In article <duh0t9$1boe$1@otis.netspace.net.au>, "Ben Cramer"
<[remove]bencramer7@gmail.com> wrote:

<deletions>

To get a little fairness into the debate, what do you think our chances
are
of having "hate" laws proclaimed, making the crap you and the shoah
industry
shills post, illegal?

First of all, I don't post "crap".

points I make, and I always apologize when I have been in error. Pointing
out that David Irving is the author of his own fate is not "crap" or hate
speech; it is a viewpoint based on my assessment of decisions made againt
David Irving in actions that he initiated or precipitated in that led to
him interacting with the British and Austrian legal systems. Pointing out
that Ernst Zündel is the author of his own fate is not "crap"; it is my
assessment of the results of the combined decisions of the American,
Canadian, and German legal systems resulting from Mr. Zündel's actions
that resulted in interaction with the legal systems of the three
countries.

In what country would a law prohibiting discussing the decisions made by
the legal systems of democracies about the behavior of certain individuals
be regarded as "hate" speech? If a person violates laws, his trial and
punishment are matters of public record in a democracy, so your suggestion
would not work.

All of it is personally insulting, racially or
ethnically derogatory, and designed to belittle or hurt the receiver.

People who resort to the legal system to resolve their difficulties are
making it clear that the matter in question is serious enough in their
opinion to warrant treatment as a matter of public record. David Irving
brought what turned out to be an unjustified libel suit against Deborah
Lipstadt and lost. One factor was that the charge of libel was
demonstrated to be unfounded, the other was that David Irving decided to
plead his own case in court and grandstanded instead of focusing on
substantive issues. He lost, and the entire triaL is a matter of public
record that, to his credit, he himself makes accessible through his
website. He also decided to go to Austria, fully knowing that he was
banned from the country and that a warrant was out for his arrest for
violating laws that he admits that he violated. Once again, all of this is
a matter of public record, and the public is entitled to draw their own
conclusions about the man's motives and sanity. Sane people do not falsify
and mistranslate historical documents and then try to silence critics who
point out their having done so. Sane people do not announce to the world
in advance that they are going to travel to a country from which they have
been banned and with an arrest warrant for them outstanding. Sane people
do not plead guilty to violating a laws, and then scream "foul" when they
are punished, nor do they violate the law yet again from their prison cell
in a telephoned interview.

How do you like them apples?

You have to no case for characterizing my criticism of David Irving as
"hate speech". David Irving is the man who decided to have his dirty
laundry aired in public. I, like everyone else, have the right to comment
on the stains. The same holds true, mutatis mutandis, for
others who decide to use the court system to settle their disputes.