| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Tommy" |
| Date: |
20 Feb 2006 01:51:00 PM |
| Object: |
Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
Jewish Evolutionary Strategy is based on a pattern of behavior that allows a
minority (Jews) to exist and survive among a majority (especially white
western countries). It requires that the minority (Jews) control,
manipulate and destroy the majority (white western civilization) otherwise
the Jews would integrate, assimilate and no longer exist as a distinct
culture, gene pool and people.
Jews as a whole are like the HIV Virus which causes AIDS.
Jews invade countries like parasites invade a body through immigration and
then begin expansion through reproduction once inside a nation. Once the
Jews have infected a national body or country, they then make the national
body sick, by moving into positions of power and influence where they can
subvert the majority people’s rules, laws, heritage and culture. Once the
Jewish subversion begins, the nation becomes sick, when the national body
is sick then the parasite / virus Jews can continue to amplify in power,
influence, numbers and control. Parasites and viruses thrive when the body
they invade becomes sick and the immune system weakened.
The ugliest form of Jewish AIDS is censorship the destruction of our
liberties, freedoms and ability to defend ourselves and to tell the truth
about Jews. The Jews have used their power and influence to get laws passed
in every white western country in the world to punish people who use
scientific and historical facts to show that the holocaust is indisputably
a hoax, fraud and scam. Without murdering historians and scientists,
getting them imprisoned or silenced, the Jews can not continue to blackmail
the world for billions of dollars. Without the holocaust scam Jews can not
continue to murder millions of Arabs and steal their land. Without the
holocaust scam Jews can not continue to subvert our culture and destroy our
nation with endless immigration and multiculturalism. Jews use the
Holocaust as a sword and shield over the whole world and it has been
working with increasing success over the last several decades.
It is now a scientific fact, the holocaust is a scam, fraud and hoax. No
matter how many people you get thrown in jail, no matter how many people
you Jews kill or silence, the holocaust is still a scam, fraud and hoax.
Nothing you can do to make this holocaust fairy tale become true except
through repression, terrorism and inquisition style dogma. The Holocaust
scam has become a state sponsored religion thanks to Jews using their power
and influence to get laws passed making it a crime to dispute the holocaust
hoax with scientific facts. What a truly sad day for truth and freedom of
speech.
The evidence against the holohoax scam is mounting; the scientific facts,
data, information, knowledge and research disproving the holocaust can not
be disputed.
The holocaust is a scam, fraud and hoax. There is nothing you Jews can do
will stop this fact from being known to humanity. It is only a matter of
time before all of humanity knows this fact and when this fact becomes
known all your wealth, power, assets and influence will be confiscated and
given back to the people from which you stole it from.
Everyone who reads these words and is outraged by Jewish AIDS, it is time
that all the holocaust revisionist material in the world be consolidated
into an easy to read and understand format. A convergence of all holocaust
revisionist material into a cogent single location is called for here and
now.
Irving gets 3 years in jail
http://www.solargeneral.com/
.
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 01:04:26 AM |
|
|
It's perfectly OK to *talk* about it. Talk.
Sure, but only jackass would deny it happened. It did. I know ....
Why would you assume that revisionists are denying anything? They
are asking questions and seeking answers.
The question here is, what do you mean by "it" -- if you mean the
entire integrated structure of the modern Holocaust story-cycle,
then some individuals might have doubts about some parts of "it".
I mean, think about it. What kind of a fool accepts what others
tell him, without bothering to ask questions or think about events
for himself? If some of those events seems so crazy, so unlikely,
so physically impossible, that it does not seem that they could
have happened in the real world, that thinking person may doubt
that those impossible events took place.
What, you want to send him to prison because he has doubts? Or
because he speaks about those doubts to others who are open-minded
enough to listen? What kind of a world would we have if everyone
was afraid to ask questions about what others tell them is history?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Jacobson" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 01:26:57 AM |
|
|
In article <_NwNf.37311$VV4.506201@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:
I mean, think about it. What kind of a fool accepts what others
tell him, without bothering to ask questions or think about events
for himself? If some of those events seems so crazy, so unlikely,
so physically impossible, that it does not seem that they could
have happened in the real world, that thinking person may doubt
that those impossible events took place.
That, "Al", is exactly the reason for which you should be
very suspicious of all these terrible tales about the alleged
Allied bombing of German cities.
I mean, for Christ's sake, have a look at this:
Source: http://zgrams.zundelsite.org/pipermail/zgrams/2004-February/000754.html
"As Hamburg burned the winds feeding the three-mile high flames
reached twice hurricane speed to exceed 150 miles per hour."
What do you say? "three-mile high flames" (!!).
And it goes on!
Source: http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm
"MELTING HUMAN FLESH
Others hiding below ground died. But they died painlessly--they
simply glowed bright orange and blue in the darkness. As the heat
intensified, they either disintegrated into cinders or melted into a
thick liquid--often three or four feet deep in spots."
Can you believe this insanity? "they glowed bright orange and blue"?
And if this isn't enough -- do you know that your beloved David
Irving admitted that documents were forged in order to inflate the
Dresden death toll by a factor of ten, and that he referred to
the bombing tales as "false legends"?
Amazing, isn't it?
RJ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 02:19:25 AM |
|
|
And if this isn't enough -- do you know that your beloved David
Irving admitted that documents were forged in order to inflate the
Dresden death toll by a factor of ten, and that he referred to
the bombing tales as "false legends"?
Amazing, isn't it?
RJ.
First of all, he isn't my beloved. I don't even know the man.
Second, if Irving admitted documents about the Dresden Bombings
were forged, you should applaud him for his industry in ferreting
out the truth.
Third, if he called the bombing tales "false legends" than you and
he are in agreement, aren't you? What are you bitching about?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Jacobson" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 03:54:25 AM |
|
|
In article <hUxNf.37316$VV4.506359@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:
And if this isn't enough -- do you know that your beloved David
Irving admitted that documents were forged in order to inflate the
Dresden death toll by a factor of ten, and that he referred to
the bombing tales as "false legends"?
Amazing, isn't it?
First of all, he isn't my beloved. I don't even know the man.
But you respect him a lot, don't you?
Second, if Irving admitted documents about the Dresden Bombings
were forged, you should applaud him for his industry in ferreting
out the truth.
The truth was known before Irving. He eventually decided
that he cannot keep lying about Dresden, and then retracted
his position.
By the way, I was somewhat surprised to see that you didn't
comment on all those crazy, physically impossible "testimonies"
about the Allied bombing raids.
RJ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 10:51:02 AM |
|
|
And if this isn't enough -- do you know that your beloved David
Irving admitted that documents were forged in order to inflate the
Dresden death toll by a factor of ten, and that he referred to
the bombing tales as "false legends"?
Amazing, isn't it?
First of all, he isn't my beloved. I don't even know the man.
But you respect him a lot, don't you?
Second, if Irving admitted documents about the Dresden Bombings
were forged, you should applaud him for his industry in ferreting
out the truth.
The truth was known before Irving. He eventually decided
that he cannot keep lying about Dresden, and then retracted
his position.
By the way, I was somewhat surprised to see that you didn't
comment on all those crazy, physically impossible "testimonies"
about the Allied bombing raids.
RJ.
I'll comment on the stories surrounding Dresden. They illustrate
the way in which fantasy can overlay and displace reality in the
remembering and recording of historical events. Take the example
of the exaggerations surrounding the allied bombing story, and
project similar exaggerations onto the Holocaust, and you will
finally get an idea of what the revisionists are talking about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Jacobson" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 11:21:56 AM |
|
|
In article <WnFNf.37500$VV4.510167@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:
By the way, I was somewhat surprised to see that you didn't
comment on all those crazy, physically impossible "testimonies"
about the Allied bombing raids.
I'll comment on the stories surrounding Dresden. They illustrate
the way in which fantasy can overlay and displace reality in the
remembering and recording of historical events. Take the example
of the exaggerations surrounding the allied bombing story, and
project similar exaggerations onto the Holocaust, and you will
finally get an idea of what the revisionists are talking about.
Unfortunately, you miss the point.
Human emotion can enhance reality, but it does not replace
it. Eyewitnesses will often err and exaggerate -- as these
witnesses to the Allied bombing erred and exaggerated -- but
their stories are rooted in reality.
If you'd apply the "logic" of Holocaust denial to the Dresden
tales, you'll conclude that Dresden was never bombed.
Eyewitnesses may err, but they give the global picture. For
the Holocaust, we have an immense amount of other evidence --
documents, human remains, population data etc. -- which allows
us to obtain a rather accurate picture of what happened.
RJ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 12:41:26 PM |
|
|
By the way, I was somewhat surprised to see that you didn't
comment on all those crazy, physically impossible "testimonies"
about the Allied bombing raids.
I'll comment on the stories surrounding Dresden. They illustrate
the way in which fantasy can overlay and displace reality in the
remembering and recording of historical events. Take the example
of the exaggerations surrounding the allied bombing story, and
project similar exaggerations onto the Holocaust, and you will
finally get an idea of what the revisionists are talking about.
Unfortunately, you miss the point.
Human emotion can enhance reality, but it does not replace
it. Eyewitnesses will often err and exaggerate -- as these
witnesses to the Allied bombing erred and exaggerated -- but
their stories are rooted in reality.
If you'd apply the "logic" of Holocaust denial to the Dresden
tales, you'll conclude that Dresden was never bombed.
Eyewitnesses may err, but they give the global picture. For
the Holocaust, we have an immense amount of other evidence --
documents, human remains, population data etc. -- which allows
us to obtain a rather accurate picture of what happened.
RJ.
You are just plain wrong, Ron. Eye witnesses not only exaggerate
real events, they often fabricate events that never happened. This
is particularly true in situations of intense stress, both
emotional and physical. I think you would agree that the Second
World War was a stressful event, especially for those locked up in
Nazi concentration camps.
Where physical evidence supports eyewitness testimony, it can be
accepted in a limited way. When two or more unconnected witnesses
testify independently to the same event, there is reason to give
credence to their testimony. But when a group of witnesses, who
have shared the same experiences and have discussed them, testify,
the result cannot be relied on, particularly when those witnesses
were under intense stress, and when they have a vested interest in
swaying opinion one way or the other.
All Jews imprisoned in the camps that testified against the
Germans had a reason to want the Germans to suffer. Why wouldn't
it be natural to assume that they would slant their testimony to
paint the Germans in the blackest possible light? More than this,
why wouldn't it be natural to assume that they would fabricate
testimony to punish the Germans?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Bruno" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
19 Mar 2006 08:04:30 PM |
|
|
Al Smith wrote:
By the way, I was somewhat surprised to see that you didn't
comment on all those crazy, physically impossible "testimonies"
about the Allied bombing raids.
I'll comment on the stories surrounding Dresden. They illustrate
the way in which fantasy can overlay and displace reality in the
remembering and recording of historical events. Take the example
of the exaggerations surrounding the allied bombing story, and
project similar exaggerations onto the Holocaust, and you will
finally get an idea of what the revisionists are talking about.
Unfortunately, you miss the point.
Human emotion can enhance reality, but it does not replace
it. Eyewitnesses will often err and exaggerate -- as these
witnesses to the Allied bombing erred and exaggerated -- but
their stories are rooted in reality.
If you'd apply the "logic" of Holocaust denial to the Dresden
tales, you'll conclude that Dresden was never bombed.
Eyewitnesses may err, but they give the global picture. For
the Holocaust, we have an immense amount of other evidence --
documents, human remains, population data etc. -- which allows
us to obtain a rather accurate picture of what happened.
RJ.
You are just plain wrong, Ron. Eye witnesses not only exaggerate
real events, they often fabricate events that never happened.
That's why the law allows opposing attorneys to cross examine the other
side's witnesses. A skillful attorney can expose exaggerations and
lies. He can also damage a witnesses' credibility so that the jury or
judge gives that person't testimony less weight.
You need a bit of legal education.
<deletia>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
20 Mar 2006 03:03:19 AM |
|
|
"Joe Bruno" <bruno@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1142820270.689100.77680@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Al Smith wrote:
By the way, I was somewhat surprised to see that you didn't
comment on all those crazy, physically impossible "testimonies"
about the Allied bombing raids.
I'll comment on the stories surrounding Dresden. They illustrate
the way in which fantasy can overlay and displace reality in the
remembering and recording of historical events. Take the example
of the exaggerations surrounding the allied bombing story, and
project similar exaggerations onto the Holocaust, and you will
finally get an idea of what the revisionists are talking about.
Unfortunately, you miss the point.
Human emotion can enhance reality, but it does not replace
it. Eyewitnesses will often err and exaggerate -- as these
witnesses to the Allied bombing erred and exaggerated -- but
their stories are rooted in reality.
If you'd apply the "logic" of Holocaust denial to the Dresden
tales, you'll conclude that Dresden was never bombed.
Eyewitnesses may err, but they give the global picture. For
the Holocaust, we have an immense amount of other evidence --
documents, human remains, population data etc. -- which allows
us to obtain a rather accurate picture of what happened.
RJ.
You are just plain wrong, Ron. Eye witnesses not only exaggerate
real events, they often fabricate events that never happened.
That's why the law allows opposing attorneys to cross examine the other
side's witnesses. A skillful attorney can expose exaggerations and
lies. He can also damage a witnesses' credibility so that the jury or
judge gives that person't testimony less weight.
You need a bit of legal education.
You need general education, you dull *****.
No one mentioned the legal process at all, stupid.
The statement had all to do with the unreliability of eye-witness testimony.
Now ***** and learn to comprehend.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Jacobson" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 01:09:53 PM |
|
|
In article <q%GNf.37542$VV4.511320@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:
You are just plain wrong, Ron. Eye witnesses not only exaggerate
real events, they often fabricate events that never happened.
SOME may, "Al". But here we have a wide consensus of all
the witnesses -- inmates, SS staff, Poles living nearby the
camps. In addition, we have the physical evidence -- immense
amounts of human remains, cyanide compounds in the walls of
the gas chambers. And the population data which proves that
millions of people have vanished.
We have the documents about the mass murder by the Einsatz-
gruppen, we have the documents on the construction and
operation of the gas chambers. We have the documents on
the crematoriums and their cremation capacity, we have the
documents that list up to 900 stokers working in the Auschwitz
crematoriums.
And then there are the clear-cut statements of your beloved
Fuhrer -- you know, the one who wrote as early as 1926 that
Germany should have gassed "Hebrew corruptors of the people"
in WW1, and who said, in a public speech in 1939, that
the result of a new world war will be "the extermination of
the Jewish race in Europe" -- statements that were echoed
by Goebbls, Himmler, Hans Frank and other leaders of Nazi
Germany.
And then there's this important document, the Taubner
verdict, in which the Supreme SS and Police Court flatly
states "The Jews have to be exterminated", and goes on
to add that special units have been assembled to carry
out this extermination.
And it goes on. But that's enough evidence for you to
ignore, "Al", is it not.
RJ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Knoll" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 04:18:34 PM |
|
|
Yes Ron get someone independent to check it out. It is a known fact Poles
hate the Germans what kind of finding you expect. With no international
presence and the Germans are not allowed to attend or ask question what do
you expect.
Kurt Knoll.
"Ron Jacobson" <rjac@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:du7fu1$ku4$1@pcls4.std.com...
In article <q%GNf.37542$VV4.511320@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Al Smith <invalid@address.com> wrote:
You are just plain wrong, Ron. Eye witnesses not only exaggerate
real events, they often fabricate events that never happened.
SOME may, "Al". But here we have a wide consensus of all
the witnesses -- inmates, SS staff, Poles living nearby the
camps. In addition, we have the physical evidence -- immense
amounts of human remains, cyanide compounds in the walls of
the gas chambers. And the population data which proves that
millions of people have vanished.
We have the documents about the mass murder by the Einsatz-
gruppen, we have the documents on the construction and
operation of the gas chambers. We have the documents on
the crematoriums and their cremation capacity, we have the
documents that list up to 900 stokers working in the Auschwitz
crematoriums.
And then there are the clear-cut statements of your beloved
Fuhrer -- you know, the one who wrote as early as 1926 that
Germany should have gassed "Hebrew corruptors of the people"
in WW1, and who said, in a public speech in 1939, that
the result of a new world war will be "the extermination of
the Jewish race in Europe" -- statements that were echoed
by Goebbls, Himmler, Hans Frank and other leaders of Nazi
Germany.
And then there's this important document, the Taubner
verdict, in which the Supreme SS and Police Court flatly
states "The Jews have to be exterminated", and goes on
to add that special units have been assembled to carry
out this extermination.
And it goes on. But that's enough evidence for you to
ignore, "Al", is it not.
RJ.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 05:04:59 AM |
|
|
In article <_NwNf.37311$VV4.506201@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Al Smith
<invalid@address.com> wrote:
<deletions>
What, you want to send him to prison because he has doubts? Or
because he speaks about those doubts to others who are open-minded
enough to listen? What kind of a world would we have if everyone
was afraid to ask questions about what others tell them is history?
The issue with David Irving has nothing to do with honest inquiry or doubting.
David Irving as a skilled headline grabber, propagandist, and liar. At the
Irving vs. Lipstadt trial part of his methodology was demonstrated to
involve him supporting a position in public that he knows to be erroneous
in private. Thus Irving continued to publicly proclaim his support for the
conclusions reached in the *Leuchter Report* long after he had been
informed of, and intellectually accepted, the fact that it was actually
nothing but worthless pseudoscience.
So, why is he facing three, or now, after having continued to violate
Austrian law in a telephoned prison interview, possibly more, years in
prison?
The reason is that Austrian law, for reasons understandable to anyone
familiar with Austrian history since 1933, expressly forbids publicly
denying, trivializing, glorifying, or justifying the crimes against
humanity committed during the period of Nazi rule. It also forbids public
discourse aimed at reviving or praising Nazism. The earliest form of this
law was enacted as early as May 8, 1945, on the same day that WW II ended
and the first steps were made to restore an independent Austrian state and
exorcise Austrian society of Nazism. David Irving has seen fit to flout
these laws, both in 1989, when the punishments were more severe, and now,
once again, from his prison cell in 2006. In the interim he was banned
from entering Austria, but did so anyway, with the intention of addressing
a right-wing group with yet another speech trivializing or denying the
crimes against humanity committed by the Nazi regime.
Decent people respect the laws and culture of countries that they are
visiting. David Irving has chosen to demonstrate his contempt for Austria,
its laws, and its culture by entering the country illegally and flouting
its laws. The Austrian judge and jury that convicted and punished him
consisted, according to the local press, mostly of young Austrians who,
unlike David Irving, understand that you do not relieve a country's
historical conscience of burdens by denying, trivializing, lying about, or
glorifying the most unsavory aspects of its history.
Some of the difficulties that Russia is having dealing with the legacy of
Soviet history, including going into denial about such things as the
Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, show that, after a societal
collapse, enacting strict laws constraining public debate about certain
recent historical facts are unfortunate but sometimes the best among other
possible alternatives. Free speech is never absolute, every society enacts
laws defining the limits between responsible and irresponsible free
speech. This lesson should have been learned by David Irving long ago. He
lost a libel trial in 1970 for publishing a book containing fabricated
military history, and he lost a second one in 2000 when he tried to
prevent Prof. Deborah Lipstadt from publishing the results of her research
demonstrating David Irving to be a systematic falsifier of history and
Holocaust denier.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 11:07:32 AM |
|
|
What, you want to send him to prison because he has doubts? Or
because he speaks about those doubts to others who are open-minded
enough to listen? What kind of a world would we have if everyone
was afraid to ask questions about what others tell them is history?
The issue with David Irving has nothing to do with honest inquiry or doubting.
David Irving as a skilled headline grabber, propagandist, and liar. At the
Irving vs. Lipstadt trial part of his methodology was demonstrated to
involve him supporting a position in public that he knows to be erroneous
in private. Thus Irving continued to publicly proclaim his support for the
conclusions reached in the *Leuchter Report* long after he had been
informed of, and intellectually accepted, the fact that it was actually
nothing but worthless pseudoscience.
That Irving is in the public eye, that he may enjoy being in the
public eye, has nothing whatsoever to do with any injustice that
may have been done to him.
I disagree with you that Irving knowingly promoted falsehoods. He
made mistakes, granted. Every human being, and every historian,
makes mistakes. This is all the more likely if they are working in
the absence of peer review before publication, and if they are
working with original and largely unknown sources, as Irving does.
An academic historian can hand his manuscript over to two or three
other academic historians and say, "Here, go over this and find
the mistakes." Someone writing popular books may not have that
resource, and may be forced to work alone. The chance of errors
going undetected until after publication is much more likely.
See, what you don't get, and what many posters don't get, is that
Irving's attitude toward the war is not the common attitude of the
man in the street. He looks at events from an entirely different
perspective. This causes him to interpret doubtful or incomplete
data in a different way from the way it would be interpreted by a
mainstream historian. This doesn't make him a liar, it makes him
an original thinker.
So, why is he facing three, or now, after having continued to violate
Austrian law in a telephoned prison interview, possibly more, years in
prison?
The reason is that Austrian law, for reasons understandable to anyone
familiar with Austrian history since 1933, expressly forbids publicly
denying, trivializing, glorifying, or justifying the crimes against
humanity committed during the period of Nazi rule. It also forbids public
discourse aimed at reviving or praising Nazism. The earliest form of this
law was enacted as early as May 8, 1945, on the same day that WW II ended
and the first steps were made to restore an independent Austrian state and
exorcise Austrian society of Nazism. David Irving has seen fit to flout
these laws, both in 1989, when the punishments were more severe, and now,
once again, from his prison cell in 2006. In the interim he was banned
from entering Austria, but did so anyway, with the intention of addressing
a right-wing group with yet another speech trivializing or denying the
crimes against humanity committed by the Nazi regime.
Decent people respect the laws and culture of countries that they are
visiting. David Irving has chosen to demonstrate his contempt for Austria,
its laws, and its culture by entering the country illegally and flouting
its laws. The Austrian judge and jury that convicted and punished him
consisted, according to the local press, mostly of young Austrians who,
unlike David Irving, understand that you do not relieve a country's
historical conscience of burdens by denying, trivializing, lying about, or
glorifying the most unsavory aspects of its history.
Some of the difficulties that Russia is having dealing with the legacy of
Soviet history, including going into denial about such things as the
Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, show that, after a societal
collapse, enacting strict laws constraining public debate about certain
recent historical facts are unfortunate but sometimes the best among other
possible alternatives. Free speech is never absolute, every society enacts
laws defining the limits between responsible and irresponsible free
speech. This lesson should have been learned by David Irving long ago. He
lost a libel trial in 1970 for publishing a book containing fabricated
military history, and he lost a second one in 2000 when he tried to
prevent Prof. Deborah Lipstadt from publishing the results of her research
demonstrating David Irving to be a systematic falsifier of history and
Holocaust denier.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the Austrian law
against debating the Holocaust is a good law, because it resembles
laws used in the USSR to muzzle free speech?
An evil law is an evil law, no matter which nation adopts it. The
Austrian law was foolish and evil in 1945, and it's still a
foolish and evil law today. There is really no way to defend it.
The law is an abomination!
It's time citizens stood up to their increasingly fascist
governments and told them, "I'm not going to let you control what
I say or think. My thoughts are my own and I will express them how
and when I choose."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
02 Mar 2006 02:37:26 PM |
|
|
In article <oDFNf.37506$VV4.510313@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Al Smith
<invalid@address.com> wrote:
<deletions>
That Irving is in the public eye, that he may enjoy being in the
public eye, has nothing whatsoever to do with any injustice that
may have been done to him.
So, you ar arguing that people who illegally enter countries who have
barred them entry are dealt an injustice when they are apprehended, tried,
and sentenced for breaking the law?
I disagree with you that Irving knowingly promoted falsehoods.
Take it up with Judge Gray. Indeed, take it up with David Irving himself.
After all, he is the one who preached that the Nazis did not kill anybody
with poison gas, except perhaps in a few experiments, until he backtracked
at the trial and conceded that available evidence indicates that the Nazis
had systematically killed close to 100,000 people in mobile gas vans at
Chelmno alone. He is the one who publicly characterized the *Leuchter
Report* as a milestone in so-called scientific history while laughing at
it in private.
He made mistakes, granted. Every human being, and every historian,
makes mistakes. This is all the more likely if they are working in
the absence of peer review before publication, and if they are
working with original and largely unknown sources, as Irving does.
An academic historian can hand his manuscript over to two or three
other academic historians and say, "Here, go over this and find
the mistakes." Someone writing popular books may not have that
resource, and may be forced to work alone. The chance of errors
going undetected until after publication is much more likely.
When your methodology is "if we leave out a word or two here and there,
the text takes on a completely different meaning" you are not just making
mistakes. You are deliberately falsifying evidence.
See, what you don't get, and what many posters don't get, is that
Irving's attitude toward the war is not the common attitude of the
man in the street.
I get that quite well, thank you very much. David Irving is trying to give
an account of the war from the Nazi perspective. There is nothing wrong
with that. The problem is that he does not go about this exercise
honestly, but rather distorts and mistranslates the documentary evidence,
while routinely ignoring or dismissing as forgeries documents that are
contradictory to his agenda.
He looks at events from an entirely different
perspective. This causes him to interpret doubtful or incomplete
data in a different way from the way it would be interpreted by a
mainstream historian. This doesn't make him a liar, it makes him
an original thinker.
Based on the evidence presented at the David Irving vs. Deborah Lipstadt
and Penguin Books Ltd. trial in 2000, including David Irving's revisions
of and apologies for his viewpoints, he is more accurately characterized
as a liar and falsifier of history than as an original thinker.
<deletions>
Let me get this straight. You're saying that the Austrian law
against debating the Holocaust is a good law, because it resembles
laws used in the USSR to muzzle free speech?
Austria has no laws against debating the Holocaust. Austria's "Banning
Law" prohibits public discourse glorifying Adolf Hitler or denying,
trivializing, deprecating, or justifying the crimes against humanity
committed by the Nazis when they were in power.
An evil law is an evil law, no matter which nation adopts it.
Who is to have the absolute authority to determine which laws are evil?
Are the laws that prohibit saying ******* or ******* in public American
broadcasting between 6 AM and 10 PM evil? What about the lows prohibiting
discourse about hijacking airplanes or having bombs in luggage at American
airports? Or the ones prohibiting public discourse about soliciting a
hitman to kill a judge who made a decision that the person in question
regards as detrimental to his interests? What about laws prohibiting being
caught with pictures of a sexual nature involving children on your
computer hard drive?
On the day the war ended, Austria, trying to get its act together after
seven years of murderously destructive Nazi rule, passed laws that would
prevent a Nazi revival and suppress public discourse glorifying, denying,
or trivializing the crimes that the Nazi regime had committed. Who are you
to say that such a law in that particular cultural and historical context
was evil?
The Austrian law was foolish and evil in 1945, and it's still a
foolish and evil law today. There is really no way to defend it.
The law is an abomination!
Being that the law has been invoked more than 2,000 times, it evidently
serves a need.
It's time citizens stood up to their increasingly fascist
governments and told them, "I'm not going to let you control what
I say or think. My thoughts are my own and I will express them how
and when I choose."
Nobody prohibits Austrians from thinking whatever they want about Nazism,
the Holocaust, or anything else. They are just not allowed to engage in
discourse that would result in such thoughts being made accessible to the
anonymous public or spread by the media. The fact that the judge and jury
that decided that David Irving should spend the next three years in prison
demonstrates that Austrian citizens know the more unsavory aspects of
their history and do not appreciate the efforts of charlatan historians
such as David Irving to whitewash it.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
19 Mar 2006 04:47:03 PM |
|
|
Austria has no laws against debating the Holocaust. Austria's "Banning
Law" prohibits public discourse glorifying Adolf Hitler or denying,
trivializing, deprecating, or justifying the crimes against humanity
committed by the Nazis when they were in power.
Unless all sides can present their views (including disagreeing with
official state positions), they actually do legally prevent people from
debating the Holocaust. A discussion where all parties agree on the
facts is not a debate.
Who is to have the absolute authority to determine which laws are evil?
Are the laws that prohibit saying ******* or ******* in public American
broadcasting between 6 AM and 10 PM evil? What about the lows prohibiting
discourse about hijacking airplanes or having bombs in luggage at American
airports? Or the ones prohibiting public discourse about soliciting a
hitman to kill a judge who made a decision that the person in question
regards as detrimental to his interests? What about laws prohibiting being
caught with pictures of a sexual nature involving children on your
computer hard drive?
I don't think that is what is being debated - it's having laws against
expressing intellectual historical opinions - something that should be
unrestricted in any free society which Austria definitely is not. This
is a country that has laws enabling the state to put its citizens in
prison for even simple insult or defamation - even against the state.
Germany may even be worse.
On the day the war ended, Austria, trying to get its act together after
seven years of murderously destructive Nazi rule, passed laws that would
prevent a Nazi revival and suppress public discourse glorifying, denying,
or trivializing the crimes that the Nazi regime had committed. Who are you
to say that such a law in that particular cultural and historical context
was evil?
On the day the war ended, they added one more Draconian speech law to a
legal code, already overburdened with laws against free speech.
Being that the law has been invoked more than 2,000 times, it evidently
serves a need.
By the same (lack of) logic killing 6 million Jews served a legitimate
need - the more Jews the more the legitimacy.
Nobody prohibits Austrians from thinking whatever they want about Nazism,
the Holocaust, or anything else. They are just not allowed to engage in
discourse that would result in such thoughts being made accessible to the
anonymous public or spread by the media.
It never ceases to amaze me when I read comments like this. You do
know, of course, it's technically impossible to control another
person's thoughts so suggesting this is some kind of freedom is the
height of dishonesty. Sophie Scholl also said the same thing under the
Third Reich. Gedanken Sind Frei! I feel it my duty to warn you against
making such a comparison with the Third Reich while visiting Germany.
Making that comparison there could lead to a 5 year prison sentence for
defaming the state.
http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/news/europe/germany/030900a.html
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#90a
The fact that the judge and jury
that decided that David Irving should spend the next three years in prison
demonstrates that Austrian citizens know the more unsavory aspects of
their history and do not appreciate the efforts of charlatan historians
such as David Irving to whitewash it.
What it demonstrates is that Austrians, like most Europeans in General,
have absolutely no understanding or respect for the concept of free
speech. If they did they would remove their Draconian speech codes and
join the rest of the free world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
20 Mar 2006 02:22:18 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 16:47, anonymous poster wrote:
The fact that the judge and jury
that decided that David Irving should spend the next three years in prison
demonstrates that Austrian citizens know the more unsavory aspects of
their history and do not appreciate the efforts of charlatan historians
such as David Irving to whitewash it.
What it demonstrates is that Austrians, like most Europeans in General,
have absolutely no understanding or respect for the concept of free
speech. If they did they would remove their Draconian speech codes and
join the rest of the free world.
I thought Irving pleaded guilty?
Didn't he go to Austria for the express purpose of
pleading guilty to the charges against him?
Why else would he have gone to Austria when there
was an outstanding warrant against him?
As far as your rather silly statement that "Austrians, like most Europeans in
General,have absolutely no understanding or respect for the concept of free
speech. If they did they would remove their Draconian speech codes and join
the rest of the free world" goes, I suggest that you're a rather pompous *****
and think that the citizens of the world should do just as you say because
you - anonymous intellectual *****/***** - say so, makes you rather a joke.
It's no wonder that you choose to be "anonymous" and post under a falsie.
You're just another anonymous coward.
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Shockley's Exception to Godwin's
Law: When someone is quoting
hitler and his sycophants or
advocating hitler's goals,
Godwin's Law is irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
20 Mar 2006 07:47:41 AM |
|
|
Mon, Mar 20 2006 3:22 am, Gray Shockley wrote:
"As far as your rather silly statement that "Austrians, like most
Europeans in
General,have absolutely no understanding or respect for the concept of
free
speech. If they did they would remove their Draconian speech codes and
join
the rest of the free world" goes, I suggest that you're a rather
pompous *****
and think that the citizens of the world should do just as you say
because
you - anonymous intellectual *****/***** - say so, makes you rather a
joke. "
I would call it a rather astute observation. Any country (like Germany
and Austria for instance) that imprisons their citizens for defaming
the state hardly deserves to be called part of the free world - I would
say they are more in line with Communist China and the former Soviet
Union.
"It's no wonder that you choose to be "anonymous" and post under a
falsie.
You're just another anonymous coward. "
Why, do you want to ruin my career as well? Sorry to disappoint you but
I'm not a revisionist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 12:34:17 AM |
|
|
In article <1142862461.572750.302010@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
Mon, Mar 20 2006 3:22 am, Gray Shockley wrote:
"As far as your rather silly statement that "Austrians, like most
Europeans in
General,have absolutely no understanding or respect for the concept of
free
speech. If they did they would remove their Draconian speech codes and
join
the rest of the free world" goes, I suggest that you're a rather
pompous *****
and think that the citizens of the world should do just as you say
because
you - anonymous intellectual *****/***** - say so, makes you rather a
joke. "
I would call it a rather astute observation. Any country (like Germany
and Austria for instance) that imprisons their citizens for defaming
the state hardly deserves to be called part of the free world - I would
say they are more in line with Communist China and the former Soviet
Union.
<deletions>
Sorry to change the subject, but what is your opinion of states that would
execute a person for probable intent to commit a felony? Or, in a more
general sense, of states that kill people to demonstrate that killing is
wrong? The death penalty is regarded in most of the world as a far more
draconian legal instrument than the speech codes that restrict certain
types of political discourse in many European countries.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 07:03:35 AM |
|
|
"Sorry to change the subject, but what is your opinion of states that
would
execute a person for probable intent to commit a felony? Or, in a more
general sense, of states that kill people to demonstrate that killing
is
wrong? The death penalty is regarded in most of the world as a far more
draconian legal instrument than the speech codes that restrict certain
types of political discourse in many European countries."
I am strongly against the death penalty under any circumstances and am
doing everything in my power to stop it, including subsidizing
organizations dedicated to stopping it. What are you doing to eliminate
draconian laws in your country? Cheering them on?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 07:43:51 AM |
|
|
In article <1142946215.224404.238630@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
"Sorry to change the subject, but what is your opinion of states that
would
execute a person for probable intent to commit a felony? Or, in a more
general sense, of states that kill people to demonstrate that killing
is
wrong? The death penalty is regarded in most of the world as a far more
draconian legal instrument than the speech codes that restrict certain
types of political discourse in many European countries."
I am strongly against the death penalty under any circumstances and am
doing everything in my power to stop it, including subsidizing
organizations dedicated to stopping it. What are you doing to eliminate
draconian laws in your country? Cheering them on?
I live in Finland. We have neither a death penalty nor laws restricting
public political debate. We can even say *paska* '*****' or *vittu*
literally '*****', but functionally the local equivalent of '*****', on
prime-time television and radio, as happened a few weeks ago when a
Finnish ski-jumping gold medal aspirant who came in ninth was interviewed
after his disappointing performance, without anyone batting more than an
eyelash. But then again, this is a *very* liberal country. Our president
is a one-time single mother. She married her boyfried, who is eighjt years
her junior and not the father of her daughter, only six years ago. She was
once the chairperson of SETA, a Finnish lobbying organization for sexual
equalities that worked to have all discriminating against gays and
lesbians removed from the Finnish legal code during the 1970s.
But, no country is perfect and, as I have been saying nhere all along,
constraints on freedom of speech are culture-specific. This, in this hard
drinking country there are strict laws in force about what kinds of
information and pictures can be included in advertisements promoting
alcoholic beverages. The prices of alcoholic drinks available in Finland
are not allowed to be displayed over the Internet. Thus, advertisements
that Finnish alcohol producers send to other countries over the Internedt
about their products are blocked from being viewed in Finland.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Bruno" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 08:49:37 AM |
|
|
Eugene Holman wrote:
In article <1142946215.224404.238630@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
<deletia>
constraints on freedom of speech are culture-specific.
Bingo. You hit the jackpot with that one. The USA has a long tradition
of restricting free speech as little as possible. European countries,
having different cultures and different values, don't all agree with us
on that one. Even our neighbors, Canada and Mexico, don't tolerate the
things we do.
Our American history gives insight into our values. Many Europeans came
here to escape restrictions on their speech. We allow radical groups
to preach racial hatred here(KKK, Aryan Nations,etc), as long as they
don't physically hurt anyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 08:00:48 PM |
|
|
"Joe Bruno" <bruno@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1142952577.804912.235660@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Eugene Holman wrote:
In article <1142946215.224404.238630@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
<deletia>
constraints on freedom of speech are culture-specific.
Bingo. You hit the jackpot with that one.
Any "constraint" on speech, removes the notion there is free speech, you
dull *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 08:28:51 AM |
|
|
Wasn't Hannu Salama convicted for blasphemy over his novel -
"Juhannustanssit" which was publically burned?. He was finally pardoned
but as far as I know those statutes are still on the books. That
doesn't sound very liberal to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 10:21:26 AM |
|
|
In article <1142951331.910887.102280@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
Wasn't Hannu Salama convicted for blasphemy over his novel -
"Juhannustanssit" which was publically burned?.
Very good!
Hannu Salama was indeed convicted of blasphemy back in the mid-1960s, but
he was pardoned by the president. The books were not burned, but they were
censored. Now the unexpurgated version is freely available. The episode is
now regarded as an embarrassment.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannu_Salama
<quote>
Hannu Salama
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hannu Salama is a Finnish author, born October 6, 1936. Hannu Salama spent
his childhood in the Pispala district of Tampere. Following in the
footsteps of his father, Salama first worked as an electrician and a farm
hand. Salama's literary debut was called Se tavallinen tarina (1961). In
1966 he was convicted for blasphemy in his book Juhannustanssit (Juhannus
Dances) from 1964. He was released on probation, but finally pardoned by
the Finnish president Urho Kekkonen in 1968. The new editions of the book
were published as censored versions up until 1990. Salama has written
short stories as well as novels and won many literary awards in
Scandinavia.
Of Salama's books, his Finlandia Series probably enjoys the greatest
literary reputation, including among all. Kosti Herhiläisen
perunkirjoitus, Kolera on raju bändi and Pasi Harvalan tarina I-III. Hannu
Salama has also published collections of poetry.
</quote>
He was finally pardoned
but as far as I know those statutes are still on the books. That
doesn't sound very liberal to me.
As I said, every society puts some constraints on freedom of speech. In
the US there are local laws prohibiting both blasphemy and religious
speech and symbols in publicly funded places. Finland retains laws
prohibiting blasphemy, but they are not applied.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
23 Mar 2006 07:41:29 AM |
|
|
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote:
The books were not burned, but they were censored.
I forgot to include this link in my previous post, but this source
claims the novel was publically burned.
http://www.caslon.com.au/blasphemyprofile5.htm
Finland retains laws prohibiting blasphemy, but they are not applied.
Here is a blasphemy conviction from last year in liberal Finland,
"Blasphemy sentence in Finland
Background
Vice national prosecutor of state of Finland (in Europe) has ordered a
blasphemy trial against a person who writes in Internet (A: 10:8.2005).
A company had a chatting service and the company has made a complaint
to the national prosecutor of Finland. The vice national prosecutor of
Finland has ordered the local court of the town Tampere to charge the
writer on ground of the blasphemy law of Finland.
A sentence can be a fine or an imprisonment, maximum 6 months. There is
no possibility to avoid the sentence. Only interesting question is that
will the sentence be the imprisonment or the fine.
Atheist Association of Finland wishes that all atheist organizations in
the world will distribute this writing. International pressure can
effect to the parliament of Finland.
You can send protests against the blasphemy law to Prime Minister
matti.vanhanen@eduskunta.fi
Sentence
STT 11/10/2005
District court of Tampere has sentenced a man to pay 50 day-fine, give
his computer to The State of Finland and 1300 euros (more than 1300
dollars) to the Internet Company Eniro.
Because the man is very poor the sentence is hard. If he can not pay
the fine, he must be 50 days in jail.
Edvard Westermarck proved more than 100 year ago than no opinion needs
the legal guard. The Atheist Association of Finland strongly demands
the removal of all blasphemy laws in Nordic Countries and everywhere.
We can not understand "humanists" or "freethinkers" who will
not oppose blasphemy laws. "
http://www.dlc.fi/~etkirja/Blashphemy.htm#_Toc119402923
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
23 Mar 2006 08:43:31 AM |
|
|
In article <1143121288.984962.240230@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
"Eugene Holman" <hol...@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote:
The books were not burned, but they were censored.
I forgot to include this link in my previous post, but this source
claims the novel was publically burned.
http://www.caslon.com.au/blasphemyprofile5.htm
<deletions>
I was living in Finland when the issue was under judicial review and must
say that if there had been a major public burning of the book I would have
known about it. On the other hand, this does not exclude the possibility
that some individuals might have collected copies of the book and burned
it.
The facts that uncensored versions of the book continued to be printed and
sold by its publisher, Otava, until well into the trial, that a censored
version of the book was on sale after the resolution of the trial, and
that it eventually began to be sold in an uncensored version again in
1990, indicate that there was no official bookburning. What private
individuals or organizations might have done on their own initiative is a
different matter, since it was a highly politicized issue.
Source: http://www.jumalanpilkka.tk/
<quote>
Otavan mainosteksti 1990
(Text of Otava's advertisement from 1990)
Hannu Salaman Juhannustanssit herätti syksyn 1964 kirjamarkkinoilla kohua.
Sen avut myönnettiin, mutta suorasukainen ja karkea kieli aiheutti
pahennusta. Julkisen huomion kohteeksi kirja joutui vasta, kun kirjailijaa
vastaan nostettiin syyte jumalanpilkasta. Vuoden 1964 lopulla teki 17
kokoomuspuolueen kansanedustajaa eduskuntakyselyn, jossa he tiedustelivat
"Onko hallitus tietoinen siitä, että maassamme lainvastaisesti julkaistaan
kirjallisuutta, joka vahingoittaa sukupuolimoraalia ja sisältää
jumalanpilkkaa, ja jos niin on, aikooko hallitus ryhtyä toimenpiteisiin
sellaisen toiminnan lakkauttamiseksi".
(Hannu Salama's *Juhannustanssit* created a sensation at the autumn 1964
book fair. Its positive aspects were recognized, but the explicit and
coarse language were regarded as objectionable. The book only became a
focus of public attention when a charge of blasphemy was raised against
the author. At the end of 1964 seventeen parliamentarians of the
(conservative) National Coalition Party initiated a parliamentary inquiry
in which they asked "Is the Government aware of the fact that literature
is being illegally published in Finland that lowers sexual morality and
includes blasphemy, and if it is aware of this, does the Government intend
to begin instituting measures to put an end to such activity?")
Kyselyn vuoksi oikeusministeriö pyysi lausuntoa epäsiveellisen julkaisujen
valvontalautakunnalta, joka tuli siihen tulokseen, ettei Salaman
Juhannnustanssit loukkaa sukupuolikuria eikä säädyllisyyttä siinä mielessä
kuin laissa käsitetään. Lautakunta katsoi, ettei sen toimialaan kuulu
määritellä, rikkooko kirja mahdollisesti jumalanpilkasta rikoslaissa
olevaa säännöstä.
Oikeusministeriö vastasi eduskuntakyselyyn lähettämällä
kaupunginviskaalille kirjelmän syytekehotuksineen. Kirjelmässä sanottiin
mm.: "koska eräät Juhannustanssit -kirjan kohdat oikeusministeriön
käsityksen mukaan sisällöltään ovat kristillisten henkilöitten
uskonnollisia tunteita karkeasti loukkaavia, ministeriö on katsonut
olevansa pakotettu kehottamaan asianomaista virallista syyttäjää nostamaan
syytteen jumalanpilkasta".
(As a consequence of the inquiry the Ministry of Justice requested a
statement from the Supervisory Board on Immoral Publications. The board
came to the conclusions that Salama's *Juhannustanssit* does not violate
sexual discipline or decency in the manner understood in the law. The
board's opinion was that its area of responsibility does not include
defining whether a book possibly violates the regulations concerning
blasphemy in the criminal codex. The Ministry of Justice responded to the
parliamentary inquiry by sending a document to the public prosecutor
urging that charges be lodged. The document stated, among other things
that: "since certain parts of the book *Juhannustanssit* have content that
is crudely insulting to the religious feelings of people of Christian
belief, the Ministry has regarded itself as being forced to request that a
suit of blasphemy be initiated by the proper official prosecutor".)
Syyte nostettiin 1966 tammikuussa kirjailijaa ja kustannusyhtiö Otavan
toimitusjohtajaa Kari Reenpäätä vastaan. Asiaa käsiteltiin neljästi
Helsingin raastuvanoikeudessa. Lopulta juttu siirrettiin hovioikeuden
käsiteltäväksi, joka tuomitsi kirjailijan kolmeksi kuukaudeksi ehdolliseen
vankeuteen ja toimitusjohtaja Reenpäälle sakkoja. Kirjailija ja kustantaja
julistettiin menettämään valtiolle rikoksen tuoma taloudellinen hyöty.
Tuomiosta valitettiin korkeimpaan oikeuteen. Juttu päättyi vasta 9.8.1968
presidentin armahtaessa Salaman. Teos julkaistiin 1966 sensuroituna
laitoksena; vuonna 1990 Otava julkaisi sen alkuperäisessä asussaan.
1964-65 ilmestyi kuusi sensuroimatonta painosta, joten sellaisen
hankkiminen oli melko helppoa. Juhannustanssit on ilmestynyt ruotsiksi,
norjaksi, tanskaksi, saksaksi ja puolaksi.
(The suit was initiated in January, 1966 against the author and Kari
Reenpää, the operating director of the Otava publishing house. The case
was dealt with four times at the Helsinki Municipal Court, ultimately
being sent to the Court of Appeals. That court sentenced the author to a
three month suspended sentence and fined director Reenpää. The author and
publisher were sentenced to surrender all the economic benefit they had
derived from the crime to the state. An appeal over the sentence was made
to the Supreme Court. The case only ended on August 9, 1968 with a
presidential pardon for Salama. The book was published in a censored
version in 1966; in 1990 Otava published it in its original form. Between
1964 and 1965 six uncensored printings were publsihed, so it was
relatively easy to obtain one. *Juhannestanssit* has appeared in Swedish,
Norwegian, Danish, German, and Polish translations.)
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
23 Mar 2006 10:33:33 AM |
|
|
In spite of any of that it seems people are still being convicted of
Blasphemy in Finland as my previous post showed. And just because you
were not personally aware of public book burnings does not mean they
didn't happen. For instance you were unaware people were still being
convicted blasphemy in Finland in spite of the fact you live there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
23 Mar 2006 10:53:51 AM |
|
|
In article <1143131612.935179.62390@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
In spite of any of that it seems people are still being convicted of
Blasphemy in Finland as my previous post showed. And just because you
were not personally aware of public book burnings does not mean they
didn't happen.
Believe me, if there had been something as odious as a public book burning
of any significance it would have been a top news story.
For instance you were unaware people were still being
convicted blasphemy in Finland in spite of the fact you live there.
One can't know everything :-) The Tampere case was a small news item and
it involved blasphemy as well as computer terrorism.
Source:
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Tampere+man+convicted+in+Internet+blasphemy+case/1101981582897
(November 11, 2005)
<quote>
Tampere man convicted in Internet blasphemy case
Man sent religiously offensive messages to online chat-room
The Tampere District Court handed down a sentence of 50 income-linked
day-fines on Wednesday to a 31-year-old Tampere man found guilty of
interference in data communications and offending against religious
practices. In his case, the fines amounted to EUR 300.
The court heard that the man had bombed and "flamed" users in an
Internet chat-room with an exceptional number of messages, some of which
were blasphemous in character.
Convictions for the offence of disturbing the practicing of religion
are rare. Since the introduction of the current legislation in 1999, there
have been only a few such cases in Finland.
In addition to the fines payable, the man was ordered to pay
compensation totalling EUR 1,300 to the owners of the chat-room site,
telecoms operator Eniro Oy. The man's computer was also forfeited to the
state.
It was reported in court that the man had sent prolific messages to a
religious chat-room on the Suomi24.fi portal for more than six months from
November 2003 onwards.
Some of the messages were no more than long meaningless strings of
characters, but in some instances his approaches represented a disturbance
against the religious practices of other users.
Religious topics were associated in a pejorative fashion with sexual
acts and terms, the court found. Under the terms of the law, the offence
of offending against religious sentiments or practices includes public
blasphemy and publicly mocking or demeaning matters or institutions held
sacred by churches or religious denominations.
The man denied the charge as such. He admitted having sent the messages,
but declared he had had no intent to offend. The court neverthless ruled
that such an intent existed because the messages were sent specifically to
a chat-room for persons interested in religious matters.
The court felt that the man's behaviour transcended what can
normally be considered acceptable under principles of freedom of speech.
At the court hearing two weeks ago, the defence had argued that the case
should be regarded as a forgivable lapse on the man's behalf, given his
circumstances at the time. The details of these circumstances were heard
behind closed doors, but it became clear in court that the man had spent
his childhood in an extremely religious environment.
He told the court that he had ceased sending the messages of his own
volition, having come to the conclusion that what he was doing was
unhealthy.
The case came to trial after Eniro raised a complaint of
interference with data communications, claiming that users had been
hindered or discouraged from accessing the site by the man's repeated
attacks. Thereafter the Deputy State Prosecutor Jorma Kalske resolved to
press charges on the additional count of disturbance against religious
practices.
</quote>
There was a minor stir in Finland a few weeks ago when the Prime Minister,
Matti Vanhanen, when visiting the Middle East told leaders there that he
understood the distress over the Muhammed cartoons because Finns take
blasphemy seriously. He apologized that a Finnish website had made the
offending cartoons available, but of course there is nothing the
government can do about it.
Source: Source: http://vomica.net/
<quote>
In non-aligned Finland, the situation is getting more hysterical day by
day. The cartoons haven¹t been displayed in Finnish newspapers or
magazines, but still prime minister Matti Vanhanen issued an unnecessary
apology for the appearance on a certain Finnish right-wing website of the
Danish cartoons. Also, Finnish police decided to investigate the website¹s
operators for possibly breaking the Finnish law of blasphemy. But this was
only the first step. Last week, a small Finnish culture magazine Kaltio
published a cartoon criticising the whole situation. The cartoon shows a
masked prophet Muhammed, discussing with the cartoonist Ville Ranta about
freedom of speech and all that goes in this conflict. The cartoonist
critises the ³holy trinity² of Finland, president Halonen, prime minister
Vanhanen and minister Tuomioja, for bowing to the muslim community, and at
the same time sticking their noses in the Danes¹ business. The editor in
chief of Kaltio got fired for publishing it, and two insurance companies
that were sponsors to Kaltio withdrew their support from the magazine.
Finnish companies and authorithies are so afraid of offending Muslim world
that they have partially blacked out everything that might cause protests
or bad reactions. One would say that the country is going going back in
time, back to an era when Soviet Union was a constant threat. While in the
Soviet Union it was forbidden to talk about the dictatorship of the
proletariat, in Finland it was forbidden to talk bad things about Soviet
Union. This hypocrisy is getting out of hand.
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
23 Mar 2006 11:12:55 AM |
|
|
"Believe me, if there had been something as odious as a public book
burning of any significance it would have been a top news story. "
That still doesn't mean it didn't happen. You may have not noticed it
just like you didn't notice people are still being convicted of
blasphemy even now in Finland.
One can't know everything :-) The Tampere case was a small news >item and it involved blasphemy
I would have thought someone who was convicted of a crime right out of
the dark ages would have gotten more press than that. I guess
Finlanders must not care so much about such issues as free speech and
civil liberties.
as well as computer terrorism. "
It's interesting what some people call "terrorism" these days. I was
not aware the crime of flaming was a terroristic act.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
23 Mar 2006 01:24:04 PM |
|
|
In article <1143133975.198652.96900@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
"Believe me, if there had been something as odious as a public book
burning of any significance it would have been a top news story. "
That still doesn't mean it didn't happen. You may have not noticed it
just like you didn't notice people are still being convicted of
blasphemy even now in Finland.
I follow the Finnish press closely and I know that laws against blasphemy
are still in the criminal codex, but rarely enforced.
One can't know everything :-) The Tampere case was a small news >item
and it involved blasphemy
I would have thought someone who was convicted of a crime right out of
the dark ages would have gotten more press than that.
The "computer terrorism" aspectr got more attention than the blasphemy
aspect in the press.
I guess
Finlanders must not care so much about such issues as free speech and
civil liberties.
as well as computer terrorism. "
It's interesting what some people call "terrorism" these days. I was
not aware the crime of flaming was a terroristic act.
Interfering with data communications is a crime in many countries. The man
sent so many messages to the internet chat-room that it was overloaded for
most of the day. The fact that many of the messages were of a blasphemous
nature, and thus offensive to the users of the chat-room, which was
religious in nature, was of secondary importance.
Finland is as secular a nation as the other Nordic countries, but old
traditions restricting blasphemy still persist. But that justr proves the
poiunt that I have been trying to make in this forum: absolute freedom of
speech exists nowhere. Restrictions n freedom of speech are culturally
defined and often seem quaint, or even downright silly, to outsiders
unfamiliar with the cukture in question. Just as Austria and Germany
prohibit public discourse that would rehabilitate or whitewash Nazism, and
the US prohibits certain types of public discourse containing certain
four-letter words or threats to hijack or smuggle bombs onto aircraft, or
even public joking about such matters | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
