and the result was one of the worst chapters in our history. A single spark can start a forest fire. Is it a crime to snuff it out? The truth is that I don’t know. What I do know is that the suppression of hate is not tyranny.
Scape @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 5:24 pm
Then you shouldn't pay homage to Hitler by endorsing his methods. Secret trials and imprisonment for 2 years without charge is tyranny. You may not like the man, the argument or the notion but we are a nation of laws not of men and if our laws do not apply to him then they do not apply to anyone.
Mustang1 @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 6:49 pm
$1:
Your concerns about Irving and Faurisson are vaild but that is not my point. How is a holocaust denier a threat to national security?
Again, stop ascribing views to me that I haven’t specifically professed – your persistence in this using this tactic are becoming rather banal. Where did I intimate that Zundel was “threat to national security”? Either provide the evidence or stop your juvenile attempts at baiting – it won’t work on me.
Also, why the blatant use of argumentative fallacies? For example, you wrote, “You either believe in civil liberties FOR ALL or you believe in tyranny, which is it?” This example of bifurcation – or the excluded middle – is a type of fallacious logic. There are degrees to both (who has unbridled liberty in society?) and this rather myopic view – coupled with an “either or” question assumes the topic has only two alternatives. That’s oversimplification and not true.
Lastly, you used a link from Mark Weber. I find this curious, as he is the director of the Institute Historical Review. This rather innocuous-sounding organization is actually a significant forum for the propagation of Holocaust revisionism. It champions works by Faurisson, Irving and Leuchter as they seek to bastardize history with their anti-Semitic drivel that claims the Holocaust was either embellished or outright faked. Nice source. The bias is palpable and its credibility is virtually nonexistent.
Scape @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:31 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Again, stop ascribing views to me that I haven’t specifically professed – your persistence in this using this tactic are becoming rather banal. Where did I intimate that Zundel was “threat to national security”? Either provide the evidence or stop your juvenile attempts at baiting – it won’t work on me.
I'll let you handle this one:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
That’s Robert Faurisson’s – a known Holocaust revisionist – propaganda-driven pigswill. How about a less biased source?
Well it does matter when it’s a Holocaust revisionist’s defence of a fellow revisionist. It reeks of bias and it sullies the legitimacy of the source.
You want some clarification on the source that you used? You don’t know who Faurisson is? How about Irving? Perhaps you should have checked that before using it as an objective link. Don’t shoot the messenger as I merely inquired as to why someone would use Holocaust revisionists as objective commentators – aren’t they merely apologists?
Well it does matter when it’s a Holocaust revisionist’s defence of a fellow revisionist. It reeks of bias and it sullies the legitimacy of the source.
You want some clarification on the source that you used? You don’t know who Faurisson is? How about Irving? Perhaps you should have checked that before using it as an objective link. Don’t shoot the messenger as I merely inquired as to why someone would use Holocaust revisionists as objective commentators – aren’t they merely apologists?
All of this is an attempt of dismissal of the primary argument by attacking the person not the idea. Also, I quoted Mark Weber, Kevin Alfred Strom and Matt Hutaff however you would rather the source be who, Banai brith? Dismissing this isn't making it go away.
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Also, why the blatant use of argumentative fallacies? For example, you wrote, “You either believe in civil liberties FOR ALL or you believe in tyranny, which is it?” This example of bifurcation – or the excluded middle – is a type of fallacious logic. There are degrees to both (who has unbridled liberty in society?) and this rather myopic view – coupled with an “either or” question assumes the topic has only two alternatives. That’s oversimplification and not true.
There is guilty and not guilty, dead and alive, justice and injustice, truth and lies. If you have difficulty with that how do you tell your left from your right, guess? We judge every day but we judge that upon what we know to be true. If your a psychopath this will not matter but under the rule of law if you kill, that is murder, if your denied fair trial, that is tyranny.
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Lastly, you used a link from Mark Weber. I find this curious, as he is the director of the Institute Historical Review. This rather innocuous-sounding organization is actually a significant forum for the propagation of Holocaust revisionism. It champions works by Faurisson, Irving and Leuchter as they seek to bastardize history with their anti-Semitic drivel that claims the Holocaust was either embellished or outright faked. Nice source. The bias is palpable and its credibility is virtually nonexistent.
Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:
No matter who wrote what, the fact remains that the man was deported without being able to see the evidence against him. He might be a miscreant freak, but he deserves a fair trial.
Mustang1 @ Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:01 pm
Hmm…you seem to dodge the salient point with aplomb. One: you are desperately trying to bait me with your disingenuous hints that I intimated Zundel shouldn’t have been given an open public hearing (I fully support having his Holocaust Denial pigswill dismantled yet again). When confronted you sheepishly responded with my justified attack against your biased use of Holocaust revisionist’s sources? I wonder why this tactic was used?
$1:
All of this is an attempt of dismissal of the primary argument by attacking the person not the idea. Also, I quoted Mark Weber, Kevin Alfred Strom and Matt Hutaff however you would rather the source be who, Banai brith? Dismissing this isn't making it go away.
I didn’t directly attack the person – I questioned their affiliations and agenda? How is that wrong (besides, why else would someone openly promote Holocaust revisionism?)? You used Holocaust revisionists as your primary means to defend a Holocaust Denier – that’s a better method? Besides, I hope you are not suggesting that Holocaust revisionism is a credible historical alternative?
$1:
There is guilty and not guilty, dead and alive, justice and injustice, truth and lies. If you have difficulty with that how do you tell your left from your right, guess?
Brilliant! You addressed your use of an argumentative fallacy by using that same error in your rebuttal! Nice work. It’s a complex matter – you may consider it a simple issue, but it’s not (nor is it myopic) and besides, I asked, “who has unbridled liberty” in our society? Your response: dodge.
Lastly, why the consistent reliance upon Holocaust revisionists (Weber?) as the primary support for your assertion? You must admit, it does appear somewhat suspicious.
