1  2  3  Next

Irving case prompts Austria law debate

   

"In fact, having a law that says you mustn't question a particular historical instance, if anything, creates doubt about it, because if an argument has to be protected by the force of law, it means it's a weak argument."



It's a stupid law, and it makes you look like you have something to hide. This guys cause just went up ten fold to his followers.

   

Pretty simple actually....in Austria and Germany, holocaust denial is a crime. Do I agree with it being a crime? No. Do I understand why those two countrys in particular have made it illegal? Well duh.

   

That's been my point, exactly, for some time now.

Holocaust revisionism and even outright denial should be protected speech and the Holocaust should be subject to the same level of academic and historic debate as the Dieppe raid, D-Day, or any other historic event.

To have one official version that is questioned under penalty of law makes the story of the Holocaust look suspect.

In every Western country but the USA it is illegal to question *anything* about the Holocaust.

Such as that of the six million people who are supposed to have died in the Holocaust, four million of that six million were supposed to have died at Auschwicz.

But then the post-Soviet Polish government checked on some research and revised the four million down to "about 1.5 million" and changed the plaque at the entrance to the camp to reflect the same.

So, in Poland 6,000,000 - 2,500,000 = 3,500,000.

It's still a Holocaust and it is still a tragedy, but in Poland they have proven sufficiently that 3,500,000 Jews died in the Holocaust. You will note that no one is attacking Poland for saying this.

However, in Canada it is a crime to merely state that Poland has revised the official record because that conflicts with the official story in Canada which states that six million died in the Holocaust regardless of whatever proof anyone may come up with.

Ironically, if you said that you had proof that seven million Jews had actually died in the Holocaust do you know that this would also be prosecutable revisionism?

No one should ever go to jail for their ideas, no matter how offensive they may be.

   

It's illegal in Canada, Australia, France, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Greece, Israel, and Finland, too.

   

Sorry Bart – but I don’t think it’s illegal in Denmark, Norway and some other European countries.

I haven’t looked it up yet – but will do! – do you have a source already?

   

Ok – I’ve looked it up! In Denmark we don’t have a holocaust law – But there has been some lobbying for a Holocaust law in the EU in 2002, but I don’t think it was passed. (sorry only have a Danish source!)

Ps. When the EU passes a law – it has to be ratified by the national parliaments – so in fact an EU law do not have to apply for all member stats.

   

From http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary ... eitel.html

   

Yes that’s what we Danes call our “racism paragraph” but it does not say anything about the Holocaust!

So no we don’t have a Holocaust law in Denmark!

   

But if it is being enforced as if it were a Holocaust law then it may as well be one. The legal term is defacto.

   

Holocaust denial is not specifically an offence in the UK - that's why Irving has made these comments here without fear of prosecution. However, on your de facto point Bart, if a case was to be brought that through Holocaust denial Irving was inciting hatred against Jews, then that would be illegal. Under current English statutes, Jews and Sikhs as separate races are covered on racial hatred laws.

I completely agree with Wullu's point above - I don't like laws such as these but I understand why Germany and Austria feel them to be necessary with their singular histories. The great difference with this tale and the cartoons is that Irving broke a law that had been passed in a democratic country while no-one in Denmark broke a single law of that country.

   

Add me to the list. I think laws like the one Irving was prosecuted under are a travesty. And unfortunately, we have our share of Thought Crime, I mean, "Hate Speech" laws in Canada.

I don't agree with them whatsoever. I think if a nutjob wants to deny the Holocaust, it's his right. If an Imam wants to preach Jihad on the steps of Parliament Hill, it's his right. And I think if someone wants to insult the profit, it's his right.

Bart's right about the US too. That's the only place where devotion to the ideal of Freedom of Speech is more than just rhetoric.

And Americans have a right to be proud of that.

   

Hate speech laws are just more unneccessary legislation, anything that is REAL hate speech should be already covered by existing libel or incitement laws.

   

I see what you mean – but that specific article can’t be applied on the Holocaust – as is does not limit people from “laying” about history.

§ 266b

"Any person who, publicly or with the intention of
disseminating it to a wide circle ("videre kreds") of people,
makes a statement, or other communication, threatening,
insulting or degrading a group of persons on account of their
race, colour, national or ethnic origin or belief shall be
liable to a fine or to simple detention or to imprisonment for
a term not exceeding two years."

The § 266b is right now being evaluated by the reich prosecutor for use against Jyllands-Posten – it was earlier dismissed by the state prosecutor – it will be interesting to see if the reich prosecutor takes it to the courts.

   

Made the same post twice

   

1  2  3  Next