| 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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
23 Mar 2006 05:30:17 PM |
|
|
He was charged with "blasphemy" - not computer terrorism. Finland has
plenty of laws to deal with hacking and I am sure they could have
charged him with any number of them, had he actually broken that type
of law. Lets face it, the crime blasphemy has absolutely no place in a
modern democracy - it's something right out of the dark ages.
The point I was trying to make, and apparently unsuccessfully, was that
every country has things that could be improved (including Finland). I
stated that I personally am trying to do something about it. When I
asked you what you were doing in your country you failed to acknowledge
there was even a problem. I know very little about Finland yet I was
able to find all sorts of things I could have criticized without even
trying - medieval laws against blasphemy - prison sentences for
conscientious objectors with scathing reports from Amnesty
International, laws criminalizing certain types of speech (like
criminal defamation for instance) etc. Every country has bad things -
some worse than others. But you not only fail to acknowledge there is a
problem you actually seem to support the bad things. That's the typical
European response. I even talked to a German once who seemed to think
laws against defamation of the state were fine and necessary. Great, if
they want to live in a country like that fine - but they have little
claim to supporting democratic ideals and free speech.
Furthermore, dismissing bad laws as cultural differences really doesn't
cut it. Chopping off someone's body parts for criminal offenses like
some middle east countries do is also a cultural difference - as was
slavery in the old south of the US, or even the death penalty in the
current US. Those are all cultural differences, but to suggest I can't
criticize a country because of that is ridiculous - just as I think
Europe has every right to criticize the US for the things they see
wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
23 Mar 2006 10:33:21 PM |
|
|
In article <1143156617.376899.241160@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
He was charged with "blasphemy" - not computer terrorism.
He was charged with *both* computer terrorism "interference in data
communications" *and* blasphemy. The interference in data communications
charge was the primary one, the fact that *some* of the messages were
blasphemous in content was a secondary one:
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.
<deletions>
</quote>
Finland has
plenty of laws to deal with hacking and I am sure they could have
charged him with any number of them, had he actually broken that type
of law. Lets face it, the crime blasphemy has absolutely no place in a
modern democracy - it's something right out of the dark ages.
I agree with you. As I said before, the law is rarely enforced. Even in
Hannu Salama's case it was a specific political party trying to score
points rather than the government that was active in persuing the case.
Although a case was eventually made of it, the President issued a pardon.
The unexpurgated version of the book continued to be sold, it was replaced
by an expurgated version, but the unexpurgated version was always
available at second-hand book shops. It eventually re-emerged and has been
the default printed version since 1990. Thus, the law exists because
certain circles in society still deem it important, but the government
regards it as a relict from the past and rarely enforces it. The man in
Tampere was found guilty of "interference in data communications and
offending against religious practices", in that order.
The point I was trying to make, and apparently unsuccessfully, was that
every country has things that could be improved (including Finland). I
stated that I personally am trying to do something about it. When I
asked you what you were doing in your country you failed to acknowledge
there was even a problem. I know very little about Finland yet I was
able to find all sorts of things I could have criticized without even
trying - medieval laws against blasphemy - prison sentences for
conscientious objectors with scathing reports from Amnesty
International,
That has long been a problem and I would make no excuse for it. The only
thing that I can say in its justification is that Finland, a small,
sparsely populated country with a long history of being attacked by its
large neighbor to the east, has a long tradition of universal obligatory
male national service. There are many options available for those who
prefer not to serve in the military or bear arms. The young men who are
in prison are not conscientious objectors, this term traditionally
understood as a person who refuses to serve in the armed forces for
reasons of conscience, but rather they are people so-called "total
refusers" who absolutely refuse to do any national service whatsoever.
Options available include community service or working for a certain term
for the national civil service. We had a conscientious objector last year
working as our departmental computer consultant.
laws criminalizing certain types of speech (like
criminal defamation for instance) etc. Every country has bad things -
some worse than others. But you not only fail to acknowledge there is a
problem you actually seem to support the bad things.
I certainly do not support the blasphemy law, but it is a sensitive issue
and it has enough support among the population for, let us say,
sentimental reasons, that it will be around for a long time. The majority
is satisfied with the current situation, where it is on the books but
essentially symbolic and rarely enforced.
That's the typical
European response. I even talked to a German once who seemed to think
laws against defamation of the state were fine and necessary. Great, if
they want to live in a country like that fine - but they have little
claim to supporting democratic ideals and free speech.
Furthermore, dismissing bad laws as cultural differences really doesn't
cut it. Chopping off someone's body parts for criminal offenses like
some middle east countries do is also a cultural difference - as was
slavery in the old south of the US, or even the death penalty in the
current US. Those are all cultural differences, but to suggest I can't
criticize a country because of that is ridiculous - just as I think
Europe has every right to criticize the US for the things they see
wrong.
I think that the death penalty for being an accessory to a capital crime,
even an unknowing one, as well as a $32,500 fine for saying ******* or
*******, or one of $550,000 for broadcasting a flashed female breast, on a
prime time broadcast, are far more worthy of ridicule than a rarely
enforced, weak-toothed, and essentially symbolic law against blasphemy.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
24 Mar 2006 07:01:48 AM |
|
|
" Tampere man convicted in Internet blasphemy case
Man sent religiously offensive messages to online chat-room ..."
It's irrelevant what he did or didn't do - If Finland has a blasphemy
statute and they are still enforcing it, it's a current statute and it
can be used against anybody at any time.
"There are many options available for those who
prefer not to serve in the military or bear arms. The young men who
are
in prison are not conscientious objectors, this term traditionally
understood as a person who refuses to serve in the armed forces for
reasons of conscience, but rather they are people so-called "total
refusers" who absolutely refuse to do any national service whatsoever.
Options available include community service or working for a certain
term
for the national civil service. We had a conscientious objector last
year
working as our departmental computer consultant. "
Amnesty international sees it differently. The major complaint is that
one must serve twice as long if one chooses alternative service,
implying those who choose that are being punished for being
conscientious objectors. That's why some people refuse all service, and
it's apparently a major issue given that there are anywhere from 50-75
people/year serving prison terms for refusing it.
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.htm?tbl=RSDCOI&page=research&id=40b5a1f314
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engEUR200011999
"I think that the death penalty for being an accessory to a capital
crime,"
As I said before I am strongly against the death penalty for any
reason. There was a time when there was a moratorium on the death
penalty in the USA. Hopefully the US will someday come to their senses
and stop it. In the mean time organizations like the ACLU and others
have teams of lawyers actively working to end that.
"even an unknowing one, as well as a $32,500 fine for saying ******* or
*******, or one of $550,000 for broadcasting a flashed female breast, on
a
prime time broadcast, are far more worthy of ridicule than a rarely"
The $550,000 fine was leveled at a multibillion dollar corporation,
CBS. However, I think such restrictions are bizarre and unnecessary. As
for myself and most Americans, I have cable TV which falls under a
different set of regulations so I can hear epethets all day long if
that's what I want. I can also view nudity any time of the day if I
subscribe to those channels. In fact, in my area I can't even receive
normal TV so it's cable or nothing.
"enforced, weak-toothed, and essentially symbolic law against
blasphemy. "
How weak-toothed it is depends on how willing judges are to enforce it.
Like any law, that depends a lot on the political climate. Germany's
blasphemy law hadn't been enforced in a long time against anybody and
had never been used against non-Christians. With the cartoon
controversy it is now being enforced against people who insult Islam.
It could very well start a new trend just like prosecutions against
holocaust denial became in Germany in the 90s.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
24 Mar 2006 12:24:18 PM |
|
|
We had a conscientious objector last
year
working as our departmental computer consultant.
Ah! what fun they must have, taking ***** from morons because they
refuse to go into the military and kill people they don't even
know, because some ***** in government tells them it's a good idea.
I wonder how many American men want to go overseas and shoot to
death complete strangers, and their families, just because George
W. Bush tells them it's a swell thing to do? Meanwhile, when
there's a phone-in threat made in Washington, Bush and Chaney
cower in Das Bunker for a few weeks, waiting for the all-clear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Bruno" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
24 Mar 2006 06:35:14 PM |
|
|
Al Smith wrote:
We had a conscientious objector last
year
working as our departmental computer consultant.
Ah! what fun they must have, taking ***** from morons because they
refuse to go into the military and kill people they don't even
know, because some ***** in government tells them it's a good idea.
I wonder how many American men want to go overseas and shoot to
death complete strangers, and their families, just because George
W. Bush tells them it's a swell thing to do? Meanwhile, when
there's a phone-in threat made in Washington, Bush and Chaney
cower in Das Bunker for a few weeks, waiting for the all-clear.
Tell us all about your military service, Braveheart. Talk is cheap.
I put 6 years in the Navy. What have you done?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
24 Mar 2006 08:59:13 PM |
|
|
"Joe Bruno" <bruno@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1143246914.253614.252590@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Al Smith wrote:
We had a conscientious objector last
year
working as our departmental computer consultant.
Ah! what fun they must have, taking ***** from morons because they
refuse to go into the military and kill people they don't even
know, because some ***** in government tells them it's a good idea.
I wonder how many American men want to go overseas and shoot to
death complete strangers, and their families, just because George
W. Bush tells them it's a swell thing to do? Meanwhile, when
there's a phone-in threat made in Washington, Bush and Chaney
cower in Das Bunker for a few weeks, waiting for the all-clear.
Tell us all about your military service, Braveheart. Talk is cheap.
I put 6 years in the Navy. What have you done?
And so brave you were, too, weren't you joey.
Your country was at war in VietNam at the time, but did you volunteer for
combat duty? NO! Ole joey preferred to sit it out in comfort and let the
darkies fight his war for him.
Chickenshit izzy coward you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Bruno" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
25 Mar 2006 01:47:40 AM |
|
|
Ben Cramer wrote:
"Joe Bruno" <bruno@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1143246914.253614.252590@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Al Smith wrote:
We had a conscientious objector last
year
working as our departmental computer consultant.
Ah! what fun they must have, taking ***** from morons because they
refuse to go into the military and kill people they don't even
know, because some ***** in government tells them it's a good idea.
I wonder how many American men want to go overseas and shoot to
death complete strangers, and their families, just because George
W. Bush tells them it's a swell thing to do? Meanwhile, when
there's a phone-in threat made in Washington, Bush and Chaney
cower in Das Bunker for a few weeks, waiting for the all-clear.
Tell us all about your military service, Braveheart. Talk is cheap.
I put 6 years in the Navy. What have you done?
And so brave you were, too, weren't you joey.
Your country was at war in VietNam at the time, but did you volunteer for
combat duty? NO! Ole joey preferred to sit it out in comfort and let the
darkies fight his war for him.
Chickenshit izzy coward you are.
Well, I volunteered for the service I wanted, the Navy. By the time I
got my commission, the war was over.
At least i served honestly, *****. I didn't tell us first that you
were an Army Engineer and then come back with the ***** story that
you got a medal from the Navy.
The truth is you never served at all, and it's just more of your
fucking lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
25 Mar 2006 01:53:36 AM |
|
|
"Joe Bruno" <bruno@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1143272860.565303.82610@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ben Cramer wrote:
"Joe Bruno" <bruno@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1143246914.253614.252590@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Al Smith wrote:
We had a conscientious objector last
year
working as our departmental computer consultant.
Ah! what fun they must have, taking ***** from morons because they
refuse to go into the military and kill people they don't even
know, because some ***** in government tells them it's a good idea.
I wonder how many American men want to go overseas and shoot to
death complete strangers, and their families, just because George
W. Bush tells them it's a swell thing to do? Meanwhile, when
there's a phone-in threat made in Washington, Bush and Chaney
cower in Das Bunker for a few weeks, waiting for the all-clear.
Tell us all about your military service, Braveheart. Talk is cheap.
I put 6 years in the Navy. What have you done?
And so brave you were, too, weren't you joey.
Your country was at war in VietNam at the time, but did you volunteer for
combat duty? NO! Ole joey preferred to sit it out in comfort and let the
darkies fight his war for him.
Chickenshit izzy coward you are.
Well, I volunteered for the service I wanted, the Navy. By the time I
got my commission, the war was over.
Could have volunteered, you chickenshit izzy coward.
At least i served honestly, *****. I didn't tell us first that you
were an Army Engineer and then come back with the ***** story that
you got a medal from the Navy.
I have never said I was an Engineer, arsehole. I said I was IN the
Engineers, arsehole.
The truth is you never served at all, and it's just more of your
fucking lies.
Not so, joey, you dull, useless, unemployeable, wornout, has-been old *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Knoll" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
24 Mar 2006 07:31:34 PM |
|
|
Some one made a mistake they should have thrown you overboard.
Kurt Knoll.
"Joe Bruno" <bruno@indystart.com> wrote in message
news:1143246914.253614.252590@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Al Smith wrote:
We had a conscientious objector last
year
working as our departmental computer consultant.
Ah! what fun they must have, taking ***** from morons because they
refuse to go into the military and kill people they don't even
know, because some ***** in government tells them it's a good idea.
I wonder how many American men want to go overseas and shoot to
death complete strangers, and their families, just because George
W. Bush tells them it's a swell thing to do? Meanwhile, when
there's a phone-in threat made in Washington, Bush and Chaney
cower in Das Bunker for a few weeks, waiting for the all-clear.
Tell us all about your military service, Braveheart. Talk is cheap.
I put 6 years in the Navy. What have you done?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
24 Mar 2006 07:43:03 AM |
|
|
In article <1143205308.820846.274610@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
" Tampere man convicted in Internet blasphemy case
Man sent religiously offensive messages to online chat-room ..."
It's irrelevant what he did or didn't do - If Finland has a blasphemy
statute and they are still enforcing it, it's a current statute and it
can be used against anybody at any time.
True. But the president, who is not religious, would issue a pardon, as
happened with Salama.
"There are many options available for those who
prefer not to serve in the military or bear arms. The young men who
are
in prison are not conscientious objectors, this term traditionally
understood as a person who refuses to serve in the armed forces for
reasons of conscience, but rather they are people so-called "total
refusers" who absolutely refuse to do any national service whatsoever.
Options available include community service or working for a certain
term
for the national civil service. We had a conscientious objector last
year
working as our departmental computer consultant. "
Amnesty international sees it differently. The major complaint is that
one must serve twice as long if one chooses alternative service,
implying those who choose that are being punished for being
conscientious objectors. That's why some people refuse all service, and
it's apparently a major issue given that there are anywhere from 50-75
people/year serving prison terms for refusing it.
I admit that there is a problem. In defense of current policy, though, it
should be noted that those who serve in the army live in barracks,
interact with surly drill sargeants, and are, with the exception of brief
leaves, on call for 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Those who do
alternative service are covered by the normal union rules covering
salaried workers; they put in a normal 35-hour week and live at home. The
longer term compensates for the better living and working conditions.
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home/opendoc.htm?tbl=RSDCOI&page=research&id=40b5a1f314
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engEUR200011999
"I think that the death penalty for being an accessory to a capital
crime,"
As I said before I am strongly against the death penalty for any
reason. There was a time when there was a moratorium on the death
penalty in the USA. Hopefully the US will someday come to their senses
and stop it. In the mean time organizations like the ACLU and others
have teams of lawyers actively working to end that.
"even an unknowing one, as well as a $32,500 fine for saying ******* or
*******, or one of $550,000 for broadcasting a flashed female breast, on
a
prime time broadcast, are far more worthy of ridicule than a rarely"
The $550,000 fine was leveled at a multibillion dollar corporation,
CBS. However, I think such restrictions are bizarre and unnecessary. As
for myself and most Americans, I have cable TV which falls under a
different set of regulations so I can hear epethets all day long if
that's what I want. I can also view nudity any time of the day if I
subscribe to those channels. In fact, in my area I can't even receive
normal TV so it's cable or nothing.
"enforced, weak-toothed, and essentially symbolic law against
blasphemy. "
How weak-toothed it is depends on how willing judges are to enforce it.
Like any law, that depends a lot on the political climate. Germany's
blasphemy law hadn't been enforced in a long time against anybody and
had never been used against non-Christians. With the cartoon
controversy it is now being enforced against people who insult Islam.
It could very well start a new trend just like prosecutions against
holocaust denial became in Germany in the 90s.
That's how it is with laws. In today's secular Finland a charge of
blasphemy and nothing else would hardly lead to a conviction, except,
perhaps, in certain areas of the rural northwest, where there is a long
tradition of Bible-thumping pietism. As I mentioned about the man in
Tampere, his primary offense was interrupting data communication,
blasphemy was only an addon. All of his spamming disrupted data
communications, but only a subset of them were blasphemous in content. The
blasphemy charge was tacked on specifically because the Internet chat-room
that he harassed was devoted to discussion of religious matters by
believers, for which reason the messages were exceptionally offensive
within that context.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
26 Mar 2006 12:48:50 AM |
|
|
"True. But the president, who is not religious, would issue a pardon,
as
happened with Salama. "
Here is a another blasphemy case after Salama (Harro Koskinen) that
didn't get a pardon from the president,
"In that incarnation, when the circulation of the magazine was only a
few
hundred, the crucified pig did not attract much attention. The first
time the
Pig Messiah attracted the public's attention was at the Young Artists
Exhibition at Kunsthalle in Helsinki the following year, and it was
published
in the country's largest newspaper to illustrate a review of the
exhibition.
Koskinen's other works featuring the Pig were concurrently on display
at the
Kritikens val (Critics' Choice) exhibition in Sweden, where they did
not cause
an uproar, however. In Finland, the published picture raised the Pig
Messiah to
a provocative status, as a result of which the interrelations of art,
exhibition activities, and blasphemy were debated all the way to the
highest
court. The work, Pig Coat of Arms, was also charged with defaming the
national coat of arms. In the final ruling in 1974, the artist, as the
author
of the work, as well as the exhibition jury, as the responsible
exhibitor, were
fined. An appeal to the President of the Republic for clemency did not
change
the ruling. "
http://www.kiasma.fi/site/pop/pop.php?tid=1015&lang=en&mo=
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
24 Mar 2006 08:07:43 AM |
|
|
"True. But the president, who is not religious, would issue a pardon,
as
happened with Salama. "
I don't think you can predict what a president will do until he does
it. He's certainly not "required" to pardon anyone. Lets wait and see
if he pardons the latest blasphemy conviction against the internet
offender. I'd be pretty surprised if he did.
"As I mentioned about the man in
Tampere, his primary offense was interrupting data communication,
blasphemy was only an addon. All of his spamming disrupted data
communications, but only a subset of them were blasphemous in content.
The
blasphemy charge was tacked on specifically because the Internet
chat-room
that he harassed was devoted to discussion of religious matters by
believers, for which reason the messages were exceptionally offensive
within that context."
As I said before it's irrelevant what he did, if one of the charges was
blasphemy it was blasphemy. They didn't have to charge him with that,
yet they did. I don't know what more anyone can say about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
24 Mar 2006 08:56:49 AM |
|
|
In article <1143209263.847669.182250@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
"True. But the president, who is not religious, would issue a pardon,
as
happened with Salama. "
I don't think you can predict what a president will do until he does
it. He's certainly not "required" to pardon anyone. Lets wait and see
if he pardons the latest blasphemy conviction against the internet
offender. I'd be pretty surprised if he did.
<deletions>
Pssst! The president of Finland, Tarja Halonen, is a woman
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarja_Halonen).
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
24 Mar 2006 05:31:59 PM |
|
|
"Eugene Holman" <holman@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2403061656490001@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
In article <1143209263.847669.182250@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
JC399@cox.net wrote:
"True. But the president, who is not religious, would issue a pardon,
as
happened with Salama. "
I don't think you can predict what a president will do until he does
it. He's certainly not "required" to pardon anyone. Lets wait and see
if he pardons the latest blasphemy conviction against the internet
offender. I'd be pretty surprised if he did.
<deletions>
Pssst! The president of Finland, Tarja Halonen, is a woman
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarja_Halonen).
Fine figure of a man.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
24 Mar 2006 10:21:15 AM |
|
|
Sorry, I must have confused her with Conan O'Brian,
"On October 11, 2005, American late-night talk show host Conan O'Brien
pointed out on his show that he has been recognized as resembling Tarja
Halonen after meeting a Finnish man in the audience before the show."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarja_Halonen#Trivia
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 08:00:13 PM |
|
|
"Eugene Holman" <holman@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2103061821260001@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi...
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.
In much the same way a growing number (particularly israeli orthodox jews)
find the holohoax embarrassing.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 11:23:30 AM |
|
|
"Finland retains laws prohibiting blasphemy, but they are not applied.
"
Blasphemy in Finland is an active statute and certainly could be
applied if someone decided to apply it. I don't know if you are aware
of this but a man in Germany was recently convicted of Blasphemy
against Islam using their archaic blasphemy laws (that were not
applied),
http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=27912&name=Suspended+prison+for+German+who+insulted+Koran
I have also read some rather disturbing reports of conscientious
objectors in liberal Finland being imprisoned against the strong
abjections of organizations like Amnesty International.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
25 Mar 2006 12:18:14 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 10:21:26 -0600, Eugene Holman wrote:
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
Wow! I haven't seen that word in, actually, decades. And we rarely have tried
to slip in a law to make it illegal.
and religious
speech
This is "iffy".
and symbols in publicly funded places.
And this, of course, is a major "bone of contention". I find it interesting
that we in the United States get more upset over "things" than over "words.
Finland retains laws
prohibiting blasphemy, but they are not applied.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Gray Shockley
--------------------------
Calvin: These are interesting times.
We don't trust the government,
We don't trust the legal system,
We don't trust the media,
and we don't trust each other!
We've undermined all authority,
and with it, the basis for replacing it!
Hobbes: "Interesting" is a mild way of putting it.
Calvin: It's like a six-year-old's dream come true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
25 Mar 2006 01:39:53 AM |
|
|
In article <0001HW.C04A3CC6008DAD09F0284550@news.giganews.com>,
grayshockley@gmail.com wrote:
<deletions>
As I said, every society puts some constraints on freedom of speech. In
the US there are local laws prohibiting both blasphemy
Wow! I haven't seen that word in, actually, decades. And we rarely have tried
to slip in a law to make it illegal.
<deletions>
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy#The_United_States
<quote>
<deletions>
The United States
In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees a relatively
unlimited right of free speech, although some US states still have
blasphemy laws on the books. Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws
states, for example:
Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying,
cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or
final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching
Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously
reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God
contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail
for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred
dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
However, the US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v Wilson 1952 held
that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior
restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the
business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks
upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications,
speeches or motion pictures."
<deletions>
</quote>
The official text of the Massachusetts General Law may be accessed at
http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm.
The next section also restrains free speech:
Source: http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36a.htm
<quote>
The General Laws of Massachusetts
PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Chapter 272: Section 36A. Sporting events; penalty for abuse of
participants and officials
Section 36A. Whoever, having arrived at the age of sixteen years, directs
any profane, obscene or impure language or slanderous statement at a
participant or an official in a sporting event, shall be punished by a
fine of not more than fifty dollars.
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
26 Mar 2006 03:19:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 01:39:53 -0600, Eugene Holman wrote
(in article <holman-2503060939530001@c518-m3.eng.helsinki.fi>):
In article <0001HW.C04A3CC6008DAD09F0284550@news.giganews.com>,
grayshockley@gmail.com wrote:
<deletions>
As I said, every society puts some constraints on freedom of speech. In
the US there are local laws prohibiting both blasphemy
Wow! I haven't seen that word in, actually, decades. And we rarely have
tried
to slip in a law to make it illegal.
<deletions>
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy#The_United_States
<quote>
<deletions>
The United States
In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees a relatively
unlimited right of free speech, although some US states still have
blasphemy laws on the books. Chapter 272 of the Massachusetts General Laws
states, for example:
Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying,
cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or
final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching
Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously
reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God
contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail
for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred
dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
However, the US Supreme Court in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v Wilson 1952 held
that the New York State blasphemy law was an unconstitutional prior
restraint on freedom of speech. The court stated that "It is not the
business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks
upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications,
speeches or motion pictures."
<deletions>
</quote>
The official text of the Massachusetts General Law may be accessed at
http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm.
The next section also restrains free speech:
Source: http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36a.htm
<quote>
The General Laws of Massachusetts
PART IV. CRIMES, PUNISHMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASES
TITLE I. CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 272. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, DECENCY AND GOOD ORDER
Chapter 272: Section 36A. Sporting events; penalty for abuse of
participants and officials
Section 36A. Whoever, having arrived at the age of sixteen years, directs
any profane, obscene or impure language or slanderous statement at a
participant or an official in a sporting event, shall be punished by a
fine of not more than fifty dollars.
</quote>
Regards,
Eugene Holman
Guilty as charged.
++ gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 07:25:11 AM |
|
|
"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. "
Speaking of the death penalty, a few years back the German police
killed a Nigerian asylum seeker and instead of arresting the police,
they found it much more useful to arrest those protesting against it.
When a certain protester (Hans-Georg Eberl - I know his full name
because I contacted him) held up signs comparing the police to Nazis,
he was arrested and charged with "defaming the state". Great laws they
have in Germany!
"Verunglimpfung des Staates - Kritik wurde bestraft.
Der Student Hans-Georg E. protestierte gegen den Tod eines
Asylbewerbers w=E4hrend der Abschiebung mit "Nazis modern, der Staat
schiebt ab, das ist das gleiche Faschistenpack". Damit habe er - so das
Landgericht in 2.Instanz - das "Augenma=DF verloren". S=FCddeutsche
Zeitung, 4.4.2000, Seite L4"
http://www.cras-legam.de/HHZ06.htm
http://www.rote-hilfe.de/rhz/rhz199904/puv011.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Bruno" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 01:10:40 AM |
|
|
Eugene Holman wrote:
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
I don't see how you can logically compare a penalty to a statute.
I don't know of any state that executes people for probable intent. The
death penalty in the USA is used almost exclusively for first degree
murder. That means a murder planned in advance.The prosecutor has to
establish that act of planning when he presents evidence.
Killings done in the heat of argument, of passion or by accident are
reduced to second degree murder or even manslaughter, none of which
carry the death penalty.
Capital punishment is not used only to "demonstrate that killing is
wrong". It also
permanently removes from society someone who is a danger to the public.
Such people endanger not only the free man, but the prison guards,
staff, and other prisoners as well.
In most cases, a life sentence is a free ride for these people. They
are given free room and board for life with no bills or obligations to
worry about. A classic case is that of Richard Speck, convicted of
killing seven nurses in Chicago. He went to prison at a time when the
US Supreme Court had outlawed the death penalty nationwide.
He was photographed having sex with another inmate, saying:"If you
people knew how much fun I was having, you would never have sent me
here."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 05:58:06 AM |
|
|
In article <1142925040.611200.3980@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, "Joe
Bruno" <bruno@indystart.com> wrote:
<deletions>
I don't see how you can logically compare a penalty to a statute.
The statute carried with it a maximum ten-year penalty for gross
violations of it. Until 1993, the maximum penalty was 20 years. In many
European countries not even first-degree murder carries such a severe
penalty; in Finland, for example, the punishment for murder in the first
degree, *harkittu murha* or deliberated murder is usually *elinkautinen*
'a phase of a person's life', in practice a maximum of fifteen years.
My point, of course, was to emphasize that different legal systems serve
different needs. Death for murder seems to most Europeans to be a more
draconian punishment than the ten years David Irving could have gotten for
violating Austrian constitutional law.
I don't know of any state that executes people for probable intent.
Isn't Zacarias Moussaoui currently facing a possible death penalty just
for that?
The
death penalty in the USA is used almost exclusively for first degree
murder. That means a murder planned in advance.The prosecutor has to
establish that act of planning when he presents evidence.
Killings done in the heat of argument, of passion or by accident are
reduced to second degree murder or even manslaughter, none of which
carry the death penalty.
Capital punishment is not used only to "demonstrate that killing is
wrong". It also
permanently removes from society someone who is a danger to the public.
Such people endanger not only the free man, but the prison guards,
staff, and other prisoners as well.
Most countries in the world do their best to rehabilitate people who
commit such crimes, particularly if they have only done it once. The
United States is clearly in a minority that includes some of the most
unsavory regimes in the world when it comes to capital punishment. Some of
the people who have been executed appear to have reformed in prison and
made themselves into people it might be better to have around, even if
only in prison as examples, rather than killing them for a crime committed
twenty years ago. Others were feeble minded and would not have been
executed by some of the countries that otherwise make liberal use of
capital punishment.
I personally think that capital punishment in the United States is a much
more serious breech of human rights than constraints on public dialogue
that would be conducive to a revival or rehabiliation of Nazism in
countries like Austria and Germany.
In most cases, a life sentence is a free ride for these people. They
are given free room and board for life with no bills or obligations to
worry about. A classic case is that of Richard Speck, convicted of
killing seven nurses in Chicago. He went to prison at a time when the
US Supreme Court had outlawed the death penalty nationwide.
He was photographed having sex with another inmate, saying:"If you
people knew how much fun I was having, you would never have sent me
here."
Beggars can't be chosers.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 06:01:31 AM |
|
|
"Eugene Holman" <holman@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2103061358060001@c518-
I personally think that capital punishment in the United States is a much
more serious breech of human rights than constraints on public dialogue
that would be conducive to a revival or rehabiliation of Nazism in
countries like Austria and Germany.
Do you really believe Irving et al were about rehabilitating Nazism?
Serious question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 07:30:08 AM |
|
|
In article <dvopv1$vp$1@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[remove]bencramer7@gmail.com> wrote:
"Eugene Holman" <holman@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2103061358060001@c518-
I personally think that capital punishment in the United States is a much
more serious breech of human rights than constraints on public dialogue
that would be conducive to a revival or rehabiliation of Nazism in
countries like Austria and Germany.
Do you really believe Irving et al were about rehabilitating Nazism?
Serious question.
Serious answer. Yes.
If Nazism is to be rehabilitated, one of the first staps that would have
to be taken would be to demonstrate that it got a bad rap because Germany
came out on the losing side. You can thus begin, as David Irving did in
his book on the bombing of Dresden, by relativizing and claiming that the
Nazis did nothing worse that what the Allies did. You can continue, as
David Irving has done, by claiming that the Nazi leadership consisted of
good blokes, but some of the people at the bottom of the command were scum
and thugs, Thus, according to David Irving, Hitler had no idea of the
Holocaust or the concentration camps until 1943. From that, you can go on,
as David Irving has done, to deprecqting or denying the crimes committed
by the Nazis. The historical record indicates that 25,000 Latvian and
German Jews in the Rumbula forest outside Riga on November 30 and December
8, 1941 in a massacre that had been meticulously planned and prepared for
by SS-Obergruppenführer Jeckeln. David Irving admits that the massacre
took place, but claims that it was the work of a few German soldiers
implementing a My Lai-type of action and that only 3,000 people were
killed. Up until recently, he denied the factuality of gas chambers at
Auschiwtz at all.
So, my reading is that David Irving is a Nazi sympathizer who has used his
efforts and the healdines that they have gathered to ease the way for some
kind of rehabilitation of Nazism by making the crimes against humanity
that were committed in its name look for more trivial and far less
inhumane than they were. This is the first step toward making people feel
good about Nazism once again, a prerequisite for its gaining the status of
a viable political alternative once again.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 07:56:39 PM |
|
|
"Eugene Holman" <holman@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2103061530080001@ke-hupnet18-27.hupnet.helsinki.fi...
In article <dvopv1$vp$1@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[remove]bencramer7@gmail.com> wrote:
"Eugene Holman" <holman@mappi.helsinki.fi> wrote in message
news:holman-2103061358060001@c518-
I personally think that capital punishment in the United States is a
much
more serious breech of human rights than constraints on public dialogue
that would be conducive to a revival or rehabiliation of Nazism in
countries like Austria and Germany.
Do you really believe Irving et al were about rehabilitating Nazism?
Serious question.
Serious answer. Yes.
You need help, mate. Seriously.
If Nazism is to be rehabilitated, one of the first staps that would have
to be taken would be to demonstrate that it got a bad rap because Germany
came out on the losing side. You can thus begin, as David Irving did in
his book on the bombing of Dresden, by relativizing and claiming that the
Nazis did nothing worse that what the Allies did. You can continue, as
David Irving has done, by claiming that the Nazi leadership consisted of
good blokes, but some of the people at the bottom of the command were scum
and thugs, Thus, according to David Irving, Hitler had no idea of the
Holocaust or the concentration camps until 1943. From that, you can go on,
as David Irving has done, to deprecqting or denying the crimes committed
by the Nazis. The historical record indicates that 25,000 Latvian and
German Jews in the Rumbula forest outside Riga on November 30 and December
8, 1941 in a massacre that had been meticulously planned and prepared for
by SS-Obergruppenführer Jeckeln. David Irving admits that the massacre
took place, but claims that it was the work of a few German soldiers
implementing a My Lai-type of action and that only 3,000 people were
killed. Up until recently, he denied the factuality of gas chambers at
Auschiwtz at all.
So, my reading is that David Irving is a Nazi sympathizer who has used his
efforts and the healdines that they have gathered to ease the way for some
kind of rehabilitation of Nazism by making the crimes against humanity
that were committed in its name look for more trivial and far less
inhumane than they were. This is the first step toward making people feel
good about Nazism once again, a prerequisite for its gaining the status of
a viable political alternative once again.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 12:53:31 PM |
|
|
I personally think that capital punishment in the United States is a much
more serious breech of human rights than constraints on public dialogue
that would be conducive to a revival or rehabiliation of Nazism in
countries like Austria and Germany.
Do you really believe Irving et al were about rehabilitating Nazism?
Serious question.
Serious answer. Yes.
If Nazism is to be rehabilitated, one of the first staps that would have
to be taken would be to demonstrate that it got a bad rap because Germany
came out on the losing side. You can thus begin, as David Irving did in
his book on the bombing of Dresden, by relativizing and claiming that the
Nazis did nothing worse that what the Allies did. You can continue, as
David Irving has done, by claiming that the Nazi leadership consisted of
good blokes, but some of the people at the bottom of the command were scum
and thugs, Thus, according to David Irving, Hitler had no idea of the
Holocaust or the concentration camps until 1943. From that, you can go on,
as David Irving has done, to deprecqting or denying the crimes committed
by the Nazis. The historical record indicates that 25,000 Latvian and
German Jews in the Rumbula forest outside Riga on November 30 and December
8, 1941 in a massacre that had been meticulously planned and prepared for
by SS-Obergruppenführer Jeckeln. David Irving admits that the massacre
took place, but claims that it was the work of a few German soldiers
implementing a My Lai-type of action and that only 3,000 people were
killed. Up until recently, he denied the factuality of gas chambers at
Auschiwtz at all.
So, my reading is that David Irving is a Nazi sympathizer who has used his
efforts and the healdines that they have gathered to ease the way for some
kind of rehabilitation of Nazism by making the crimes against humanity
that were committed in its name look for more trivial and far less
inhumane than they were. This is the first step toward making people feel
good about Nazism once again, a prerequisite for its gaining the status of
a viable political alternative once again.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
The whole issue of somehow rehabilitating Nazism by having a
discussion about the Holocaust is a canard. Nazism will never
again be accepted as a political movement. The idiots who parade
around in Nazi uniforms and listen to Hitler's speeches are
delusional if they think that there will ever be a Nazi Party in
the future. Nazism was a product of its time and place. Time has
passed, and the place has changed beyond recognition. I repeat
what I've said before -- there are no Nazis. There stopped being
Nazis at the end of the War. All we have today is a scattering of
delusional fools who call themselves Nazis. Well, a man may call
himself anything he wishes, but that doesn't make it so.
Most of the arguments against revisionism are specious. They are
based on fear -- that revisionism may somehow force a change in
how the Holocaust is viewed. Those who wish to preserve the
present opinion about the Holocaust seem to care nothing at all
about truth. On the contrary, they do everything in their power to
fend off any change to the Holocaust mythology using the weapons
of lies, intimidation, abuse, slander, misinformation,
misdirection, and anything else they conceive might possibly help
to conceal the truth and maintain the status quo.
I almost have to laugh when these folks come across as
self-righteous. They are on the side of emotionalism,
superstition, fear-mongering, reactionism, dogmatism. The wrong
side. Revisionism, in its pure form, is a search for truth. It has
been abused by some individuals as a way of promoting hatred and
anti-Semitism, but in its essence it is a search for truth. It is
a form of historical myth-busting.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Bruno" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 01:23:01 PM |
|
|
Al Smith wrote:
I personally think that capital punishment in the United States is a m=
uch
more serious breech of human rights than constraints on public dia=
logue
that would be conducive to a revival or rehabiliation of Nazism in
countries like Austria and Germany.
Do you really believe Irving et al were about rehabilitating Nazism?
Serious question.
Serious answer. Yes.
If Nazism is to be rehabilitated, one of the first staps that would have
to be taken would be to demonstrate that it got a bad rap because Germa=
ny
came out on the losing side. You can thus begin, as David Irving did in
his book on the bombing of Dresden, by relativizing and claiming that t=
he
Nazis did nothing worse that what the Allies did. You can continue, as
David Irving has done, by claiming that the Nazi leadership consisted of
good blokes, but some of the people at the bottom of the command were s=
*****
and thugs, Thus, according to David Irving, Hitler had no idea of the
Holocaust or the concentration camps until 1943. From that, you can go =
on,
as David Irving has done, to deprecqting or denying the crimes committed
by the Nazis. The historical record indicates that 25,000 Latvian and
German Jews in the Rumbula forest outside Riga on November 30 and Decem=
ber
8, 1941 in a massacre that had been meticulously planned and prepared f=
or
by SS-Obergruppenf=FChrer Jeckeln. David Irving admits that the massacre
took place, but claims that it was the work of a few German soldiers
implementing a My Lai-type of action and that only 3,000 people were
killed. Up until recently, he denied the factuality of gas chambers at
Auschiwtz at all.
So, my reading is that David Irving is a Nazi sympathizer who has used =
his
efforts and the healdines that they have gathered to ease the way for s=
ome
kind of rehabilitation of Nazism by making the crimes against humanity
that were committed in its name look for more trivial and far less
inhumane than they were. This is the first step toward making people fe=
el
good about Nazism once again, a prerequisite for its gaining the status=
of
a viable political alternative once again.
Regards,
Eugene Holman
The whole issue of somehow rehabilitating Nazism by having a
discussion about the Holocaust is a canard. Nazism will never
again be accepted as a political movement.
Really? When Hitler first began ranting in Germany, he was not taken
seriously at all.
The idiots who parade
around in Nazi uniforms and listen to Hitler's speeches are
delusional if they think that there will ever be a Nazi Party in
the future. Nazism was a product of its time and place. Time has
passed, and the place has changed beyond recognition. I repeat
what I've said before -- there are no Nazis.
You've got to be kidding. Try reading William Pierce's speeches.
There stopped being
Nazis at the end of the War. All we have today is a scattering of
delusional fools who call themselves Nazis. Well, a man may call
himself anything he wishes, but that doesn't make it so.
Most of the arguments against revisionism are specious.
Keep up your arguments and we will keep shooting them down with
documented facts.
All you have is accusations. distortions and lies. We'll let the public
read both sides and decide who is more credible.
They are
based on fear -- that revisionism may somehow force a change in
how the Holocaust is viewed. Those who wish to preserve the
present opinion about the Holocaust seem to care nothing at all
about truth. On the contrary, they do everything in their power to
fend off any change to the Holocaust mythology using the weapons
of lies, intimidation, abuse, slander, misinformation,
misdirection, and anything else they conceive might possibly help
to conceal the truth and maintain the status quo.
Not in the USA. They can't do it here.
I almost have to laugh when these folks come across as
self-righteous. They are on the side of emotionalism,
superstition, fear-mongering, reactionism, dogmatism. The wrong
side. Revisionism, in its pure form, is a search for truth.
The problem is that those who call themselves"revisionists" are not
revisionists at all-they are deniers-propagandists who lie to
contradict documented jhistory. Truth is inimical to their political
objectives, so they distort it.
You really live in a dream world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ben Cramer" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
21 Mar 2006 07:58:57 PM |
|
|
"Joe Bruno" <bruno@indystart.com> wrote in message
You really live in a dream world.
This, from the worn out old 'tard who admits most of his family are mentally
dysfunctional.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eugene Holman" |
|
| Title: Re: Irving gets 3 years in jail. |
22 Mar 2006 12:05:11 AM |
|
|
In article <LYXTf.47009$VV4.741853@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Al Smith
<invalid@address.com> wrote:
<deletions>
The whole issue of somehow rehabilitating Nazism by having a
discussion about the Holocaust is a canard. Nazism will never
again be accepted as a political movement.
You evidently don't follow contemporary developments in Europe. Russia, of
all places, now has a large, robust, and growing neo-nazi movement as well
as two political parties, Rodina (http://www.rodina-nps.ru/) and Vladimir
Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic Party (http://www.ldpr.ru/), that have
neo-nazi-type agendas
(http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901040809-674718,00.html).
They target Caucasians (that is to say, swarthy-skinned people from the
Caucasus region), Jews, and foreigners for harassment and physical
violence. Several dozen people have been killed, and hundreds badly beaten
up, including foreign diplomats and Afro-American marine guards at the US
embassy in Moscow, by Russian neo-nazis
(http://www.pipeline.com/~rgibson/africanstudentsrussia.html). In former
East Germany neo-nazism is also a genuine threat, see e.g.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1269152.stm. In Austria, arguably
the home of Nazism, the Freedom Party of Austria under Jörg Haider openly
catered to Nazi sentiments (http://countrystudies.us/austria/120.htm). In
Estonia they have made life miserable for many of the foreigners studying
at Tartu University, making conditions so intolerable for some that they
have had to break off their studies and leave the country
(http://www.nplc.lt/criminologyseminar/medziaga/Santraukos/ando_leps_abstract.htm).
Even here in peaceful Finland skinhead groups espousing neo-nazi ideology
have attacked foreigners and refugees, and torched cars owned by and
businesses run by foreigners
(http://www.alli.fi/nuorisotutkimus/julkaisut/virtanen/1/8.html). The
first self-proclaimed Finnish *Reichsführer*, the late Pekka Siitoin
(http://www.angelfire.com/hero/hs/), was the kind of marginal clown that
many neo-nazis are in the US. Since then, however, more serious and potent
people have begun to espouse neo-nazism in Finland, and they have managed
to attract a small following, but no political clout.
These and the other neonazi movements in Europe are supported mainly by
young people. Their goals are usually xenophobic: foreigners out,
immigrants out, Jews out, people differing from the dominant racial stock
out, multiculturalism out, Hitler's teachings in, national and racial
purity in, women out of the workforce and back to kitchen, children, and
church. They have used intimidation, violence and murder to achieve these
goals.
The idiots who parade
around in Nazi uniforms and listen to Hitler's speeches are
delusional if they think that there will ever be a Nazi Party in
the future.
That may be true in the US and Canada, but it is not the case in Europe.
Even so, in the US you have, or have had, people such as the late William
Pierce, author of *The Turner Diaries* and former host of American
Dissident Voices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Luther_Pierce), as
well as Matt Hale and his Creationist movement
(http://eyeonhate.com/hale/hale3.html). They have had little political
impact, but both have arguably influenced people such as Ken McVeigh and
Ben Smith to commit acts of political violence. In Canada Ernst Zündel had
a small but vociferous coterie of followers, this being one of the reasons
that the authorities decided not to grant him political asylum on the
basis that he was a security risk. In Europe, where popularism and
nationalism frequently merge to produce influential extremist movements,
things are quite different. In France Jean-Marie Le Pen, running on a
xenophobic nationalist program that approaches neonazism regularly gets 15
to 20 per cent of the votes
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marie_Le_Pen). In the UK the British
National Party has not been as successful as Le Pen's movement, but its
platform is similar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party).
Nazism was a product of its time and place. Time has
passed, and the place has changed beyond recognition. I repeat
what I've said before -- there are no Nazis.
Then what are these?
http://img.timeinc.net/time/europe/magazine/2004/0809/nasty.jpg
http://www.newspagedesigner.com/users/4026/neonazis.jpg
http://www.libertarian.nl/NL/archives/neonazis.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~melfaery/NEONAZIS.jpg
http://web.elastic.org/~fche/mirrors/www.overthrow.com/ap_neonazi990806_h.jpg
http://www.revistaarabe.com.ar/fotos_noticias/neonazis.jpg
There stopped being
Nazis at the end of the War. All we have today is a scattering of
delusional fools who call themselves Nazis. Well, a man may call
himself anything he wishes, but that doesn't make it so.
If what you claim is true, why has Austria had to enforce the Banning Law
more than 2,000 times? Why do both Austria and Germany have numerous laws
and regulations in force to restrain right-wing extremism? These include
forbidding the public u | | | | | | |
