Irving verdict upheld by Austrian Supreme Court

[eggheadbanga]

Austrian media report that the Austrian Supreme Court has upheld the verdict on Irving. Another court still has to decide about the sentence because either prosecution as well as defense had appealed the three year term. This decision is expected not before two weeks from now.

See:
http://www.kurier.at/nachrichten/oesterreich/26790.php

[Winston]

What ridiculous times we live in. Anyone who thinks his punishment is justified is the lowest of the low.

[Basil Fawlty]

What ridiculous times we live in. Anyone who thinks his punishment is justified is the lowest of the low.Have you ever noticed how very few of the holocaust brigade will defend these laws directly?

The most they will say is something two-faced like "European nations are entitled to pass whatever laws they see fit to prevent a resurgence of Nazism, I of course would prefer for them to be allowed to indulge in their denial blah blah."

[Jimbo Gomez]

Have you ever noticed how very few of the holocaust brigade will defend these laws directly?

The most they will say is something two-faced like "European nations are entitled to pass whatever laws they see fit to prevent a resurgence of Nazism, I of course would prefer for them to be allowed to indulge in their denial blah blah."


I guess this is the new PC version of newspeak.

[eggheadbanga]

Sorry, sig is screwing up.

Denial of generally known historical facts should not be punishable. For those who maintain, for instance, that Germany did not take part in World War I or that Adenauer fought at Issus in 333, their own stupidity is punishment enough. The same should apply to the denial of the horrors and crimes of the recent German past.

~ A German jurist by the name of Baumann in the German juridical magazine NJW, quoted in: Bailer-Galanda/Benz/Neugebauer (ed.), Die Auschwitzleugner, Berlin 1996, page 261.

Now, this appeared underneath the original post at the start of this thread. It appears most times I make a post. I've stated often enough that I am opposed to such laws. Given my opposition is in my sig, why repeat myself?

[Basil Fawlty]

Sorry, sig is screwing up.



Now, this appeared underneath the original post at the start of this thread. It appears most times I make a post. I've stated often enough that I am opposed to such laws. Given my opposition is in my sig, why repeat myself?No one was accusing you of duplicity, Egg. Can I take it then you would join with me in calling for the immediate release of Irving, Rudolf et al?

[Starr]

Oh, now this is a huge shock.


Sorry, sig is screwing up.

Now, this appeared underneath the original post at the start of this thread. It appears most times I make a post. I've stated often enough that I am opposed to such laws. Given my opposition is in my sig, why repeat myself?

With you I really haven't really ran across your posts enough to know, but sulla also I believe said he is opposed to these laws, but then he will turn around and defend these same laws by simply saying something like these laws are none of our(americans) business since we do not live in these countries that have these laws. I would bet though that the opinion is quite different about laws in some of those middle eastern countries.

[eggheadbanga]

Oh, now this is a huge shock.

With you I really haven't really ran across your posts enough to know, but sulla also I believe said he is opposed to these laws, but then he will turn around and defend these same laws by simply saying something like these laws are none of our(americans) business since we do not live in these countries that have these laws. I would bet though that the opinion is quite different about laws in some of those middle eastern countries.

I am opposed to these laws. However, my opposition alone is not enough to change the minds of the French/German/Austrian etc governments. I welcome reports that Jewish organisations in Germany are also opposed to these laws because they simply create taboos and martyrs. A change will eventually come, as soon as establishment and liberal opinion inside these countries decides that it's not working, which it isn't really.

Me whingeing from outside, or even a whole bunch of Americans and Brits whingeing from outside, isn't going to convince the continentals to change their laws on this matter. They have to change it themselves.

That's why I will point out that it is universalising American and/or Anglo-Saxon standards of freedom of speech to criticise such laws purely on grounds of the First Amendment. They simply have a different legal tradition than we do.

For example, laws against collective libel have long existed in continental legal systems. In the 19th Century, you would be jailed for insulting the Prussian officer corps. Now, you can be prosecuted - more rarely jailed - for defaming the memory of the dead. Even in the US and UK, there are laws against libel. That's what much of the agitation that gets people into hot water boils down to, however it is couched. Calling people liars - which is what revisionists routinely call eyewitnesses - is a potential libel. The only difference is it's the state doing it on behalf of the libelled person, not the libelled person bringing suit themselves.

There is a simple case to be made that if you want to drink beer, don't do so in public in Saudi Arabia, and if you want to deny the Holocaust, don't do it in Germany or Austria. In both cases you'll piss off the natives.

While I 'understand' why there have been such laws, I very firmly believe - and this view is firmly shared by many others - that they are completely counterproductive and have been for a long time. All it seems to create are martyrs who don't deserve to be compared to real political dissidents who have been victimised for taking a genuine stand against something, instead of spouting nonsense.

I personally think these people are stupid, and you don't jail people for stupidity.

[eggheadbanga]

No one was accusing you of duplicity, Egg. Can I take it then you would join with me in calling for the immediate release of Irving, Rudolf et al?

Where's the petition? I'll sign.

[Basil Fawlty]

Where's the petition? I'll sign.Good man Egg. There probably is one somewhere, I was more asking you to openly agree with me on this.

[Slavic Enforcer]

but then he will turn around and defend these same laws by simply saying something like these laws are none of our(americans) business since we do not live in these countries that have these laws.

I don't know if he said that but it's absolutely correct.

[eggheadbanga]

Good man Egg. There probably is one somewhere, I was more asking you to openly agree with me on this.

I just have. See above.

Irving should at best have been given a suspended sentence and booted out of the country. That would have upheld the law - one cannot expect overnight change, can one? - and satisfied all parties concerned. Irving could have gone off to the US and crowed about how he was victimised, which is what he really wanted, and liberals would not have been especially unsettled.

Rudolf... I am inclined to make an exception for Young Germar. He deserves some form of punishment for writing such a large amount of rubbish, but not of a legal nature. The man was too smug by half, wearing his martyr mantle with all the grace of a Rotarian wearing a cardy.

[Basil Fawlty]

I just have. See above.Ok.

Irving should at best have been given a suspended sentence and booted out of the country. That would have upheld the law - one cannot expect overnight change, can one? - and satisfied all parties concerned. Irving could have gone off to the US and crowed about how he was victimised, which is what he really wanted, and liberals would not have been especially unsettled.I fear you are back sliding. Its one thing to remark about the (to us) barbaric laws of Saudi Arabia, which are at least consistent with some version of Islam. But these laws in Europe are entirely incompatible with their own professed liberal Enlightenment tenets. They are hypocritcal and cynical. They also contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which these states are all signatories. They are hypocritcal and cynical, and no one who professes to endorse those values can surely defend them. I would expect nothing less than unequivocal condemnation, regardless of where you stand on the history.
Rudolf... I am inclined to make an exception for Young Germar. He deserves some form of punishment for writing such a large amount of rubbish, but not of a legal nature. The man was too smug by half, wearing his martyr mantle with all the grace of a Rotarian wearing a cardy.In the case of both Irving and more so with Rudolf you are resorting to ad hominem attacks. It seems my optimism about you was short-lived because misplaced.

[Basil Fawlty]

I am opposed to these laws. However, my opposition alone is not enough to change the minds of the French/German/Austrian etc governments. I welcome reports that Jewish organisations in Germany are also opposed to these laws because they simply create taboos and martyrs.The reason to oppose these laws is that they are simply wrong, unjust. They contravene the Universal Declaration and the liberal Enlightenment principles that most wetsern states openly affirm. A change will eventually come, as soon as establishment and liberal opinion inside these countries decides that it's not working, which it isn't really.Not working? So your opposition is pragmatic and not principled?
Me whingeing from outside, or even a whole bunch of Americans and Brits whingeing from outside, isn't going to convince the continentals to change their laws on this matter. They have to change it themselves.If enough prominent people, especially histirans, human rights activists etc register their disapproval that could embolden their collegaues on the conteinet to follow suit.
That's why I will point out that it is universalising American and/or Anglo-Saxon standards of freedom of speech to criticise such laws purely on grounds of the First Amendment. They simply have a different legal tradition than we do. Have you ever read Kant's Was ist Aufklaerung?
For example, laws against collective libel have long existed in continental legal systems. In the 19th Century, you would be jailed for insulting the Prussian officer corps. Now, you can be prosecuted - more rarely jailed - for defaming the memory of the dead. An entriely arbitrary concept dependent on who happens to be in power. Even in the US and UK, there are laws against libel.A civil law matter, not criminal. That's what much of the agitation that gets people into hot water boils down to, however it is couched. Calling people liars - which is what revisionists routinely call eyewitnesses - is a potential libel.Only if they are still alive. Then it is up to them to take a case.
There is a simple case to be made that if you want to drink beer, don't do so in public in Saudi Arabia, and if you want to deny the Holocaust, don't do it in Germany or Austria. In both cases you'll piss off the natives. False. You will piss off the regime.

While I 'understand' why there have been such laws, I very firmly believe - and this view is firmly shared by many others - that they are completely counterproductive and have been for a long time. All it seems to create are martyrs who don't deserve to be compared to real political dissidents who have been victimised for taking a genuine stand against something, instead of spouting nonsense.So it is a purely pragmatic stance? You have no principled objection to these laws?
I personally think these people are stupid, and you don't jail people for stupidity.That's a very lame thing to say. I could understand if you said they were cunning devils trying to rehabilitate Nazism, but stupid, hardly? The sacrifices made by one's enemies must always appear to be futile or 'stupid' as you say. But it is always a very big mistake to hold your enemy in contempt. Pride precedeeth the fall.

[eggheadbanga]

Ok.

I fear you are back sliding.


Vis-a-vis Irving's specific fate, just being realistic.

Its one thing to remark about the (to us) barbaric laws of Saudi Arabia, which are at least consistent with some version of Islam. But these laws in Europe are entirely incompatible with their own professed liberal Enlightenment tenets.

Not at all, otherwise there would be no libel laws anywhere in the world. Moreover, the laws are framed in many cases to protect minorities against unwarranted racism, which is deemed contrary to Enlightenment principles.

They are hypocritcal and cynical.

They seek to protect a minority against unwarranted attacks.

They also contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which these states are all signatories.

They are not deemed to by any international authority (UN, Amnesty etc) for the reason that they are deemed to constitute hate-speech. But you know that.

They are hypocritcal and cynical,

You already said that.

and no one who professes to endorse those values can surely defend them.

I have explained why I understand why these laws exist, and on what basis I could conceive that they might be warranted. My opposition is grounded primarily in pragmatism. They don't work. They only create martyrs.

I would expect nothing less than unequivocal condemnation, regardless of where you stand on the history.

Be happy with what you have got. I oppose these laws because they don't work. I think continental European society would be much better off if these people were exposed to public ridicule, as they are in the US and UK.

In the case of both Irving and Rudolf you are resorting to ad hominem attacks. It seems my optimism about you was short-lived.

Tough shit. I don't have to like the people just because I dislike the laws. In fact, I LOATHE these people as you know full well.

If I support their right to free speech free of prosecution, then you must accept mine to say what I like about them. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept that I can support their free speech while hating their guts. Otherwise it's you that's being the hypocrite. That's the thing about free speech that is so often forgotten. It cuts both ways.

[cerberus]

They are not deemed to by any international authority (UN, Amnesty etc) for the reason that they are deemed to constitute hate-speech. But you know that.
:deadhorse: Irving expected to get a few cheap headlines , he got a lot more.
These laws , they create more issues than they solve , pointless.

[Slavic Enforcer]

These laws , they create more issues than they solve , pointless.

Why? Only because you lead discussions about it?

I have no problems with these laws, and the most Germans also not.

[eggheadbanga]

Quote:
Originally Posted by eggheadbanga
I am opposed to these laws. However, my opposition alone is not enough to change the minds of the French/German/Austrian etc governments. I welcome reports that Jewish organisations in Germany are also opposed to these laws because they simply create taboos and martyrs.

The reason to oppose these laws is that they are simply wrong, unjust. They contravene the Universal Declaration and the liberal Enlightenment principles that most wetsern states openly affirm.

The problem, Basil, is that Holocaust denial is very often a form of racist hate speech. Such speech acts contravene Englightenment principles and the U.D. just as much as a restriction on free speech in the abstract.

ONE of the reasons for my opposition to specifically criminalising Holocaust denial is because it is a massively grey area. Existing laws against incitement to racial hatred are more than sufficient protection, not least in the UK, my own country. No revisionist would ever be prosecuted under such statutes, nor is there any appetite to introduce such legislation.

France, for example, had just such a statute from 1972, which was used to prosecute Faurisson in the 1980s. Introducing la loi Gayssot was IMO completely unnecessary, while it can be argued that the 1972 law was applied excessively in Faurisson's case.

Quote:
A change will eventually come, as soon as establishment and liberal opinion inside these countries decides that it's not working, which it isn't really.

Not working? So your opposition is pragmatic and not principled?

It is a mixture of both.

Quote:
Me whingeing from outside, or even a whole bunch of Americans and Brits whingeing from outside, isn't going to convince the continentals to change their laws on this matter. They have to change it themselves.

If enough prominent people, especially histirans, human rights activists etc register their disapproval that could embolden their collegaues on the conteinet to follow suit.

The fact that Goetz Aly came out in Spiegel against the prosecution of Ernst Zuendel is more useful than me on the outside saying anything NOW. I have barely begun my academic career. Give me time to enter into a position of influence. I can say that I take the total opposite perspective on this issue to David Cesarani, for example.

Quote:
That's why I will point out that it is universalising American and/or Anglo-Saxon standards of freedom of speech to criticise such laws purely on grounds of the First Amendment. They simply have a different legal tradition than we do.

Have you ever read Kant's Was ist Aufklaerung?

One could equally point to Voltaire. This doesn't detract from the fundamental differences between the Anglo-Saxon common-law and continental legal systems.

Quote:
For example, laws against collective libel have long existed in continental legal systems. In the 19th Century, you would be jailed for insulting the Prussian officer corps. Now, you can be prosecuted - more rarely jailed - for defaming the memory of the dead.

An entriely arbitrary concept dependent on who happens to be in power.

But important to acknowledge if one wants to understand - which is not the same as agreeing with - WHY these laws exist.

Quote:
Even in the US and UK, there are laws against libel.

A civil law matter, not criminal.

And if a libel suit could be brought against certain revisionists rendering them penniless, I would cheer it on.

Quote:
That's what much of the agitation that gets people into hot water boils down to, however it is couched. Calling people liars - which is what revisionists routinely call eyewitnesses - is a potential libel.

Only if they are still alive. Then it is up to them to take a case.

That is why continental law seeks to protect the memory of the dead against defamation, Basil.

Quote:
There is a simple case to be made that if you want to drink beer, don't do so in public in Saudi Arabia, and if you want to deny the Holocaust, don't do it in Germany or Austria. In both cases you'll piss off the natives.

False. You will piss off the regime.

Your ideas are more unpopular than you might like to think in Germany, Basil.

Quote:
While I 'understand' why there have been such laws, I very firmly believe - and this view is firmly shared by many others - that they are completely counterproductive and have been for a long time. All it seems to create are martyrs who don't deserve to be compared to real political dissidents who have been victimised for taking a genuine stand against something, instead of spouting nonsense.

So it is a purely pragmatic stance? You have no principled objection to these laws?

It simply isn't as black and white as you'd like to think. The issues shade into matters where I have absolutely no doubt that legal sanctions are warranted, viz. hate-speech. It is because HD falls into a grey area outisde unequivocally criminal incitement that I regard specific laws against HD as unnecessary.

Quote:
I personally think these people are stupid, and you don't jail people for stupidity.

That's a very lame thing to say. I could understand if you said they were cunning devils trying to rehabilitate Nazism, but stupid, hardly? The sacrifices made by one's enemies must always appear to be futile or 'stupid' as you say. But it is always a very big mistake to hold your enemy in contempt. Pride precedeeth the fall.

After 40+ years of revisionist rhetoric, all that is left are a few minor corrections and a lot of whingeing about restrictions on free-speech. Intellectually, it has no substance whatsoever, as has been repeatedly shown. Its main interest to me is its sheer inanity. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

[Basil Fawlty]

Vis-a-vis Irving's specific fate, just being realistic.We can set aside his particular situation and concentrate on the principle.
Not at all, otherwise there would be no libel laws anywhere in the world.No, libel laws are a civil matter.
Moreover, the laws are framed in many cases to protect minorities against unwarranted racism, which is deemed contrary to Enlightenment principles. That is anachronistic and false. The basis of the Enlightenment as a possibility was the push for free speech as defined by Kant and others. Hate speech laws etc, are irrational and unnecessary. I had this argument a while back with someone. I said that if someone is subjected to racist absue on the street for instance, the abusers can be charged under existing public order legislation. But hate speech laws criminalise a thought and effectively say that a crime hgas been committed if someone feels offended. This is insane and tyrannical.
They seek to protect a minority against unwarranted attacks. Who is being attacked here? They contravene the Universal Declaration and often their own constitutional guarantees of free speech. Let's get real here: we are talking about research and publication and public speaking not a mob orators exhorting people to "burn out the Pakis." The first must be protected, the second dealt with through the appropriate criminal laws covering public order and protection of persons.
They are not deemed to by any international authority (UN, Amnesty etc) for the reason that they are deemed to constitute hate-speech. But you know that.This is all question-begging. AI is a partisan organisation that picks and chooses its causes. Do you think the Palestinians had to wait until Mary Robinson or her predecessors came along before they could say that their human rights were being traduced? Certainly not.
You already said that. It can't be repeated too often.
I have explained why I understand why these laws exist, and on what basis I could conceive that they might be warranted. My opposition is grounded primarily in pragmatism. They don't work. They only create martyrs.Well, then that would make you a hypocrite, I'm sorry to say. Do you believe in free speech only for those you agree with?
Be happy with what you have got. I oppose these laws because they don't work. I think continental European society would be much better off if these people were exposed to public ridicule, as they are in the US and UK. A pragamtic objection is nothing. I think I would prefer if you openly declared in favour of them.
Tough shit. I don't have to like the people just because I dislike the laws. In fact, I LOATHE these people as you know full well. That's fine, you are free to do so. I dont think I would be mad about the person of Irving myself from what I have heard, but that is totally irrelevant when one takes a principled stand on something. Either all enjoy equal rights or actually no one does. The whole point of rights and laws as they bear on this matter, is surely to protect those we disagree with or find repugnant in some way, no?
If I support their right to free speech free of prosecution, then you must accept mine to say what I like about them. You don't have to like it, but you have to accept that I can support their free speech while hating their guts. Otherwise it's you that's being the hypocrite. That's the thing about free speech that is so often forgotten. It cuts both ways.I agree 100% with every word you have written here, the irony is, I'm not sure that you do.

[Slavic Enforcer]

I agree 100% with every word you have written here, the irony is, I'm not sure that you do.

Says the guy with the Iranian flag..

[Basil Fawlty]

It is a mixture of both.Lol!
"Nun, das ist englisch; und in Anbetracht, dass die Engländer das Volk des vollkommnen cant sind. . ."



.

[Basil Fawlty]

Says the guy with the Iranian flag..And what is your problem?

[Slavic Enforcer]

And what is your problem?

A great democracy it is.

[Basil Fawlty]

A great democracy it is.It may very well be. But is that in itself a suffcient endorsement of a society, that it selects its rulers by a kind of lottery?

[Basil Fawlty]

The problem, Basil, is that Holocaust denial is very often a form of racist hate speech. Such speech acts contravene Englightenment principles and the U.D. just as much as a restriction on free speech in the abstract.This is rubbish. Show me where "racist hate speech" occurs in the discussion we are having about Gerstein-Gilbert.
I grant you that there are some people who misappropriate holocaust revisionist works for political ends, but this is nothing to do with revisionism as such. Everything is potentially open to uses/abuses beyond our control. We can only be responisble for our own words and actions.
Seing as you believe in hate speech, do you think Goldhagen should be charged under such laws for his vile attack on the German people and non-Jews in general? More importantly, do you think he ever will be?
(I don't think he should be just as I don't believe the authors of ZOG exposes should be prosecuted either.)
ONE of the reasons for my opposition to specifically criminalising Holocaust denial is because it is a massively grey area. Existing laws against incitement to racial hatred are more than sufficient protection, not least in the UK, my own country. No revisionist would ever be prosecuted under such statutes, nor is there any appetite to introduce such legislation. If that's true then fair enough.
France, for example, had just such a statute from 1972, which was used to prosecute Faurisson in the 1980s. Introducing la loi Gayssot was IMO completely unnecessary, while it can be argued that the 1972 law was applied excessively in Faurisson's case. A monumental understatement.
The fact that Goetz Aly came out in Spiegel against the prosecution of Ernst Zuendel is more useful than me on the outside saying anything NOW. I have barely begun my academic career. Give me time to enter into a position of influence. I can say that I take the total opposite perspective on this issue to David Cesarani, for example. Yes, I thnk you said something along those lines before.
One could equally point to Voltaire. This doesn't detract from the fundamental differences between the Anglo-Saxon common-law and continental legal systems. But we're not really talking baout legal systems here rather specific laws.
But important to acknowledge if one wants to understand - which is not the same as agreeing with - WHY these laws exist.I agree, but I think we might disgaree as to the true import of these laws.
And if a libel suit could be brought against certain revisionists rendering them penniless, I would cheer it on.Be my guest. I likewise revel in the spectacle of seeing unsold copies of Stinky Evans's last book on the remainder pile (HB) at 5 euro, as Irving predicted! I saw Browning's Origins going for 7 euro the other day, same spot.
That is why continental law seeks to protect the memory of the dead against defamation, Basil.An absurd concept.
Your ideas are more unpopular than you might like to think in Germany, Basil.I know Germany as well, thank you. Have you ever read the annual report of the Versfassungschutz? They report c. 10,000 prosecutions a year for non-violent political offences.
But are to we reduce this to a popularity poll, God help us all if that's to be the case.
It simply isn't as black and white as you'd like to think. The issues shade into matters where I have absolutely no doubt that legal sanctions are warranted, viz. hate-speech. It is because HD falls into a grey area outisde unequivocally criminal incitement that I regard specific laws against HD as unnecessary. Tell me more about what you understand by "hate speech" (does that phrase alone not strike you as totalitarian?) and why you think its necessary. Remember we already have public order and protection of persons laws.
After 40+ years of revisionist rhetoric, all that is left are a few minor corrections and a lot of whingeing about restrictions on free-speech. Intellectually, it has no substance whatsoever, as has been repeatedly shown. Its main interest to me is its sheer inanity. Sorry, but that's how I see it.Fair enough. Needless to say I completely disagree with all that and have good reasons for doing so, and I am neither stupid nor insane, neither am I morally challenged. These are the usual smears thrown at those of us who don't subscribe to the official, and in places, enforced narrative, yes?

[Slavic Enforcer]

It may very well be. But is that in itself a suffcient endorsement of a society, that it selects its rulers by a kind of lottery?

In Iran women get stoned if they "encourage" somebody to rape them..

My personal view:

Iran is a piece of shit. The sooner it disappears from the map, the better.

[eggheadbanga]

Originally Posted by eggheadbanga
The problem, Basil, is that Holocaust denial is very often a form of racist hate speech. Such speech acts contravene Englightenment principles and the U.D. just as much as a restriction on free speech in the abstract.

This is rubbish. Show me where "racist hate speech" occurs in the discussion we are having about Gerstein-Gilbert.

I said, very often, which does not even mean most of the time. And no, the discussion about Gerstein-Gilbert certainly wasn't racist. But you would be a fool to deny that there are those for whom 'Holocaust revisionism' forms but a part of a more blatant racism.

I grant you that there are some people who misappropriate holocaust revisionist works for political ends, but this is nothing to do with revisionism as such. Everything is potentially open to uses/abuses beyond our control.

Yet there is a slippery slope in BOTH directions, Basil. So-called 'scientific' or 'objective' revisionism can serve the ends of those wishing to spout hate-speech just as easily as the crudest demagoguery. Indeed, it sometimes turns out that the 'scientificity' is but a mask.

We can only be responisble for our own words and actions.

If the words are a direct incitement, then one should indeed be held accountable. But this is why the issue is a grey area.

Seing as you believe in hate speech, do you think Goldhagen should be charged under such laws for his vile attack on the German people and non-Jews in general? More importantly, do you think he ever will be?
(I don't think he should be just as I don't believe the authors of ZOG exposes should be prosecuted either.)

Given that Goldhagen was greeted much like the Messiah in 1996 on his book-tour, it seems unlikely that the German nation will ever declare a fatwa on him. He told them what the society wanted to hear at the time. Why this was so was something of a mystery to the outside world, which had completely rejected his thesis. Goldhagen is indeed a good comparison to revisionism, since it is generally agreed that his methodology was dreadful and conclusions simply not justified. He did, however, spur on more useful research than 40 years of revisionism has managed.

Quote:
ONE of the reasons for my opposition to specifically criminalising Holocaust denial is because it is a massively grey area. Existing laws against incitement to racial hatred are more than sufficient protection, not least in the UK, my own country. No revisionist would ever be prosecuted under such statutes, nor is there any appetite to introduce such legislation.

If that's true then fair enough.

I think it is a fair statement of the prevailing mood. The Blair government explored the idea and then rejected it very publicly. The Irving case in 2000 helped cement this view, and the Irving case in 2006 has solidified it. Opposition to the newfangled anti-terror laws is also considerable.

Quote:
France, for example, had just such a statute from 1972, which was used to prosecute Faurisson in the 1980s. Introducing la loi Gayssot was IMO completely unnecessary, while it can be argued that the 1972 law was applied excessively in Faurisson's case.

A monumental understatement.

I simply don't know what the exact case was, so I wouldn't want to pronounce on it. But there is little doubt in my mind that Faurisson is a gross antisemite. Did he cross a line? Evidently the French prosecutors felt he did, and were able to use a statute designed well before anyone had heard of the buffoon.

Quote:
The fact that Goetz Aly came out in Spiegel against the prosecution of Ernst Zuendel is more useful than me on the outside saying anything NOW. I have barely begun my academic career. Give me time to enter into a position of influence. I can say that I take the total opposite perspective on this issue to David Cesarani, for example.

Yes, I thnk you said something along those lines before.

It is a wearily repetitive issue.

Quote:
One could equally point to Voltaire. This doesn't detract from the fundamental differences between the Anglo-Saxon common-law and continental legal systems.

But we're not really talking baout legal systems here rather specific laws.

No, the laws will emerge from the context of a specific legal system. Anti-HD laws are anything but sui generis.

Quote:
But important to acknowledge if one wants to understand - which is not the same as agreeing with - WHY these laws exist.

I agree, but I think we might disgaree as to the true import of these laws.

Most probably. I don't tend to think of them as a massive barrier, since there are any number of ways around them. Exile in Iran seems a good start.

Quote:
And if a libel suit could be brought against certain revisionists rendering them penniless, I would cheer it on.

Be my guest. I likewise revel in the spectacle of seeing unsold copies of Stinky Evans's last book on the remainder pile (HB) at 5 euro, as Irving predicted! I saw Browning's Origins going for 7 euro the other day, same spot.

Deniers give their books away for free. And a canny shopper can always pick up a bargain. It was a standing joke among the postgrads as to whose supervisor had the most books remaindered at Unsworth's on Gower Street. But these are the books that end up in the libraries, and used in universities, and built upon by the next generation of historians, whereas deniers have managed about 50 'monographs', at least half of which are plain batty, the other half tissue-thin.

Quote:
That is why continental law seeks to protect the memory of the dead against defamation, Basil.

An absurd concept.

No, it is a logical extension of the principle of libel, within the continental legal tradition. I disagree that this should be punishable as it currently is, but that doesn't mean I do not appreciate the underlying sentiment, which is entirely correct. Make no mistake, Holocaust denial most certainly does defame the memory of the dead.

Quote:
Your ideas are more unpopular than you might like to think in Germany, Basil.

I know Germany as well, thank you. Have you ever read the annual report of the Versfassungschutz? They report c. 10,000 prosecutions a year for non-violent political offences.
But are to we reduce this to a popularity poll, God help us all if that's to be the case.

Of course I've read the BVS report. I also read the crime statistics report which shows that specific prosecutions under Article 130 are a fraction of the total cases brought. I suspect that on closer examination most will consist of skinheads waving swastika flags in public places and being slapped with a magistrate's fine. That's one thing I intensely dislike about the waving of such statistics around, namely that it is simply untrue that there are 10,000 jailed each year for denying the Holocaust. The number of such cases specifically relating to Holocaust revisionism is vanishingly small. German judgements are online now, so if you wish to prove me wrong, you can Google.

Quote:
It simply isn't as black and white as you'd like to think. The issues shade into matters where I have absolutely no doubt that legal sanctions are warranted, viz. hate-speech. It is because HD falls into a grey area outisde unequivocally criminal incitement that I regard specific laws against HD as unnecessary.

Tell me more about what you understand by "hate speech" (does that phrase alone not strike you as totalitarian?) and why you think its necessary. Remember we already have public order and protection of persons laws.

Public order laws are designed for public places. The classic situation being a demonstration. The question is whether one should consider other media somehow privileged compared to direct voice incitement of a mob saying 'kill them!'. IMO, other media are not so privileged. Those writing statements urging physical violence on others are committing criminal acts. It is no use hiding behind, 'but he didn't say Mr Musharraf' when what was written was 'Pakis'. So my standard for what is unequivocal hate-speech that should be legally prosecuted is set fairly high. This is why HD generally does not fall into the category of hate-speech that should be legally prosecuted. Much of HD consists of, to use your phrase about Goldhagen, vile attacks on the Jewish people either directly or by implication. Such attacks are rarely criminal outright.

Quote:
After 40+ years of revisionist rhetoric, all that is left are a few minor corrections and a lot of whingeing about restrictions on free-speech. Intellectually, it has no substance whatsoever, as has been repeatedly shown. Its main interest to me is its sheer inanity. Sorry, but that's how I see it.

Fair enough. Needless to say I completely disagree with all that and have good reasons for doing so, and I am neither stupid nor insane, neither am I morally challenged. These are the usual smears thrown at those of us who don't subscribe to the official, and in places, enforced narrative, yes?

Some are morally challenged, some are stupid, some are insane, some are disingenuous, some just enjoy the sensation of being 'radical'. There is no uniform typology to Holocaust denial, Basil, just a set of correlations that can resemble a Venn Diagram of overlaps in the more far-out cases.

In your case I suspect you enjoy the sensation of iconoclasm. You're too bright not to know that most of what you peddle on here is rubbish.

[Commander]

Irving should have been a little wiser about things. Anyone with 1/2 a brain knows Germany + Austria are 100% controlled by Zionist war criminals, going there, subjecting yourself to their "justice" system, well, what did he expect? :deadhorse:

[Starr]

Where's the petition? I'll sign.


http://www.petitiononline.com/DavidI/

I don't know if he said that but it's absolutely correct.

How far does this go? Does that mean that no one should express an opinion about laws in other so called "free" countries?

[Slavic Enforcer]

How far does this go? Does that mean that no one should express an opinion about laws in other so called "free" countries?

It's just normal that after everything the Nazis did to the Jews it shouldn't be allowed to doubt facts regarding the Holocaust.

Do what you want, but then think twice before you set a foot on German territory.

[Incitatus]

It's just normal that after everything the Nazis did to the Jews it shouldn't be allowed to doubt facts regarding the Holocaust.

Do what you want, but then think twice before you set a foot on German territory.
Why should somebody be allowed to deny the murders of, for example, 100 million people under communist rule or any other historical event, but not the holocaust? They shouldn't limit thoughts and counter revisionist beliefs with arguments, not with lawsuits.

[Arrow Cross]

This Democracy game is a nonsense.
We are all free, but there are some, who are freeer. The Jews. They make the laws, Democracy is their playground.

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Slavic Wolf]It's just normal that after everything the Nazis did to the Jews it shouldn't be allowed to doubt facts regarding the Holocaust.

Facts? well, we will leave that to the revisionism section. Lots of things have been done to different groups of people, throughout history, why is this a special case that should be placed above any and all inquires? What larger good for society comes out of throwing someone like Irving(whose only "crime" is having "unacceptable" opinions) in prison?

for those who dislike him or revisionists in general, you must know how this looks to some people and that it also generates more interest in what he has to say and goes a long way in giving him a "following."

[Slavic Enforcer]

for those who dislike him or revisionists in general, you must know how this looks to some people and that it also generates more interest in what he has to say and goes a long way in giving him a "following."

Let them follow him into prison. I have no problem with that.

Do you remember my "Follow your leader" signature pic?

[Winston]

Let them follow him into prison. I have no problem with that.

Do you remember my "Follow your leader" signature pic?

You are unworthy of respect and don't deserve your own freedom.

[Slavic Enforcer]

You are unworthy of respect and don't deserve your own freedom.

I see no sense in this sentence.