| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
19 Feb 2006 11:58:05 PM |
| Object: |
Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech |
Whether or not Mr. Irving's extensive studies are completely accurate,
common decency dictates that this man's opinions be heard without fear of
any legal consequences. Mr. Irving has never denied the holocaust occurred,
he has however questioned the accuracy of some of the events and the numbers
involved. That is not a crime, that is called research. Austria owes David
Irving an apology and financial compensation.
http://www.sundayherald.com/54228
Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech
TALK about denying the Holocaust, and you hit a raw nerve among Germans -
even 60 years after the fact. At least that's the impression you get when
discussing it with the educated middle-aged, middle class.
However, when it comes to the opinions of right-wingers or the young, it's
sometimes a different story. Freedom of speech - even if it includes saying
gas chambers never existed - wins the day.
When controversial British historian David Irving takes the stand in a
Vienna court tomorrow for denying that gas chambers existed at Auschwitz,
the 11-member jury could jail him for up to 10 years.
Of the nine countries with laws to punish those who lie about the Holocaust,
Austria is the most stringent. Irving is being charged with breaking a law
which forbids lying about, denying or belittling the Holocaust .
Banned from Germany, Canada and Australia, Irving, a 68-year-old from Essex,
knew there was a warrant for his arrest in Austria dating back to 1989, when
he toured there and made his Auschwitz claims. Despite this, he returned
there last November, only to be caught while driving on the motorway. Since
then, he has been awaiting trial in detention.
Stringent security will be in place in an attempt to control the flood of
right-wing supporters who are expected to swamp the court. German pensioner
Fred Duswald said: "If I was in Vienna I'd go to the court to show my
support. They should let him free."
He cites historians and critics such as military historian John Keegan who
have underlined the "valuable input which Irving made to our understanding
of the second world war".
Duswald added: "Everyone should be allowed to voice their opinion - whether
Irving or the Muhammed caricature artists. One can dispute their view -
whether it's religious or about the gas chambers - but I've been to a few of
Irving's talks, and I believe he only voiced his opinion which was built up
from his deep research into Hitler and the Holocaust."
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech |
20 Feb 2006 04:33:37 PM |
|
|
In article <SumdnXX0Bujtx2TeRVn-pQ@giganews.com>,
says...
Whether or not Mr. Irving's extensive studies are completely accurate,
common decency dictates that this man's opinions be heard without fear of
any legal consequences.
I suppose that's why you oppose any restriction on pornography, including
child pornography and bestiality, right. Naturally, I'm sure you
wouldn't have objected to Janet Jackson showing her tit on TV during
the superbowl. I'm sure that you also support the right of any person to
utter "profanities" at any given time.
Mr. Irving has never denied the holocaust occurred,
he has however questioned the accuracy of some of the events and the numbers
involved. That is not a crime, that is called research. Austria owes David
Irving an apology and financial compensation.
No, it certainly owes him neither. I don't believe that it should
imprison him, at least for the periods in this case. But I do believe
that people must ultimately be factually accountable for what they claim.
Irving is unequivocally a fraud and this has been demonstrated
extensively. As such, he should be treated in the same way as a con man
who passes off knowingly-false information for financial gain.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech |
20 Feb 2006 05:10:08 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e63f1aed2c35a079897a2@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <SumdnXX0Bujtx2TeRVn-pQ@giganews.com>,
says...
Whether or not Mr. Irving's extensive studies are completely accurate,
common decency dictates that this man's opinions be heard without fear of
any legal consequences.
I suppose that's why you oppose any restriction on pornography, including
child pornography and bestiality, right.
Why, you've hit on two of "J's" favorite topics:
"Don't mention animal husbandry around J.Young. You'll set off one of
his bestiality fantasies."
From: Boy Toy <Boy...@Toyz4Boyz.com>
Message-ID: <dheqt153a9ke70dmjdsem9otge43occ6ue@4ax.com>
"J Young knows far more about bestiality than any of us..."
From: "Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster>
Message-ID: <s-KdnUZCaePYT4DeRVn-1A@megapath.net>
"I ain't a Jesus freak... I love porn stars!God bless them."
From: (Jon Young)
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.0404240901.7eb55105@posting.google.com>
"My friend Ray and I are trying to organize a protest rally this summer
in NYC, during the Republican National convention. We are going to
demand that the federal gov't give funds to this fine organization.
Instead of funding wars overseas; why not fund us people who want to
spread a little love.NAMBLA is all about togetherness and comforting
our young people with guidance from an older generation Please help
us. I know the folks in these NG's can identify with our plight. We
are just very misunderstood; we get bad press, but we stand for love"
~ "J Young", in an appearance as "loose cannon".
Newsgroups:
alt.support.boy-lovers,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.usa.republican,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Federal funds for NAMBLA
Date: 10 Mar 2004 09:44:11 -0800
Message-ID: <5a858a1e.0403100944.676efbd7@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.12.116.202
"Why is it okay to kill a baby ,but not okay to f*ck him or her?" ~ JYoung,
whining pedophile.
From: (Jon Young)
Message-ID: <25e1e54f.0404252034.356729e@posting.google.com>
Naturally, I'm sure you wouldn't have objected to Janet Jackson showing
her tit on TV during the superbowl.
" what warning did parents have that the Super Bowl
would turn into a burlesque show with bare breasts for all to see?
Many parents would have switched channels had they known in advance,
but the fact remains that they didn't know. Empowering the FCC to
impose heavy penalties would go a long way towards preventing such
"accidents". America needs morals and decency, not more "T & A". "
From: (J Young)
Newsgroups:
alt.bible,tx.politics,alt.abortion,alt.politics.homosexuality,houston.general
Subject: Re: Give the FCC more power
Date: 22 Nov 2004 06:14:33 -0800
Message-ID:
LC~ Knows that schizo-troll "J" will say *anything* to get a reaction.
"Good looking lesbians tend to be very popular; witness
Madonna and Britney Spears. Perhaps Republicans would best serve their
own cause if they gave Mary a make-over and a hot honey at her side."
From: (J Young)
Message-ID: <9c2d0f9a.0410172152.25ab3b9e@posting.google.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech |
20 Feb 2006 01:45:48 AM |
|
|
It's quite revealing that your tolerance and open-mindedness seem only
to apply to negationists...
It fits quite perfectly the nickname I gave you: nazi turd.
As for "he never denied the holocaust":
"Irving acknowledged that between 1977 and 1988, his belief about the
nature of the Holocaust evolved. In Hitler's War, Irving footnotes, "I
cannot accept the view... [that] there exists no document signed by
Hitler, Himmler or Heydrich speaking of the extermination of the Jews."
By the mid-1980s, however, Irving associated himself with the
Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review, began giving
lectures to groups such as the far-right German Deutsche Volksunion,
and made statements that moved him to clearly Holocaust-denier
territory. For example, he denied that Nazis systematically
exterminated Jews in gas chambers during World War II, alleged that
parts of The Diary of Anne Frank might have been forged by her
surviving father, and in 1988 testified for the defence at
Canadian-based Holocaust denier Ernst Z=FCndel's trial.
In the 1988 Z=FCndel trial, Irving repeated and defended his claim from
Hitler's War that until October 1943, Hitler knew nothing about the
actual implemenation of the Final Solution. He also expressed his
evolving belief that the Final Solution involved "atrocities", not
systematic murder.
I don't think there was any overall Reich policy to kill the Jews. If
there was, they would have been killed and there would not be now so
many millions of survivors. And believe me, I am glad for every
survivor that there was.[4]
As to what evidence further led Irving's to believe that the Holocaust
never occurred, Irving cited a report by self-styled "execution expert"
Fred A. Leuchter, which claimed there was no evidence for the existence
of gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp. After the trial,
Irving published Leuchter's report in the United Kingdom and wrote its
foreword. In his 1991 revised edition of Hitler's War, he had removed
all references to death camps and the Holocaust."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
***** you, nazi turd. Of better: why don't you die?
.
|
|
|
| User: "M Dunne" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech |
20 Feb 2006 02:53:18 AM |
|
|
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140421548.885046.258960@f14g2000cwb.
For example, he [...] alleged that
parts of The Diary of Anne Frank might have been forged by her
surviving father
Anyone got any info about this? Seems worth a look...
M.D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech |
21 Feb 2006 11:28:30 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:53:18 GMT, in alt.atheism , "M Dunne"
<MaDunn@work.com> in <2sfKf.32288$Fy4.10471@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>
wrote:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140421548.885046.258960@f14g2000cwb.
For example, he [...] alleged that
parts of The Diary of Anne Frank might have been forged by her
surviving father
Anyone got any info about this? Seems worth a look...
He changed a few bits that revealed some of the beginning sexual
thoughts of his teenage daughter. From that people want to deny the
entire contents and then make the "obvious" jump to denying the Shoah.
Why do you think it is "worth a look"?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "M Dunne" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech |
21 Feb 2006 01:57:35 PM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:mbjmv197s3494erarvednv6945emerb3am@
For example, he [...] alleged that
parts of The Diary of Anne Frank might have been forged by her
surviving father
Anyone got any info about this? Seems worth a look...
He changed a few bits that revealed some of the beginning sexual
thoughts of his teenage daughter. From that people want to deny the
entire contents and then make the "obvious" jump to denying the Shoah.
Why do you think it is "worth a look"?
Because I don't know anything about it, and because I've seen plenty of
detectably fraudulent alterations to diary and journal entries get
'accepted' and 'established' because *they suit someone's agenda*. And why
wouldn't it be 'worth a look' anyway? Sources are always being doubted,
re-examined, questioned, and re-edited: that's why our universities are
still open, and why some of us choose to work in one rather than in a
'madrassa'.
M.D.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "serwad" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech |
20 Feb 2006 08:43:23 AM |
|
|
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140421548.885046.258960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
It's quite revealing that your tolerance and open-mindedness seem only
to apply to negationists...
It fits quite perfectly the nickname I gave you: nazi turd.
As for "he never denied the holocaust":
"Irving acknowledged that between 1977 and 1988, his belief about the
nature of the Holocaust evolved. In Hitler's War, Irving footnotes, "I
cannot accept the view... [that] there exists no document signed by
Hitler, Himmler or Heydrich speaking of the extermination of the Jews."
By the mid-1980s, however, Irving associated himself with the
Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review, began giving
lectures to groups such as the far-right German Deutsche Volksunion,
and made statements that moved him to clearly Holocaust-denier
territory. For example, he denied that Nazis systematically
exterminated Jews in gas chambers during World War II, alleged that
parts of The Diary of Anne Frank might have been forged by her
surviving father, and in 1988 testified for the defence at
Canadian-based Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel's trial.
In the 1988 Zündel trial, Irving repeated and defended his claim from
Hitler's War that until October 1943, Hitler knew nothing about the
actual implemenation of the Final Solution. He also expressed his
evolving belief that the Final Solution involved "atrocities", not
systematic murder.
I don't think there was any overall Reich policy to kill the Jews. If
there was, they would have been killed and there would not be now so
many millions of survivors. And believe me, I am glad for every
survivor that there was.[4]
As to what evidence further led Irving's to believe that the Holocaust
never occurred, Irving cited a report by self-styled "execution expert"
Fred A. Leuchter, which claimed there was no evidence for the existence
of gas chambers at the Auschwitz concentration camp. After the trial,
Irving published Leuchter's report in the United Kingdom and wrote its
foreword. In his 1991 revised edition of Hitler's War, he had removed
all references to death camps and the Holocaust."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving
***** you, nazi turd. Of better: why don't you die?
DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF OF THE CLAIMS YOU JUST MADE, I.E. THAT HITLER KNEW AND
DIRECTED HOLOCAUST, THAT SIX MILLION JEWS DIED?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech |
20 Feb 2006 08:54:21 AM |
|
|
*DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF OF THE CLAIMS YOU JUST MADE, I.E. THAT HITLER
KNEW AND
*DIRECTED HOLOCAUST, THAT SIX MILLION JEWS DIED?
How many millions would make it acceptable for you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech |
21 Feb 2006 11:27:08 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:58:05 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> in <SumdnXX0Bujtx2TeRVn-pQ@giganews.com>
wrote:
Whether or not Mr. Irving's extensive studies are completely accurate,
common decency dictates that this man's opinions be heard without fear of
any legal consequences.
I was not aware that "common decency" was a legal principle. Is there
some universal "common decency" I don't know about?
Mr. Irving has never denied the holocaust occurred,
he has however questioned the accuracy of some of the events and the numbers
involved. That is not a crime, that is called research.
Actually, rather clearly, it is a crime. He was arrested, tried, and
sentenced for that crime. Perhaps you meant something else, perhaps
you actually intended to deny clear and obvious facts.
Austria owes David
Irving an apology and financial compensation.
Under the "common decency" statute?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving trial snared in debate over freedom of speech |
21 Feb 2006 02:21:20 PM |
|
|
On 21-Feb-2006, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:58:05 -0500, in alt.atheism , "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> in <SumdnXX0Bujtx2TeRVn-pQ@giganews.com>
wrote:
Whether or not Mr. Irving's extensive studies are completely accurate,
common decency dictates that this man's opinions be heard without fear of
any legal consequences.
I was not aware that "common decency" was a legal principle. Is there
some universal "common decency" I don't know about?
Not you, but "J. Young".
The common decency not to pretend that hate-inciting fraud is "free speech"
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
