European Hypocrites

[George Wallace]

...at the risk of stating the obvious, it seems to me that this statement conflicts with your free speech rant.  I don't think it requires any nerve at all, just a few taps on the keyboard.If we have free speech, shouldn't he be able to post what he wants? :

I guess you really haven't drawn from the posts his true feelings on "Free Speech".  He believes in "Free Speech" for himself, not necessarily anyone else, as demonstrated in other topics.   ;D

 

[Kat Stevens]

I think he's bang on, everyone is entitled to my opinion, just ask. Or don't. I'll still share it...

 

[mo-litia]

:crybaby: Georgie, Georgie, how can you say such things about me? 

I have just heard that the Austrian gov't is appealing David Irving's sentence-apparently 3 years in jail for saying something stupid two decades ago isn't severe enough for the authority figures in the country that spawned Hitler. 

It seems to me that the ideology may have changed in Ostreich but the methods of societal control haven't changed too much since the bad old days of the Swastika flying over Vienna.

I also suspect that David Irving is going to challenge this law in the Austrian courts.  I hope he succeeds; free speech is sacred, even, especially, for morons.  There is no point served in jailing people who question the extent of the Holocaust.

I think that the  muzzling of those who espouse such things is very ineffective.  It has the potential to raise the following question in people's minds: "What is the Austrian/German/Israeli/French government so scared of that they feel the need to jail people who question the existence and/or extent of the Holocaust?" 

I think that instead of jailing Holocaust deniers and apologists, they should be given an opportunity to debate their findings with those of conventional history, eyewitness accounts, etc, and let free-thinking people decide which party is talking out of their hat.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Austria bears no responsibility for Hitler's rise to power, so why blame them for 'spawning Hitler'?

You could just as easily blame the Allies who forced the Versailles Treaty on Germany, or the guys who drew up the railroad schedules which, in essence, caused the First World War to spread beyond the Balkans.

As for Irving - couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.  He's the same whacko who refers to Hitler as "der Führer" and "Herr Hitler".  Perhaps he'd be better off in an asylum, but the law is the law.

Reminds one of Ernst-Otto Remer, but at least Remer had the excuse of living under the Third Reich.

I think there is legitimate cause to question certain aspects of the Holocaust - for example, the exact number of victims.  But I have no doubt it numbered in the millions - and Irving has not presented his questions in a very scholarly way.

Too bad; his Trail of the Fox bordered on legitimacy.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Austria bears no responsibility for Hitler's rise to power, so why blame them for 'spawning Hitler'?

Michael,

I think he means the country where he was born. Hitler was born in 1889 in Braun,Austria. Just a guess as I never find him very clear on most things. Much obfuscation with him.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

It's just more hyperactive drivel, as far as I am concerned.  He's trying to tie the country closer to Hitler than was the case historically.  Hitler was so much an Austrian he dodged the draft there and went to Bavaria to enlist.  I am sure many were happy about Anschluss and only too happy to deport their Jews to destinations north and east but the way it was presented ("spawned Hitler") made it sound like Austria was responsible for Nazism and the Holocaust.  They certainly helped but I think trying to place blame on them is counter-productive and unnecessary, especially with regards to indicting Irving.  He did that all by himself, and it was Austrian laws sensitive to their Nazi past that he broke.

 

[mo-litia]

Austria bears no responsibility for Hitler's rise to power, so why blame them for 'spawning Hitler'?

Mike,

I 'blamed' Austria for 'spawning Hitler' as it is the country of his birth.  While that nation may have not have contributed directly to Hitler's rise to power, there was massive and wide-spread support for the National Socialist ideology in Austria.  This is most evident when you consider the number of German military causalities-zero-during the Third Reich's 'invasion' of Austria. I may be wrong in stating that their were no causalities...there were likely some traffic mishaps en route and a few cases of alcohol poisoning as the Wehrmacht 'garrisoned' the nearest Gasthaus' wine cellar.

As for Irving - couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.  He's the same whacko who refers to Hitler as "der Führer" and "Herr Hitler".  Perhaps he'd be better off in an asylum, but the law is the law.

This law is unjust and should be repealed.  I'm with you on calling this gentleman a 'wacko' but I have made it clear that I feel he should be able to speak his mind.

I think there is legitimate cause to question certain aspects of the Holocaust - for example, the exact number of victims.  But I have no doubt it numbered in the millions - and Irving has not presented his questions in a very scholarly way.

Surprisingly, I completely agree with you here.  I concur that there was an systematic and abhorrant attempt to exterminate European Jewry by the Third Reich, but I do question the accuracy of the statistics provided-likely millions as you said. But history is written by the victors, and the fact of the matter is that detailed knowledge of the Holocaust first came to light shortly after WW 2 was over.  This was a time when the Allies were very fearful of a German resistance to their occupation.

And what better way to help defuse such a potentially disastrous situation than to demonize-rightfully, I might add-the Third Reich based on it's crimes?  The vast majority of the German people loved the Third Reich but would naturally be disgusted by the Nazi genocide of Jews.  By causing the German people to equate National Socialism with nauseating genocide caused the majority of Germans to be completely disgusted with Nazism, thus neatly defusing the very real threat of a German resistance; much to the relief of all of the Allies, who were busy tooling up for the Cold War, and didn't want to have to deal with civilian unrest on their chosen potential battleground.

I also find it very telling that most of the anti-Holocaust denial laws were passed during the same era.

In my opinion, the lawmakers who passed these laws were basically admitting that while they knew the Holocaust happened, they were not sure of the extent of it based on the evidence available to them at that time, and that, given that knowledge of the Holocaust was serving very effectively to defuse any potential German revolt in support of the defeated regime, they, the lawmakers, felt that banning any discourse on this contentious topic would be an effective means of stifling any debate on the details of this enormous crime.

Pretty sh***y and undemocratic of them, but it seems to have worked. However, it is pathetic that 60 years later an old man can be sent to jail for the 'crime' of denying / trivializing the Holocaust.  I say let him out of jail and see if the world thinks that if, it turns out that only 5 million died instead of 6 million, (Purely arbitrary figure used for the purposes of this argument.), whether or not this crime against humanity is any less horrible and disgusting.

We all know history is written by the victors...perhaps it is time to let the defeated have their say as well.  While I am sure some new details would come to light, I am certain that the Nazi atrocities will be proven by all parties to be nauseating and morally wrong, no matter what the actual statistics regarding it turn out to be.

Edited for grammer.

 

[mo-litia]

It's just more hyperactive drivel, as far as I am concerned.  He's trying to tie the country closer to Hitler than was the case historically.  Hitler was so much an Austrian he dodged the draft there and went to Bavaria to enlist.  I am sure many were happy about Anschluss and only too happy to deport their Jews to destinations north and east but the way it was presented ("spawned Hitler") made it sound like Austria was responsible for Nazism and the Holocaust.  They certainly helped but I think trying to place blame on them is counter-productive and unnecessary, especially with regards to indicting Irving.  He did that all by himself, and it was Austrian laws sensitive to their Nazi past that he broke.

Yes, Michael I WAS referring to the country of Hitler's birth...I am not in any way trying to blame one particular part of the Third Reich for the Holocaust.  That responsibility lies with the bastards who caused the Holocaust to be initiated, who are now, I am sure, burning in their own special corner of Hell.

 

[Glorified Ape]

I think the law may be a bit extreme, but the general principle of censoring stupidity isn't really much of a problem for me. Spewing racist/homophobic/etc. crap into the public sphere isn't any better than taking a shit on the sidewalk, but the former has far more serious potential repercussions. Preventing any idiot that feels like it from spewing hateful crap against whatever enumerated group they despise isn't wrong - it's maintaining the collective mental hygene of society. If you want to have little meetings in your mom's basement and talk about how much you hate the blacks/jews/asians/men/women etc. then go right ahead - just don't pollute the public sphere with it.

That being said, I'm not sure that holocaust denial (as stupid as it is) is really hate-speech insofar as it's not necessarily hateful or "anti" towards Jews (or Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.), though I'd wager it's usually anti-semitism that drives the individuals espousing it.

 

[mo-litia]

I think the law may be a bit extreme, but the general principle of censoring stupidity isn't really much of a problem for me. 

Keep in mind that that the definition of stupidity is rather ambiguous...

Preventing any idiot that feels like it from spewing hateful crap against whatever enumerated group they despise isn't wrong - it's maintaining the collective mental hygene of society. If you want to have little meetings in your mom's basement and talk about how much you hate the blacks/jews/asians/men/women etc. then go right ahead - just don't pollute the public sphere with it.

Why? Are the sensitivities of the public really so fragile that they will be irreparably damaged by fringe groups spouting off? 

That being said, I'm not sure that holocaust denial (as stupid as it is) is really hate-speech insofar as it's not necessarily hateful or "anti" towards Jews (or Poles, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc.), though I'd wager it's usually anti-semitism that drives the individuals espousing it.

You are likely right on these points, but wouldn't you allow that having an open debate on this matter would allow free-thinking people to make up their own minds about which viewpoints are balanced and which are illogical and biased?

I was born with my own brain...I don't need a government to tell me what I am allowed to say. 

 

[WCST]

First off, it wasn't OUR laws that put what's his face in jail, it was Austria's laws.

Secondly, their law is in place because of what happened after WWII. They don't want it to happen again. That's why, in AUSTRIA (not CANADA) it's illegal to be a neo-Nazi.

Third - there are more important things to worry about than if the guy who moved in next door to you is black or Asian. If you (the general you) want to spout off in a public forum about how much you hate anyone who isn't white, male, and/or english, perhaps you need to find a different public forum than one involving the Canadian military.

I may not agree with everything anyone says, but I'll fight to defend your right to say it. Just don't think that I agree with you, because I don't.

M :brickwall:

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I don't presume to be a scholar, but was it not a hate campain that was waged in pre war Germany that led to public acceptance of the Jews being mistreated?  No doubt whoever was cranking out hateful literature against the Jews was exercising his right to "free speech" but to what end.  Once again, the ever elusive "common sense" factor needs to be injected. 
Sure, here is some free speech:
The Holocaust never happened.  They were abducted by aliens led by Elvis.  That is why Israel needs the West bank.  The space Jews will return one day. 
For that matter, Stalin wasn't so bad.  He never really hurt anyone.  He just had really high standards for his work force. 
Hey, the Crusades were just to distribute bibles, and the truth of Christianity made the Muslims commit suicide because they were so wrong. 
Hell, the Roman Empire never really was a conquest.  Caesar was the earliest known time share salesman, and "Empire" was the name of the sharing club.  How do you thing Century 21 real estate got it's name--Centurions.

The loudest advocates for free speech are invariable a-holes who want to spout hate or ridiculous crap, and want a noble banner to hid behind.

 

[HDE]

I'm inclined to see media types claiming to be fighting for "free speech" along the same lines as academics who claim "academic freedom" as defence to do just about anything.  Neither group is routinely prevented from exercising tremendous lattitude to do their jobs and, IMO, very few of them really push the envelope anyway.  Then, in the event of somthing very controversial/tacky it becomes an vital "right" to be defended at all costs.  Put another way I don't generally see most memebers of the media as good defenders of an issue involving much intellectual rigour. 

 

[Glorified Ape]

Keep in mind that that the definition of stupidity is rather ambiguous...

Very true - it's up to society (IE the government) to decide what its standards of stupidity are. Regular old "I think the Earth is flat" stupidity is harmless but "I think all XYZ people should be wiped off the face of the Earth" isn't harmless. Hate speech does no one any good and contributes nothing to society but auditory fecal matter. I see holocaust denial as "flat earth" stupidity as long as it doesn't contain hateful crap.

Why? Are the sensitivities of the public really so fragile that they will be irreparably damaged by fringe groups spouting off?

Irreperably damaged? No, not likely. My sanity isn't irreperably damaged by my next door neighbour blasting country music at 3 AM either, but it's still illegal and that's far less serious than hate speech.

You are likely right on these points, but wouldn't you allow that having an open debate on this matter would allow free-thinking people to make up their own minds about which viewpoints are balanced and which are illogical and biased?

In specific relation to holocaust denial, sure - I think it's an idiotic subject to debate, given that no one with any semblance of an education and rational mind would deny that it occured, but if people want to dumb themselves down by "debating" it, go ahead. Where other issues are concerned, like the supposed supremacy of white people or how "god hates f*gs and they all deserve to die", no - such malicious idiocy shouldn't be lent the credence which debate gives and it shouldn't be allowed to spread like the disease that it is. You can claim "hey, they're just nuts, no harm no foul" but I'm sure people said the same of the Interhamwe and their historical ilk. Inciting hatred of a group, especially based on enumerated grounds, does absolutely nothing for society and can only have negative effects.

I was born with my own brain...I don't need a government to tell me what I am allowed to say. 

I agree with you - to a point. As far as I'm concerned, rights to speech go the same as any others - they stop at the tip of the other guy's nose. Hate speech, like slander, isn't a right as it bloodies the other guy's nose. If you read the hate speech legislation, it's really not that unreasonable and it's subject to limitations such as the credibility of the statement, the intent/belief of the accused, and its religious context (a limitation I don't think should apply to the law - I couldn't care less if you're espousing hate because the Bible/Koran says so, you deserve to go to prison just the same; hate speech based in religion is even more dangerous since there are no shortage of religious sheep out there that'll pick it up simply because the "good book" says so).

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Agree with the Ape on this one. 

Free speech legislation can be compared to workplace harassment or SHARP training.  If it is something you know, or ought to have known would harm someone, then don't do it. 
Plus, I make a distinction as to how a person got in a group.  You can rag on a guy if he is an NDP or other political type, or a NAMBLA member, or KKK or some other group that they CHOSE to be in.  Then you are free game. 
If someone is non-white, born of a non-Christian faith, gay, disabled or otherwise distinguishable, they were born that way and did not choose it.  Therefore, they should not have to take a lot of crap from some closed minded tool who wants to chime off about unsubstantiated crap, like Holocaust denial (although I also agree with the "flat earth stupid" analogy here). 

I was born with my own brain...I don't need a government to tell me what I am allowed to say. 

Having one and using one is a subtle but important distinction.