NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, here's the deal; all these European countries are rattling on about "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" and the like, a court in Austria recently sentenced David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving) to three years in prison for denying the holocaust! That's insane! I mean, cartoonists are allowed to inflame 1.2 billion Muslims, but when one historian denies that there were gas-chambers at Auschwitz he goes to jail for three years? I'm all for being respectful and stuff (I believe that the cartoons were bland and distasteful, by the way), but I am firmly in favor of free speech, and before today I thought Europe was, too.


Note: Well, this title is probably a bit mis-leading (I can't really say "What I don't get about the general area of central europe, save Switzerland", can I), my point stands.

The laws of Austria are unjust, but if any country has even a smidgen of right to do so, then it's Austria and even Germany. No, the law isn't fair, but then again Irving knew what he was saying and knew about the law, so he deserves it due to that.

My suspicion is that those laws are mostly relics from the post-WW2 time period. I was surprised there wasn't more reaction to that, but with the Mohammed cartoons keeping the press busy, it'll probably take the next case to get a public reaction.

I believe those law only exist in Austria and Germany. It's not a European thing.

I believe those law only exist in Austria and Germany. It's not a European thing.

I don't see any other European country complaining that this happened. Well, except for maybe Britain.

Ok, here's the deal; all these European countries are rattling on about "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" and the like, a court in Austria recently sentanced David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving) to three years in prison for denying the holocaust! That's insane! I mean, cartoonists are allowed to inflame 1.2 billion Muslims, but when one historian denies that there were gas-chambers at Auschwitz he goes to jail for three years?

I find it interesting that you consider the cartoonists the cardinal offenders rather than the flag-burning, "EUROPE YOU WILL PAY, YOUR 9/11 IS ON ITS WAY" placard waving, "BOMB! BOMB! DEN-MARK!" chanting Muslims.

Funny old world, isn't it?

its only an austria german thing, and to be honest it makes sense because these were the two nazi head countries, there are still some of the old nazis in these regions ( i must stress this is a very very very very small minority ) and tbh these laws will stop these people returning to public favour

Wow... weird realisation there. I'd never considered making the connection between the Cartoons and the Holocaust Denier. Guess that double-think is pretty hard-wired now. (I always win at The Game. =P)

Thanks for that little insight. ^_^

I find it interesting that you consider the cartoonists the cardinal offenders rather than the flag-burning, "EUROPE YOU WILL PAY, YOUR 9/11 IS ON ITS WAY" placard waving, "BOMB! BOMB! DEN-MARK!" chanting Muslims.

Funny old world, isn't it?

The Muslims have grossly overreacted, yes, but had they been chanting about free-speech before-hand?

My suspicion is that those laws are mostly relics from the post-WW2 time period. I was surprised there wasn't more reaction to that, but with the Mohammed cartoons keeping the press busy, it'll probably take the next case to get a public reaction.

No, they're very strict about that kind've thing in central Europe. Irving did, after all, say those things almost twenty years ago and claim in court to have since changed his mind.

Pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Even if you consider the holocaust to be an absolutely set in stone piece of factually proven history, people shouldn't go to jail for saying it never happened. You wouldn't be liable for criminal charges if you claimed Genghis Khan was a parakeet, after all.

Ok, here's the deal; all these European countries are rattling on about "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" and the like, a court in Austria recently sentenced David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving) to three years in prison for denying the holocaust! That's insane! I mean, cartoonists are allowed to inflame 1.2 billion Muslims, but when one historian denies that there were gas-chambers at Auschwitz he goes to jail for three years? I'm all for being respectful and stuff (I believe that the cartoons were bland and distasteful, by the way), but I am firmly in favor of free speech, and before today I thought Europe was, too.


Note: Well, this title is probably a bit mis-leading (I can't really say "What I don't get about the general area of central europe, save Switzerland", can I), my point stands.

Its called slander and libel. If you claim to be presenting facts that are inacurate and refuse to retract, you can be said to be guilty of slander. If however you provide an evidence based case in a book I suspect you may be more respected, although the book may not be widely purchased. The Mohammad cartoons are not slanderous because cartoons are satire, and are not intended to be accurate representations.

Note: Well, this title is probably a bit mis-leading (I can't really say "What I don't get about the general area of central europe, save Switzerland", can I), my point stands.
Aww man... why don't we ever get to play? We're part of Europe too!

...though... wait. :p

No, they're very strict about that kind've thing in central Europe. Irving did, after all, say those things almost twenty years ago and claim in court to have since changed his mind.

Pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Even if you consider the holocaust to be an absolutely set in stone piece of factually proven history, people shouldn't go to jail for saying it never happened. You wouldn't be liable for criminal charges if you claimed Genghis Khan was a parakeet, after all.
Agreed

all these European countries are rattling on about "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" and the like, a court in Austria recently sentenced David Irving to three years in prison for denying the holocaust!

It's as if not all Europeans have identical views and opinions!

Most likely Germany and Austria are still trying to make everyone forget “Ze war” either that or the extreme paranoia of neo nazis rising up

Aww man... why don't we ever get to play? We're part of Europe too!

...though... wait. :p

Go back to making watches and chocolate.

Its called slander and libel. If you claim to be presenting facts that are inacurate and refuse to retract, you can be said to be guilty of slander. If however you provide an evidence based case in a book I suspect you may be more respected, although the book may not be widely purchased.

He did retract. The judge basically decided that he wasn't sincere.

And Irving did write evidence-based books in which he outlined the subject. They're illegal in Germany and Austria. You're not allowed to deny the holocaust, full stop. If Irving's defence in court had been presenting evidence to back up his opinion etc., it would have just been more holocaust denial, even if he had some kind've irrefutable secret document in his pants or something. The sentence would just keep on getting higher.

Go back to making watches and chocolate.
*pouts* no fair...

Actually, at least in Germany, people get punished for sedition, decrial and/or defamation, not for "denying the holocaust". I'm pretty sure similar laws exist outside of Germany and Austria as well.
(Apart from that, the holocaust ist a FACT not an opinion.)

I believe those law only exist in Austria and Germany. It's not a European thing.
Few other countries as well...

Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Switzerland

Its called slander and libel. If you claim to be presenting facts that are inacurate and refuse to retract, you can be said to be guilty of slander.
That's really a different thing (and if it's written it's libel). But that's something that affects the opinion of LIVING people, not the dead. And a nation cannot be libelled.

And Irving did write evidence-based books in which he outlined the subject.
Look up online Irving v Lipstadt and Penguin Books. Irving made up much of his evidence.

The problem with the law is it infringes free speech. The way to deal with people spouting bollocks is to confront them with the truth, the evidence, not lock them up and create martyrs - or the impression you're afraid of what they're saying.

OK, calming down now. As a jew, with history of my type being in the holocost, i have heard stories of my great-grandparents as victims of the holocost, and how many people they knew were killed in everyway you could emagen. It was like a james bond movie, but with 1000 times as many people dieing

It's as if not all Europeans have identical views and opinions!

Yes we do!

Ok, here's the deal; all these European countries are rattling on about "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" and the like, a court in Austria recently sentenced David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving) to three years in prison for denying the holocaust! That's insane! I mean, cartoonists are allowed to inflame 1.2 billion Muslims, but when one historian denies that there were gas-chambers at Auschwitz he goes to jail for three years? I'm all for being respectful and stuff (I believe that the cartoons were bland and distasteful, by the way), but I am firmly in favor of free speech, and before today I thought Europe was, too.


Note: Well, this title is probably a bit mis-leading (I can't really say "What I don't get about the general area of central europe, save Switzerland", can I), my point stands.
Talk about specific countries rather than "Europe", please: it isn't like the rest of us share a legal system and a language with Austria. The highlighted bit of your post would seem to be an admission that you've dropped a bollock over this, given which your post doesn't really stand.

Whose puppet is Random Cult? Does anybody have any guesses?

OK, calming down now. As a jew, with history of my type being in the holocost, i have heard stories of my great-grandparents as victims of the holocost, and how many people they knew were killed in everyway you could emagen. It was like a james bond movie, but with 1000 times as many people dieing
Err. ...and your point is?

Whose puppet is Random Cult? Does anybody have any guesses?

dude, as an american citizen, i can say what i want, so u cant really do much against me :cool:

dude, as an american citizen, i can say what i want, so u cant really do much against me :cool:

You're obviously an American: nobody else uses the English language with quite that degree of contempt. I just fear that you're a mask concealing one of the other Americans on here.

People! european countires ALL got somthin generaly wrong with them! People in Austria are on steroids and people in britian have NO frikin dental ensurance! Their teeth suck! :upyours:

(britich teeth) :sniper:

:rolleyes:

Err. ...and your point is?

see, my point is that those people in europe cant deny the holocost when over 20 million jews have proof of its happenings

see, my point is that those people in europe cant deny the holocost when over 20 million jews have proof of its happenings
Not anymore they don't: they're dead. This is why the holocaust deniers are eventually going to win: every year there's a few less witnesses to this stuff.

Ok, i get your point now, I am one person, yes, one person, and i express my own ideas, in fact i hate other people who use different files to express their real ideas, or ones just to be different/get attention

Not anymore they don't: they're dead. This is why the holocaust deniers are eventually going to win: every year there's a few less witnesses to this stuff.

Yes, you have a point, but, when the holocost deniers win, a large rampage of mexican and canadian people on crack will come and blow up europe, includion the holocost deniers. Then the holocost will not have happened, but not NOT have happened, there will be no ideas at all

I believe those law only exist in Austria and Germany. It's not a European thing.

9 countries in the EU have made it illegal
(technical point I know)

Ok, i get your point now, I am one person, yes, one person, and i express my own ideas, in fact i hate other people who use different files to express their real ideas, or ones just to be different/get attention
Fair enough.
(And it's "holocaust": I have no idea what "holocost" is, but it sounds like it might be a supermarket or a plot device in Star Trek.)

Now, children, observe these incidents of misunderstanding:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrunkenDove
I believe those law only exist in Austria and Germany. It's not a European thing.

I don't see any other European country complaining that this happened. Well, except for maybe Britain.

Now, this is a very classical mistake, that many people make everyday, and that you should allways try to avoid making yourselves, children. It's called "generalization"

What makes you think that no other countries in Europe complains? That complaint wasn't mentioned in the Washington Post?

And btw, how can a country complain? I mean, of course it's government can complain on behalf of its people, or the people can complain without the government endorsing it's oppinion, but how can a country complain?

I'm a Dane, and I hereby complain on the behalf of every Danish citizen, that Irving has been convicted, hate-mongering idiot he may be.

There, now the Danish has complained too. Oh, and I also appologize about the mohamed-cartoons. I didn't mean to hurt anyone when I drew them.

Now, children, observe these incidents of misunderstanding:



Now, this is a very classical mistake, that many people make everyday, and that you should allways try to avoid making yourselves, children. It's called "generalization"

What makes you think that no other countries in Europe complains? That complaint wasn't mentioned in the Washington Post?

And btw, how can a country complain? I mean, of course it's government can complain on behalf of its people, or the people can complain without the government endorsing it's oppinion, but how can a country complain?

I'm a Dane, and I hereby complain on the behalf of every Danish citizen, that Irving has been convicted, hate-mongering idiot he may be.

There, now the Danish has complained too. Oh, and I also appologize about the mohamed-cartoons. I didn't mean to hurt anyone when I drew them.

Asteroid! Where the heck have you been for the past like 50 slides?!?! You have finally brought a straight idea that a country cannot complain! Thank You!
To everyone else out there, in short: No one person can represent all of their country! Or i got Isreal, Russia, America, and Japan!

I feel Britain is being cast in a positive light when it comes to free speech.
Just last week, however, they passed a law making it illegal to "glorify" terrorism, without defining what exactly is meant by glorification nor terrorism.
Technically, if you publicy "glorify" the American war of indepence you could be jailed in Britain.
Moreover, they censored Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Féin and former IRA volunteer, so that his voice could not be broadcast in the media because of his political views.
Tony Blair oversaw the ousting of George Galloway out of the Labour Party because of his reaction to the War on Iraq.

Every country is guilty.

People! Thank You! you have brought intelligant ideas to this topic! Glorifing can mean anything! when a law is made in politics it has to be specific, or it fails to do anything! Also, terrorism is the diliberate use of violence or actions against a group or person, so that law could be considerd terrorism

see, my point is that those people in europe cant deny the holocost when over 20 million jews have proof of its happenings
"those people in Europe" have been condemned to three years of prison in Austria. This is what started the debate. Nobody has stated they believe the holocaust never happened.
You're preaching to the choir, man...

Sure... whatever they will get bigger, much bigger

Denying the Holocaust is as stupid as claiming that God created the earth 6000 years ago, but nobody should be denied the right to doing it. The only sane way to respond to such claims is to provide more proof that it's a lie.

Btw, it really looks like the Austrians are about to abolish the stupid law, according to the news I just saw...

The laws of Austria are unjust, but if any country has even a smidgen of right to do so, then it's Austria and even Germany. No, the law isn't fair, but then again Irving knew what he was saying and knew about the law, so he deserves it due to that.
So I guess since slaves knew they would be whipped for misbehaving, they deserved it too? :rolleyes:

I believe those law only exist in Austria and Germany. It's not a European thing.
And don't forget Canada! Oh, those Canadians... :fluffle:
(Look up Ernst Zündel and James Keegstra)
I don't see any other European country complaining that this happened. Well, except for maybe Britain.
Then you've not been looking very hard. There are a lot of discussions (No, not demonstrations on the streets, but discussions) going on in a lot of different forums.

That's really a different thing (and if it's written it's libel). But that's something that affects the opinion of LIVING people, not the dead. And a nation cannot be libelled.


If you write a history textbook claiming something never happened and vilifying those who faked it, it can be considered libelous. And I said slander and libel in the orignal post

Right: it's a fair bet you'd find yourself bankrupted (even if you didn't get locked up) if you tried suggesting that (for example) L Ron Hubbard was so crooked that he had to be dismantled before he fit through his front door in print in the 'States.

Didn't Britain deliver him to Austria to be tried?

Anyways, I can tell you what the reason is for the laws in Germany. Three things:
1) The Holocaust can never be forgotten. That's our historical responsibility. Having someone walk around and telling people it didn't happen risks that someone will believe it. That might not be a problem in the US, but it's a matter of principle in Germany.
2) The first sentence of the German constitution says that the dignity of a human being shall be inviolable and that the state needs to protect it if necessary. It has been decided that violating the memory of millions of people slaughtered in the most appalling way is indeed an attack on the victims' dignity.
3) Weimar had the free market of ideas. That failed pretty spectacularly, and demonstrated that democracy is not always strong enough to defend itself by strength of argument alone.

And another interesting fact: The laws are in fact not relics from the post-war years. For many years, neither Germany nor Austria had these laws, and in Germany they only exist in their current form since 1994.
Reason being that for many, many years after the war, there was only silence. I own a schoolbook from the early sixties. It literally misses a chapter. Goes something like: (Chapter)...Yeah, that was WWI. Then came Weimar...(Chapter)...then there were the Nazis and then the occupation started and Germany was divided.

There was literally only one sentence on the Nazi era in that book.

Didn't Britain deliver him to Austria to be tried?
Apparently he was arrested in the state of Steiermark in Austria on the 11th of november 2005.
(That's the same Austrian state Schwartzenegger is from, by the way. I'm sure that's relevant somehow...)

The point of having rights is to be able to use them even when others really don't want you to. Frankly, I don't know if the holocaust happened or not,there's always some possibility that it didn't, but I trust mainstream historians enough and understand enough about history to believe that it did. Really the holocaust was nothing unique, the shock of it comes because it occurred in a modern Western nation, but this sort of thing has gone on for thousands of years, only back then they did not have so many minorities to slaughter.

I believe those law only exist in Austria and Germany. It's not a European thing.

Sadly the law is more widespread, it encompasses Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland.

Pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Even if you consider the holocaust to be an absolutely set in stone piece of factually proven history, people shouldn't go to jail for saying it never happened. You wouldn't be liable for criminal charges if you claimed Genghis Khan was a parakeet, after all.

Not only do I agree with you, I want to thank you for the way you worded the last bit about Genghis Khan. You have brought me joy.

On another note, I find it interesting that Austrian law will imprison someone for denying this particular genocide, while asserting that the Armenian genocide did happen will earn you prison in Turkey.

"those people in Europe" have been condemned to three years of prison in Austria. This is what started the debate. Nobody has stated they believe the holocaust never happened.
You're preaching to the choir, man...

Irving did state in one of his books, that he believed that the Holocaust never happened.
And it's "Holocaust" not "holocaust".

Does any of you guys even realize, why "Wiederbetätigung" (which means the use of certain symbols, denial of the Holocaust and so on) is forbidden in Germany and Austria?
It's because the allies insisted on this. Thats why Austria is permanently neutral.

And now some brit is thrown into an austrian jail (Oh, the poor guy. Lives better now than the average Englishman.) because of a law implemented by the allies.

Think a bit, then learn a bit of history, then think a bit. And when you think you should open your mouth... think a bit.

And thats a call to all of you.

Austria is a sovereign nation with its own laws, whatever the origins of banning "Holocaust denial" it's current existence in that state is the responsibility of Austria and Austria alone.

If democratic states incarcerated every fool they came across there'd be virtually nobody left to give them a mandate to do so.

Didn't Britain deliver him to Austria to be tried?

No - he went there to participate in a university debate.

If you write a history textbook claiming something never happened and vilifying those who faked it, it can be considered libelous.
Only if you vilify an identifiable person or a narrow group of identifiable people. "The Jews" is far too broad. "Deborah Lipstadt" is OK. Plus it has to be done with malice.

No - he went there to participate in a university debate.
And they arrested him? :rolleyes:


Only if you vilify an identifiable person or a narrow group of identifiable people. "The Jews" is far too broad. "Deborah Lipstadt" is OK. Plus it has to be done with malice.
Plus I don't think he actually told people to go out there and kill Jews, did he?

And they arrested him? :rolleyes:
Well it wasn't exactly a surprise to him. He'd been wanted there for more than a decade.

Well it wasn't exactly a surprise to him. He'd been wanted there for more than a decade.
On what grounds could they arrest him though, since he is a British national? Can't he appeal to the ECJ?

On what grounds could they arrest him though, since he is a British national? Can't he appeal to the ECJ?
He went to Austria and in Austria, he broke an Austrian law. Therefore, he was wanted in Austria. And when he came back, he was arrested.

I suppose he can do all sorts of appeals, and he probably will. But that's the facts as they stand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Persona_non_grata

He went to Austria and in Austria, he broke an Austrian law. Therefore, he was wanted in Austria. And when he came back, he was arrested.

I suppose he can do all sorts of appeals, and he probably will. But that's the facts as they stand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving#Persona_non_grata
I see. I wonder what the outcome of an appeal to the ECJ would be. It's reluctant in overriding national laws for anything other than policy considerations. Unless his lawyer argued his case very well.

Thanks for the link.

-snip-
Think a bit, then learn a bit of history, then think a bit. And when you think you should open your mouth... think a bit.

And thats a call to all of you.
Do you even read any of the other posts?

The laws of Austria are unjust, but if any country has even a smidgen of right to do so, then it's Austria and even Germany. No, the law isn't fair, but then again Irving knew what he was saying and knew about the law, so he deserves it due to that.
How can you say the laws of Austria are unjust? The most ridiculous statement I have heard today. The fact is that the laws of Austria are just. They may appear unfair or irrational to you and/or others but they are none the less just, and he got justice.
As for any one country having the right to suppress the truth in a historical scenario, no, no one has that right in my mind. There are too many so called historians out there that find it easier to agree with each other than to investigate and report historic fact. I believe David Irving himself made reference to this incestuous relationship.

I don't see any other European country complaining that this happened. Well, except for maybe Britain.He denied the torture and deaths of millions of people. He had the freedom to do that, he paid a consequence as a result of breaking Austrian law. He was not responsible with his freedom to lie, his books are still in print, his lies are still able to be read, he is now in prison.

I am happy that he has had to take responsibility for his actions and I am british.

He denied the torture and deaths of millions of people. He had the freedom to do that, he paid a consequence as a result of breaking Austrian law. He was not responsible with his freedom to lie, his books are still in print, his lies are still able to be read, he is now in prison.

I am happy that he has had to take responsibility for his actions and I am british.

He is allowed to go to jail for inciting racial hatred, etc, yet the cartoonists are allowed to incite racial hatred and get in no trouble? Maybe I'm being a bit naive, but I would have at least believed that the uber-liberal nations of Europe wouldn't be hypocrites.

*scratches out Europe from his alternatives-to-the-U.S.-list*

Now where the hell am I supposed to move when war breaks out with China?

He is allowed to go to jail for inciting racial hatred, etc, yet the cartoonists are allowed to incite racial hatred and get in no trouble? Maybe I'm being a bit naive, but I would have at least believed that the uber-liberal nations of Europe wouldn't be hypocrites.

Europe isn't 'liberal', it's socialist. Nanny states can hardly be considered to be 'liberal' in the truest sense of the word. Don't confuse flaky morals with freedom.

Now where the hell am I supposed to move when war breaks out with China?

That one's easy -- it won't.

That one's easy -- it won't.

Not if El Presidente Shrub is in office when it happens...

He is allowed to go to jail for inciting racial hatred, etc, yet the cartoonists are allowed to incite racial hatred and get in no trouble? Maybe I'm being a bit naive, but I would have at least believed that the uber-liberal nations of Europe wouldn't be hypocrites.

*scratches out Europe from his alternatives-to-the-U.S.-list*

Now where the hell am I supposed to move when war breaks out with China?

Er, Austria doesn't speak for the whole of Europe, y'know.

This is what I have just posted on the Holocaust thread. It should cover the supposed "double standard":

I agree with the punishment of instigation to hatred, when it is significant enough. In cases where it's merely the statement of an opinion that does not provoke hatred, I don't agree.
Well, my point was that, in order to avoid endless debates about what "instigation" is (and not only for that), the Germans have said: what if you just don't? Again, they don't ban the far-right from existing, they just ban it in that form. Kinda like "damnatio memoriae" - you use this or that word, a buzzer sounds and you go to jail.
Frankly, I see that as a perfectly valid solution.

PLUS: you are ignoring one major fact. Modern Germany exists as the antithesis of the IIIrd Reich. Since such crimes could be carried out in the latter, the new Germany was established AGAINST THE IDEALS OF A SIGNIFICANT PROPORTION OF ITS CITIZENS. It has taken over a burden, and questioning that burden is questioning the state itself.
Consider this: the state is made responsible for keeping the memory alive (maintaining camps as museums, sanctioning history textbooks, etc.). Since it is a democracy, what is to say that denial let loose would not win elections? Such a thing would MAKE THE STATE LEGISLATE AGAINST ITS EXISTENCE! I argue that no state should be asked, or expected, to do such a thing.

Note: this had been intended for Germany. It works for Austria just as well (with an added stress, in fact, one leading to the Austrian Empire etc. Way too long talk about Austrian identity as opposed to German).

Not if El Presidente Shrub is in office when it happens...

It won't happen no matter who is in office. It'd be the economic equivalent of nuclear war, and neither country would particularly want that -- certainly not China, with their current levels of greed.

Er, Austria doesn't speak for the whole of Europe, y'know.

Not just Austria has laws that when you deny the holocaust you go to jail. Look back in the thread a few pages; you'll find a list. A few nations I can list off the top of my head are Belgium, Germany, and Poland. Maybe not Belgium, but the later two yes.

It won't happen no matter who is in office. It'd be the economic equivalent of nuclear war, and neither country would particularly want that -- certainly not China, with their current levels of greed.

This is getting off topic. Therefore, I made a thread where people can discuss it there (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470146).

Found 'em:

Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Switzerland

And where are all these countries (except for Israel)?

Found 'em:

Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Switzerland

And where are all these countries (except for Israel)?
Clue: where else but in Europe did the Holocaust happen, genius?

Clue: where else but in Europe did the Holocaust happen, genius?

Exactly; but people were saying that these trials only happened in Germany and Austria; they don't.

I see. I wonder what the outcome of an appeal to the ECJ would be. It's reluctant in overriding national laws for anything other than policy considerations. Unless his lawyer argued his case very well.

Thanks for the link.
Do you mean the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and not the European Court of Justice (ECJ)? I don't think the ECJ would have any jurisdiction in thin case.

Concerning the ECHR, the all-knowing Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial) has this to say: At times, Holocaust deniers seek to rely on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression, when faced with criminal sanctions against their statements or publications. The European Court of Human Rights however consistently declares their complaints inadmissible. According to Article 17 of the Convention, nothing in the Convention may be construed so as to justify acts that are aimed at destroying any of the very rights and freedoms contained therein. Invoking free speech to propagate denial of crimes against humanity is, according to the Court's case-law, contrary to the spirit in which the Convention was adopted in the first place. Reliance on free speech in such cases would thus constitute an abuse of a fundamental right.
I'm not quite sure how I feel about that...

Exactly; but people were saying that these trials only happened in Germany and Austria; they don't.
Read post 66 and see why that is.

I'm from Romania: Holocaust denial was not the instrument of a skinhead minority (which we don't even really have). It was that of middle class voters, because my country is comprised of imbeciles.
Legislation against insulting memory and instigation to hatred had to be passed because that was the prevalent point of view. With that, proof was given that Romania had murdered 200,000 Jews and several tens of thousands of Gypsies, out of its own initiative, between 1941 and 1943. That was denied by people all over the place.

Make sure you get my point about a state not being expected to legislate against itself.

And now some brit is thrown into an austrian jail (Oh, the poor guy. Lives better now than the average Englishman.)

Lol. I always heard Austrians are stuck up their arse so far its unbelievable. Looks like it there's some basis to that claim.

It's probably one of the only developed countries in Europe I would hate to live in.

Btw - Bill Bryson mentions in one of his books that Austria, as opposed to Germany, is still incredibly anti-semetic, and quoted a poll that said something like 50% of Austrians 'disliked' jews, 20% 'detested' jews and 5% 'were physically revolted in the presence of a jew'. It always seemed kind of out there to me, can anyone confirm whether there's any truth to it? If they really do have that much of a bigoted population - maybe it's best that they are kept from trying to export their beliefs?

Clue: where else but in Europe did the Holocaust happen, genius?

Russia

Russia
Is this about the Gulag, or about the Einsatzgruppen in Russia? If Stalin did indeed kill his victims east of the Urals, in Asiatic Russia -which has nothing to do with this conversation, take out a WWII map, and you'll see that the Nazis did not go anywhere near the Urals.

How can you say the laws of Austria are unjust? The most ridiculous statement I have heard today. The fact is that the laws of Austria are just. They may appear unfair or irrational to you and/or others but they are none the less just, and he got justice.
As for any one country having the right to suppress the truth in a historical scenario, no, no one has that right in my mind. There are too many so called historians out there that find it easier to agree with each other than to investigate and report historic fact. I believe David Irving himself made reference to this incestuous relationship.

The law is injust because it suppresses the fundamental right of freedom of speech without anything remotely resembling a just cause. Allowing a state the right to legislate on what is and is not acceptable for a person to say is a very dangerous state of affairs and I find views to the contrary quite baffling in their simple mindedness.

Is this about the Gulag, or about the Einsatzgruppen in Russia? If Stalin did indeed kill his victims east of the Urals, in Asiatic Russia -which has nothing to do with this conversation, take out a WWII map, and you'll see that the Nazis did not go anywhere near the Urals.

I don't see how that's relevant to the fact that I was merely observing that the Holocaust was not entirely limited to Europe.

I don't see how that's relevant to the fact that I was merely observing that the Holocaust was not entirely limited to Europe.
RUSSIA IS EUROPE.
(By which I mean, of course, that Russia is IN Europe.)

The law is injust because it suppresses the fundamental right of freedom of speech without anything remotely resembling a just cause. Allowing a state the right to legislate on what is and is not acceptable for a person to say is a very dangerous state of affairs and I find views to the contrary quite baffling in their simple mindedness.
The reasons behind the laws in Austria and Germany are not simple or mindless they may appear draconian but as a society they have chosen to accept them.
As in other countires if you use written or spoken words to incite violence or threaten some one the law should come down on you and punish you for doing so. So name me a country where you can say anything you like and not be punished for it.

So name me a country where you can say anything you like and not be punished for it.
Anywhere where nobody speaks the same language as you.

its only an austria german thing, and to be honest it makes sense because these were the two nazi head countries, there are still some of the old nazis in these regions ( i must stress this is a very very very very small minority ) and tbh these laws will stop these people returning to public favour

It will always be a problem that those countries will have to be wary of. Yes.. there are old nazi's in those regions (just as there are still American WWII heros, in the U.S. like my grandfather). The problem, though, is that those old nazi's raised children to be haters, and those children raised children too.. and, even thoes children, are now becoming child bearing age. unfortunately, in too many cases, ignorance breeds ingnorance.. and hatred breeds hatred. :(

Anywhere where nobody speaks the same language as you.
Unless you're really unlucky and some words in your language means something in that one as well...

dude, as an american citizen, i can say what i want, so u cant really do much against me :cool:

I'm an American moderator -- and no, not on this site, you can't. You can say it civilly, but if you intend to flame others, you won't be here too long.

A word to the wise.

Even in the US you cannot say whatever you like without being charged with a crime.
Try standing up outside the White House and calling for the assasination of Mr Bush!

Unless you're really unlucky and some words in your language means something in that one as well...
"I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle"...

because it suppresses the fundamental right of freedom of speech
You just don't get it. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with misrepresentation of facts. If I said, Genaia3 usually has sex with sheep, while not being able to proove that, then I can be punished based on exactly the same so called "holocaust denial"-laws.

You just don't get it. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with misrepresentation of facts. If I said, Genaia3 usually has sex with sheep, while not being able to proove that, then I can be punished based on exactly the same so called "holocaust denial"-laws.
No because those laws are specific to events in history and specific political beliefs.

No because those laws are specific to events in history and specific political beliefs.
See post 65 for my answer to why they seem specific.

No because those laws are specific to events in history and specific political beliefs.
As I said earlier, they are not. :rolleyes:

The reason why he got such a long sentence was because he was BANNED from the country.

Ok, here's the deal; all these European countries are rattling on about "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" and the like, a court in Austria recently sentenced David Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving) to three years in prison for denying the holocaust! That's insane! I mean, cartoonists are allowed to inflame 1.2 billion Muslims, but when one historian denies that there were gas-chambers at Auschwitz he goes to jail for three years? I'm all for being respectful and stuff (I believe that the cartoons were bland and distasteful, by the way), but I am firmly in favor of free speech, and before today I thought Europe was, too.


Note: Well, this title is probably a bit mis-leading (I can't really say "What I don't get about the general area of central europe, save Switzerland", can I), my point stands.Switzerland has holocaust denial laws as well. As does Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel (as if this country wasn't obvious), Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4738922.stm
edit: ... ack, I think someone already read the same webpage as me. Oh well, a repetion of the infomation can be that bad... can it?