NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry to start yet another thread about 'those' damn cartoons, but anyone else here find this ironic:
Austria to try 'Holocaust denier'
British historian David Irving goes on trial in the Austrian capital, Vienna, on Monday, accused of denying the Holocaust occurred.
The charges relate to a speech and an interview he gave in Austria in 1989 in which he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz.
Holocaust denial is a criminal offence in Austria which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

Irving was arrested in November last year and has been in gaol since.
Austria was one of the first countries to reprint the cartoons, under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
Yep, telling everyone that Mohammad is a terrorist is okey-dokey. But heaven forbid if I was to say the holocaust didn't happen. I'd be arrested and thrown in the pokey for 10.
Incidently, Irving claimed not that the holocaust didn't happen, but rather that it wasn't a systematic organised genocide. Which means any statement going against the standard view is a criminal offense in Austria.

Can you spell hypocrisy, Austria?

That is just so fucked up on so many levels.

Sorry to start yet another thread about 'those' damn cartoons, but anyone else here find this ironic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

Irving was arrested in November last year and has been in gaol since.
Austria was one of the first countries to reprint the cartoons, under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
Yep, telling everyone that Mohammad is a terrorist is okey-dokey. But heaven forbid if I was to say the holocaust didn't happen. I'd be arrested and thrown in the pokey for 10.
Incidently, Irving claimed not that the holocaust didn't happen, but rather that it wasn't a systematic organised genocide. Which means any statement going against the standard view is a criminal offense in Austria.

Can you spell hypocrisy, Austria?

While I think it is stupid just about any country actualy has restrictions on what is free speach

You could argue that it is not "free" speach but then just about no one would actualy fit under that title

The us has its own (what we think reasonable) restrictions on free speach too

The us has its own (what we think reasonable) restrictions on free speach too
Yeah, but we aren't bowing to the damn Zionists and cursing the Muslims in the same breath.
We still do it, but it generally takes two or three breaths.

Yeah, but we aren't bowing to the damn Zionists and cursing the Muslims in the same breath.
We still do it, but it generally takes two or three breaths.
Yeah ... for some things ... and not for others it all depends on the topic really

I disagree about the Holocaust Denial laws, but I do think there's a difference between publishing some stupid cartoons and this.

I think the misuse of irony should be outlawed.

...and Free Speech dies alittle.

Halocaust denial, or even straying from the standard line in regards to the halocaust, is the only speech that is truly outlawed in the western world. If you say that the Nazi's didn't gas Jews (not even saying that they didn't kill them) you can spend time in jail regardless of whether or not you correct (you can't even present evidence to support your view in court). But of course any of use could freely write books saying that Stalin never killed any of his people or denying the various atrocities the Japanese did during World War II (which surpassed those done by the Nazis) and everyone will just laugh at you. Why is it that the halocaust needs to be protected from investigation? (a rhetorical question)

Why is it that the halocaust needs to be protected from investigation? (a rhetorical question)
Can I answer it anyway, please? There are bound to be some who don't know the answer.

This doesn't make much sense to me, he only said he didn't think Auschwitz had gas chambers, not that there were no gas chambers anywhere, nor that the Holocaust didn't happen. How can you legistlate on historical semantics when it's not necessarily even that big a deal in this instance?

This doesn't make much sense to me, he only said he didn't think Auschwitz had gas chambers, not that there were no gas chambers anywhere, nor that the Holocaust didn't happen. How can you legistlate on historical semantics when it's not necessarily even that big a deal in this instance?

Because if this misconception/deception comes tumbling down it will get people's attention and more crumbling will be sure to follow.

Because if this misconception/deception comes tumbling down it will get people's attention and more crumbling will be sure to follow.
That or will be re-affermed ... whatever

That or will be re-affermed ... whatever

If they will re-affirmed, why are there laws that prevent opinions that stray from the common line? Truth needs no laws to protect it.

The law is complex. Just saying that the Holocaust didn't happen isn't enough. You have to make it pretty clear that your reasons for saying it are antisemitic and actively aimed at gaining public support for a stance that discriminates against a certain group of people ("Volksverhetzung" being the German word for which I can't think of a proper translation right now).

So he must have done something pretty damn wrong if he really was convicted and thrown in the slammer.

Sorry to start yet another thread about 'those' damn cartoons, but anyone else here find this ironic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

Irving was arrested in November last year and has been in gaol since.
Austria was one of the first countries to reprint the cartoons, under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
Yep, telling everyone that Mohammad is a terrorist is okey-dokey. But heaven forbid if I was to say the holocaust didn't happen. I'd be arrested and thrown in the pokey for 10.
Incidently, Irving claimed not that the holocaust didn't happen, but rather that it wasn't a systematic organised genocide. Which means any statement going against the standard view is a criminal offense in Austria.

Can you spell hypocrisy, Austria?
This is one of the dumbiest things I've heard

Eh I don't like what David Irving does.

Still putting in the pokey for 10 makes him a marter. yick

So he must have done something pretty damn wrong if he really was convicted and thrown in the slammer.
Something being merely "wrong" doesn't give the government the right to detain you. Irving has not caused undue harm to individuals or property. He is no criminal and he has every right to express his veiws.
It seems that Central Europe moves from fascism to fascism.

Maybe it's an anti-Bullshit law. Because a person who says the holocaust didn't happen is full of it.

Maybe it's an anti-Bullshit law. Because a person who says the holocaust didn't happen is full of it.

He doesn't even say the holocaust didn't happen; only that there were no gas chambers. And there is no other "bullshit" that this law attacks.

I think we should be making comparisons about the reactions of the religions that are respectivly offended here. One has become very violent and has started to kill people who had nothing to do with the actuall offense. The other has used the laws (however you view those laws) in order to prosecute the "offenders".

Maybe it's an anti-Bullshit law. Because a person who says the holocaust didn't happen is full of it.
Oceandrive2 already adequately dismissed that assumption earlier today, or at least the assumption that it was as big as everybody says. I'm still waiting to see those papers.

Irving has not caused undue harm to individuals or property.
That's for the judges to decide.

The point is that the German (I can't speak for the Austrian authorities here) lawmakers have to look at the basic law. In there, it says that human dignity must be protected by the state.
Obviously, they consider public holocaust denial for the purposes of agitation a violation of human dignity (which might make it interesting once the last survivor dies).

Anyways, I can't find the law online, if you wanna make the effort, it's Paragraph 130 of the Penal Code.

EDIT: But I did find this interesting account of a previous trial of Irving's in Britain. Maybe OD2 should have a look also, because the case for Holocaust Denial is pretty well taken apart right there.
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html

That's for the judges to decide.
If he's anything like the judges we have in the US, he probably desreves to be shot.
The point is that the German (I can't speak for the Austrian authorities here) lawmakers have to look at the basic law. In there, it says that human dignity must be protected by the state.
Obviously, they consider public holocaust denial for the purposes of agitation a violation of human dignity (which might make it interesting once the last survivor dies).
Whatever, self-determination and all that. If you guys want to do that, be my guest, just don't tell other countries to follow suit, ever.
EDIT: But I did find this interesting account of a previous trial of Irving's in Britain. Maybe OD2 should have a look also, because the case for Holocaust Denial is pretty well taken apart right there.
http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/ieindex.html
Unless it has conclusive evidence of the number killed, I don't think he'll care. He wasn't denying the holocaust, just saying that there are no numbers that he can trust.

Sorry to start yet another thread about 'those' damn cartoons, but anyone else here find this ironic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4730832.stm

Irving was arrested in November last year and has been in gaol since.
Austria was one of the first countries to reprint the cartoons, under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
Yep, telling everyone that Mohammad is a terrorist is okey-dokey. But heaven forbid if I was to say the holocaust didn't happen. I'd be arrested and thrown in the pokey for 10.
Incidently, Irving claimed not that the holocaust didn't happen, but rather that it wasn't a systematic organised genocide. Which means any statement going against the standard view is a criminal offense in Austria.

Can you spell hypocrisy, Austria?
Simple it has been widely proven than Mohammed is a Terrorist and that Austria is Chicken Shit.

If he's anything like the judges we have in the US, he probably desreves to be shot.
Don't know, Austria has had some pretty right-wing harshness in recent years.

Whatever, self-determination and all that. If you guys want to do that, be my guest, just don't tell other countries to follow suit, ever.
Don't expect it. Although there may occiasionally be a request for extradiction.

Unless it has conclusive evidence of the number killed, I don't think he'll care. He wasn't denying the holocaust, just saying that there are no numbers that he can trust.
It goes a long way though, presenting a lot of evidence, including many numbers.
Here's an example (http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/evidence/vanii.asp).

This doesn't make much sense to me, he only said he didn't think Auschwitz had gas chambers, not that there were no gas chambers anywhere, nor that the Holocaust didn't happen. How can you legistlate on historical semantics when it's not necessarily even that big a deal in this instance?
The main reason that I can think of for making Holocaust denial a crime is to prevent anti-Semitism. Saying it didn't happen encourages the belief that it's a Jewish conspiracy to force the West into giving them a lot of concessions, including Israel. It's bascially a way of preventing hatred and bigotry against Jews.
If one could plant the idea that the Holocaust didn't happen, then it's not much of a step to begin questioning most, if not all, of Israel (and Jewish) claims and demands for recognition and acceptance.

However I think it's a incredibly stupid law. It goes against the tenet of free speech.
You should use argument not the law against Holocaust deniers. By having this law, you are implying that you can't argue against their stance - thereby giving it a legitimacy that it doesn't deserve.
Irving is a fool - and the best way of dealing with fools is to ignore them. By outlawing such opinions, inevitably we give them the frisson of the banned. Thus running the risk of turning them into an attractive proposition.




So here we have one standard of freedom of expression when it comes to printing cartoons offensive to Muslims, while a seperate one of incarcerating those who insult Jews.

It's important to realise that Muslim reaction isn't only about the cartoon. It's about history. For most of the last few hundred years, the Muslim world has been under the yoke of Christian countries (and companies). Christianity has had the greatest influence on the most powerful countries in the world in the last 5 - 600 years, while Islam was suppressed and marginalised in most of Europe during that time. These cartoons were seen as further humiliation, so became a catalyst for centuries of religious repression.
Imagine the anger a cartoon showing Martin Luther King Jr as a slave would cause. A cartoon like that would be extremely offensive and humiliating to black America, as it brings up 200 yrs of slavery and repression. That what these cartoons are doing to the Muslim world. It's not just the cartoon.
That's prob also partly why Iran is running their offensive Holocaust cartoon competition. Both cartoons would be comparable in terms of offense and humiliation to the respective peoples.


That said, alot of the rioting is obviously govt-cordinated. You see it in China all the time. Something happens that the Chinese govt doesn't like and there's widespread uncontrolled rioting for a week. Then it stops as suddenly as it begins.