Holocaust Revisionism illegal in Australia and New Zealand?

[Ahknaton]

This thread (http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22452) posted on Original Dissent containing the text of an email from the Austrian embassey regarding the Irving case contains the assertion that Holocaust denial/revisionism is illegal in Australia and New Zealand:

Fifty years ago, in 1955, Austria instated legislative measures to serve as a safeguard against resurgence of NS activity of any kind. For countries having witnessed the devastating consequences of National Socialism and the Holocaust and having struggled to come to terms with it, fear of a resurgence of neo-Nazism is understandable. Today you may be imprisoned or fined for dissenting from the accepted Holocaust history in the following other countries: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland.


I wasn't aware of this law until now. Can anyone confirm if this is the case?

They maybe extrapolating the scope of "anti-vilification" laws such as those here in Victoria to include Holocaust denial, so I'm not sure if there is a law specifically regarding the Holocaust. If it's true, it's appalling.

Incidentally, this clarifies the year that Holocaust denial laws were passed in Austria, which has been a topic of conversation on several threads here.

[Felix the Cat]

Also interesting to see Canada on the list

[Starr]

Someone explain how allowing the act of denying or questioning certain aspects of the holocaust, is in itself, going to bring about "nazi" activity? Do the Jews feel they have to keep holocaust guilt alive and kicking, while crushing any and all dissent to prevent any large scale anti-semitism from arising? that seems really paranoid and like the Jews know all too well that hatred for them must be a really easy thing to come by.

I find something amusing about how they listed Israel in there. I don't even know why really. I guess I am just getting tired.:p

[Donny the Punk]

Holocaust denial is an attempt at rehabilitating Nazism and racism in general as viable ideologies. The world understands the consequences of racist extremism: millions of gassed, shot and burned corpses. Holocaust deniers would have us forget this reality.

[Ahknaton]

Holocaust denial is an attempt at rehabilitating Nazism and racism in general as viable ideologies. The world understands the consequences of racist extremism: millions of gassed, shot and burned corpses. Holocaust deniers would have us forget this reality.
So?

How does that trump the right to freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry?

You can't outlaw a point of view based on the assumed motivations of those advocating it. In any case, denying the Holocaust is not necessary in order to accept racialism as a viable ideology. I accept the conventional account of the Holocaust but it didn't stop me from becoming a racist. Since I'm not German, why would Nazi crimes forfeit my right to ethnic/racial nationalism? Nor are "millions of gassed, shot and burned corpses" the inevitable result of a racialist or nationalist worldview. It just doesn't follow.

[Donny the Punk]

So?

How does that trump the right to freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry?

You can't outlaw a point of view based on the assumed motivations of those advocating it. In any case, denying the Holocaust is not necessary in order to accept racialism as a viable ideology. I accept the conventional account of the Holocaust but it didn't stop me from becoming a racist. Since I'm not German, why would Nazi crimes forfeit my right to ethnic/racial nationalism? It just doesn't follow.
I'm just answering the question. I have no problems with allowing Holocaust denial on the basis of free speech. It is easy enough to demolish with a little knowledge. Most people, however, have no historical memory which worries those who fear the re-emergence of Nazi ideology (I'm thinking of a bbc article from a while back about how a huge chunk of Britons don't know what Auschwitz was).

Here it is: http://www.able2know.com/forums/about40281.html

[Ahknaton]

I'm just answering the question.
Which question?
I have no problems with allowing Holocaust denial on the basis of free speech.Fair enough, perhaps you are a reasonable person after all.

[Donny the Punk]

"Someone explain how making criminal the act of denying or questioning certain aspects of the holocaust, is in itself, going to bring about "nazi" activity?"

EDIT: It occurs to me that this question makes no sense, and that I misread it. :p

[Helios Panoptes]

It's interesting that a basal principle of liberal democracy is that the masses are capable of making decisions about the state, yet they must be protected from information which is dangerous only if the populace is incapable of reaching an appropriate decision about it. It's quite the contradiction.

I don't think any Phora members support the criminalization of Holocaust denial and that is good.

[Starr]

LOL. Hey, I said I was getting tired. Obviously you were able to get what I was trying to ask.

[seanbam]

I have not heard about that anti holocaust revision law in NZ and don't know if it is true but recently when David Irving tried to come here the Labour govt would not allow it tho people said on talk back that he should be allowed to come (free speech) tho they don't agree with him.
It is not "surprising" Canada was on the list though, remember Ernest Zundel?

The whole thing about the holocaust is that it and "racism" acusation are used to turn public away from nationalism.

[cerberus]

Forget the Holocaust having anything to do with Jews as a group.
The opinion that this sequence of events never took place is a distortion of historical fact and human experience.
There is no serious doubt that what is termed as the Holocaust did actually take place.
What is being put forward is a less than informed opinion driven not by any reasonable attempt to review history in am meaningful and accurate sense.
The idea that this is somehow a defense of free speech is in itself a denial of the factors which motivate what is seen as " denial" or the "revisionist" opinion.

The message itself is not taken seriously - this much is clearly evident - its preaching to the converted - if anything the revisionist view is a "religion" - blind faith which has been defeated utterly by science, facts and the misery of a generations suffering.

The racist issue which are attached and never far distant from so called " real history" and a serach for " truth" or "freedom of speech" is the real danger and that is the core issue of any legal activity.

History is being misued and abused , truth and objectivity are not the issues.
Once again its a method of fooling some of the people all of the time.
"Revisionism" is the real myth of the 20th century and it reflects directly on those who promote it and those who in turn believe it.

[Anarch]

The 2001 Racial and Religious Tolerance Act could be extended to silence holocaust revisionism, Akhnaton. It basically says those who vilify/offend a racial or religious group can be taken to the Equal Opportunity Commission (I think?) and if convicted by this kangaroo court, can cop a few hundred dollars in a fine, and if you call someone a 'fucking chink' while you commit a crime, you can cop a six thousand dollar fine and six months in prison for simply calling them a chink. Ghey, but true. OTOH, the Magna Carta technically overrides Australia's constitution and the state constitutions, I think, because pre-Federation laws weren't abrogated by the unification of Australia. So, if the Magna Carta guarentees us the right to free speech, it is possible, perhaps, for you to cop it from the Government, then take them to court, and perhaps, maybe, overturn the entire law and a host of other ones in the process. Perhaps. The High Court of Australia has also extrapolated a section of our Constitution to cover political speech as a right because we have the right to make an informed vote, which requires freedom of information. It's iffy. It also requires a lawyer with balls of steel. Good luck finding one :D

And that's what you get for doing Political Studies in VCE at Box Hill TAFE.

[Dan Dare]

Holocaust denial is an attempt at rehabilitating Nazism and racism in general as viable ideologies. The world understands the consequences of racist extremism: millions of gassed, shot and burned corpses. Holocaust deniers would have us forget this reality.

It's the old Slippery Slope (tm) innit.

I mean, some Nazi makes a mild query about the circle-U on the Weetabix box on his Brekkie table and next thing you know the transports are rolling to the East.

[Helios Panoptes]

Forget the Holocaust having anything to do with Jews as a group.

No can do.

The opinion that this sequence of events never took place is a distortion of historical fact and human experience.
There is no serious doubt that what is termed as the Holocaust did actually take place.
What is being put forward is a less than informed opinion driven not by any reasonable attempt to review history in am meaningful and accurate sense.

Please note that historical inaccuracy vis-a-vis other events is not illegal. In other cases, you can offer any interpretation you like and it will either withstand scrutiny or not. The Holocaust is a different matter, though, because of Jews.

The idea that this is somehow a defense of free speech is intself a denial of the factors which motivate what is seen as " denial" or the "revisionist" opinion.

The message itself is not taken seriously - this much is clearly evident - its preaching to the converted - if anything the revisionist view is a "religion" - blind faith which has been defeated utterly by science, facts and the misery of a generations suffering.

The racist issue which are attached and never far distant from so called " real history" and a serach for " truth" or "freedom of speech" is the real danger and that is the core issue of any legal activity.

All of the above is you wanting to have your cake and eat it, too. "Forget about the Jews!" followed closely by "Think of the Jews!"

History is being misued and abused , truth and objectivity are not the issues.
Once again its a method of fooling some of the people all of the time.
"Revisionism" is the real myth of the 20th century and it reflects directly on those who promote it and those who in turn believe it.

It is not necessary to protect history by means of legislation. Allow historians to weed out misinterpretations and falsification. The only reason to outlaw a historical interpretation is politics and it has nothing to do with "truth and objectivity."

[cerberus]

Please note that historical inaccuracy vis-a-vis other events is not illegal.
The underlying issues are the central issue - historical debate is not.
Those who ask for an open debate - (IMO) history is made to serve them , they do not seek to render any advance to it.
"Think of the Jews!"

I didn't mention the Jews , to me its not a Jewish only issue.
The only reason to outlaw a historical interpretation is politics
The underlying politcal message which is based on race and directed at a race.
The "Historical interpretation" you mention - it is not based on anything factual or anything which stands any serious examination , describing it as an interpretation of history does push the boundaries quite a bit.
I find this something of a "Catch -22".

PS - Revision of history does not cause me any problems - inventing history does.

[Helios Panoptes]

The underlying issues are the central issue - historical debate is not.

The "underlying issue" is the connection between the Jews and the Holocaust. If it was any other historical event, no one would care. It's illegal because it is politically discommodious for the powers that be.

Those who ask for an open debate - (IMO) history is made to serve them , they do not seek to render any advance to it.

You'll need to rephrase that because I don't know what it means.

I didn't mention the Jews , to me its not a Jewish only issue.

The Jews have most to gain from the criminalization of Holocaust denial. They are its greatest beneficiaries.

The underlying politcal message which is based on race and directed at a race.
The "Historical interpretation" you mention - it is not based on anything factual or anything which stands any serious examination , describing it as an interpretation of history does push the boundaries quite a bit.
I find this something of a "Catch -22".

I wish you'd stop mentioning its historical inaccuracy. If historical inaccuracy was the problem then it would be banned, not one example of it that happens to be politically significant. My point here is that history has little to do with it; the issue is politics.

PS - Revision of history does not cause me any problems - inventing history does.

Let historians sort out history. The state doesn't need to outlaw historical heresy. Misinterpretations will crumble under examination, so you should have no worries. If all truth is on your side, as you say, then you'll triumph.

[seanbam]

Hitler's table talk/secret conversations: "It is not a bad idea, by the way, that public rumour attributes to us a plan to exterminate the Jews." And I think was another quote I could not find about how Hitler thought it funny that the Allies attributed them a plan to exterminate the Jews. Comments like this make no sense if there really was a (Hitler-directed) holocaust/genocide/extermination. But who cares, Nazism is gone and the contest is between this bad Western World system (liberal-democracy/capitalism/globalsim/free-trade) and all its opponents.

[Donny the Punk]

It's the old Slippery Slope (tm) innit.

I mean, some Nazi makes a mild query about the circle-U on the Weetabix box on his Brekkie table and next thing you know the transports are rolling to the East.
It's not my fault your countrymen are so stupid. :(

[cerberus]

If it was any other historical event, no one would care
I think the people who care most are those who do have an anti-semetic view to begin with , they care for this reason alone.
You'll need to rephrase that because I don't know what it means.To try and rephrase.
Thoese who cry for " an open debate" misuse history and "bend it to their will" , creating a fiction to serve their own purposes.
An on going attempt icontinues to give this "history" some scholarly credibility.
In their "revision" of history , they don't actually provide anything which can be proven - it is like Harry Potter meets real world.
( It may read well but ultimately its fiction).
The Jews have most to gain from the criminalization of Holocaust denial
AS a group Jews sufferred most in it - the list of other minority groups and those judged to be a threat to the "New Order" is well known.
Jews just happened to be the most numerous and most central in what is termed as " the Holocaust".
As an ethnic and religious group thet sufferred and lost the most.
My point here is that history has little to do with it; the issue is politics.

Which is the same point I am making - you ignore the fact that these put upon "scholars" are inventing thier own version of history based on little more than their own ideras of what they would like to have happened.
They are using history for their own ends - to advance what is basically speaking an anti semetic and racist view.
A glance at any of their websites confirms this , in its truesst form its so crude only a " true believer" would "deny" it.
Let historians sort out history
True they have done this - and when these "scholars" have run foul of the law or taken out libel cases their " scholarly historical work" has been presented as evidence to support their cliams or to "defend" their right to free speech - always without excepotion it has been found to be a sham.
Historians have had no bother in sorting out history , they have had no problem in revsisng history.
Misinterpretations will crumble under examination
You water down the truth a little - there is a huge difference between a misinterpretation ( these usually have some basis in fact and some evidence to provide doubt) and what is a work of fiction which has no basis in fact and which is not subject to doubt.

No worries regarding any evidence based review of history - none at all.
Triumph - there is none to be had.

[Helios Panoptes]

I think the people who care most are those who do have an anti-semetic view to begin with , they care for this reason alone.

So what? They are stepping into a field with supposedly a basis in objective truth. What better opportunity to expose their gilded lies for all to see?

To try and rephrase.
Thoese who cry for " an open debate" misuse history and "bend it to their will" , creating a fiction to serve their own purposes.
An on going attempt icontinues to give this "history" some scholarly credibility.
In their "revision" of history , they don't actually provide anything which can be proven - it is like Harry Potter meets real world.
( It may read well but ultimately its fiction).

I understand you better now, but see above and below.

AS a group Jews sufferred most in it - the list of other minority groups and those judged to be a threat to the "New Order" is well known.
Jews just happened to be the most numerous and most central in what is termed as " the Holocaust".
As an ethnic and religious group thet sufferred and lost the most.

What exactly are you disputing?

Which is the same point I am making - you ignore the fact that these put upon "scholars" are inventing thier own version of history based on little more than their own ideras of what they would like to have happened.

You continually state that their position is untenable due to its failure to conform to facticity. I am arguing that 1) the establishment is less concerned with history than politics; 2) it is entirely unnecessary for the state to preserve the integrity of history by squashing misinterpretations for reasons already stated. Furthermore, I have pointed out a glaring contradiction between a foundational principle of democracy and the need to stop people from having access to information.

True they have done this - and when these "scholars" have run foul of the law or taken out libel cases their " scholarly historical work" has been presented as evidence to support their cliams or to "defend" their right to free speech - always without excepotion it has been found to be a sham.
Historians have had no bother in sorting out history , they have had no problem in revsisng history.

Once again, you're not arguing against me. Do you believe that Holocaust revisionism should be criminalized or is this an unnecessary discussion? If the latter, very well. If the former, I'm not noting any substantive objections on your part.

You water down the truth a little - there is a huge difference between a misinterpretation ( these usually have some basis in fact and some evidence to provide doubt) and what is a work of fiction which has no basis in fact and which is not subject to doubt.

I've touched on all of that.

No worries regarding any evidence based review of history - none at all.

To clarify, do you support the criminalization of Holocaust revisionism?

Triumph - there is none to be had.

I didn't mean triumph in the sense of victorious historians basking in glory, but rather the truth being asserted.

[cerberus]

What exactly are you disputing?

Not the sequence of events , nor am I disputing what " revisionism" is.
The political , racial and social message which it may empower is the real object of any law.
The historical messagae of "revisonism" or "denial" its a dead duck or as dead as a dead Fuhrer can be.
So what? They are stepping into a field with supposedly a basis in objective truth. What better opportunity to expose their gilded lies for all to see?
As has been and as continues to be the case.
untenable due to its failure to conform
No its nothing to do with confirming - its to do with evidence and not using evidence to produce what amounts to a fairy tale.
the state to preserve the integrity of history by squashing misinterpretations for reasons already stated
As I have already stated , its not even about misinterpretations - and the state does not have to control historians - they are attempting to arrest a racial activity - history is being used to this racist end.
To clarify, do you support the criminalization of Holocaust revisionism?

It does hinge on what you see as revisionism.
As far as history being reviewed - its nothing new -its something which histroians do all the time - based on evidence and the correct honest use of evidence - not invention and design.
Within this context revision of history is on going and is not something new , this desire to have ownership on it is just another "misinterpretation ".
I didn't mean triumph in the sense of victorious historians basking in glory, but rather the truth being asserted.
Sorry ,took you up wrong.

[Helios Panoptes]

Not the sequence of events , nor am I disputing what " revisionism" is.

I do not understand what you're referring to when you say "sequence of events."

The political , racial and social message which it may empower is the real object of any law.
The historical messagae of "revisonism" or "denial" its a dead duck or as dead as a dead Fuhrer can be.

You are responding to my quote out of context. I was asking what you were disputing about a particular part of my post because you offered no objection. Please try to respond to me in an orderly fashion and I'll do the same for you. To address your content, I see no reason to criminalize ideas which can be characterized as "dead ducks."

As has been and as continues to be the case.

If revisionism isn't gaining a stronghold, why criminalize it?

No its nothing to do with confirming - its to do with evidence and not using evidence to produce what amounts to a fairy tale.

I didn't say "confirming." I said "conforming," as in interpretation conforming to evidence. You are agreeing with me.

It does hinge on what you see as revisionism.

What does - whether you want it criminalized or not?

As far as history being reviewed - its nothing new -its something which histroians do all the time - based on evidence and the correct honest use of evidence - not invention and design.

I don't think it's new. I'd like you to respond to my points, though. I asked why we need to criminalize something that is easily refuted. I gave you a contradiction between liberal democracy and protecting citizens from their own inability to make reasonable decisions. You have decided not to address any of that.

Within this context revision of history is on going and is not something new , this desire to have ownership on it is just another "misinterpretation ".

I'm not declaring that Holocaust revisionists are the only revisionists. No one owns revisionism.

Sorry ,took you up wrong.

It's quite all right.

[cerberus]

I do not understand what you're referring to when you say "sequence of events."

The "holocaust" evolved it was not something which just happened.
"confirming." I said "conforming,"
I hit the wrong key .
If revisionism isn't gaining a stronghold, why criminalize it?
I don't think it's new. I'd like you to respond to my points, though. I asked why we need to criminalize something that is easily refuted. I gave you a contradiction between liberal democracy and protecting citizens from their own inability to make reasonable decisions. You have decided not to address any of that.

I see the "historical" ( or what is passed as being a challange to historians) as being distinct from any underlying political message.

History is not being criminalised. I don't view "revisionism" as being serious history , Irving might view it as "Real History" - its a flight of phantasy at best. Historians have had no difficulty in disproving anything which has so far emerged - simply because it is not based on evidence.

I gave you a contradiction between liberal democracy and protecting citizens from their own inability to make reasonable decisions.

What do you see as being the reasonable decisions ?

As far as history being reviewed I have no problem , we are talking about history ?

[Helios Panoptes]

The "holocaust" evolved it was not something which just happened.

Who said that it was? I didn't say anything about it one way or another.

I see the "historical" ( or what is passed as being a challange to historians) as being distinct from any underlying political message.

Good, in that case, you should have no difficulty addressing revisionism on its historical merit without the state protecting us from exposure to evil ideas.

History is not being criminalised.

Holocaust revisionism is being criminalized. You and I are discussing whether this legislation is appropriate or not.

I don't view "revisionism" as being serious history , Irving might view it as "Real History" - its a flight of phantasy at best. Historians have had no difficulty in disproving anything which has so far emerged - simply because it is not based on evidence.

I reiterate, why is it necessary to criminalize Holocaust revisionism? You say that it is easy to disprove, so why hide from it?

What do you see as being the reasonable decisions ?

Reaching the appropriate decision based on a preponderance of evidence. If you go back to the first page, you'll see what I mean quite clearly.

As far as history being reviewed I have no problem , we are talking about history ?

We are talking about the legislation against thought crimes.

[cerberus]

Who said that it was? I didn't say anything about it one way or another.
You asked , I answered.
Good, in that case, you should have no difficulty addressing revisionism on its historical merit without the state protecting us from exposure to evil ideas.

You ask a question and answer it in the one line.
Historians have not had any issue or problems with the "research" of the revisionist school of thought.
Holocaust revisionism is being criminalized. You and I are discussing whether this legislation is appropriate or not.

I don't see it as being history - its not based on evidence which can be supported and its unreliable.
Whatever it is , advancing historical understanding it does not.
You say that it is easy to disprove, so why hide from it?

Not hiding - merely pointing out the political and racist baggae which comes with it , that is the problem - the so called history which proports to have discovered is not a problem.
yet they must be protected from information which is dangerous only if the populace is incapable of reaching an appropriate decision
Sadly you will have a minority who cannot and their appropriate decisions often lead to inappropriate actions with potential and actual loss of life.
Some countries have had enough of neo nazis movements .

As far as banning " holocaust revsionism" goes in my neck of the woods it is not banned and I see no need to ban it .
Its for other elected goverments to ote on it as they think.
Jailing Irving - wrong.
We are talking about the legislation against thought crimes
I don't think there is any law against thought crimes - its more about encouraging racist groups and sentiments in public - "denial" does tend to do this via its antisemetic message.

[Helios Panoptes]

You asked , I answered.

Right, I asked because I didn't understand one of your remarks, but it wasn't pertinent to the conversation because we're not discussing whether the holocaust "just happened" or "evolved."

You ask a question and answer it in the one line.

Tell me what the answer is, but first tell me the question.

Historians have not had any issue or problems with the "research" of the revisionist school of thought.

We are going in circles. You've said this several times and each time I've responded by asking why it needs to be made illegal and inquiring about why we must be protected from easily refuted misinterpretations.

I don't see it as being history - its not based on evidence which can be supported and its unreliable.
Whatever it is , advancing historical understanding it does not

You've said that already. I've responded to it.

Not hiding - merely pointing out the political and racist baggae which comes with it , that is the problem - the so called history which proports to have discovered is not a problem.

You are free to speculate on the motives of a historian if you like. You still haven't given me a single good reason for making revision illegal.

Sadly you will have a minority who cannot and their appropriate decisions often lead to inappropriate actions with potential and actual loss of life.
Some countries have had enough of neo nazis movements .

This is finally something new. Sadly, you will have a minority(a lot more actually) who are not able to make an informed decision about political matters, and their inappropriate decisions will often lead to inappropriate actions with potential and actual loss of life and the destruction of their communities. Using your reasoning, it seems I have demonstrated that voting itself should be illegal. I could similarly use it to conclude that driving cars should be made illegal because some people will misuse them.

As far as banning " holocaust revsionism" goes in my neck of the woods it is not banned and I see no need to ban it

Okay.

I don't think there is any law against thought crimes - its more about encouraging racist groups and sentiments in public - "denial" does tend to do this via its antisemetic message.

It's outlawing thought crimes. My reasoning is as follows: holocaust revisionism is the setting forth of a claim about a historical event that runs counter to the standard account. It is de facto a historical claim, which either corresponds to accumulated evidence or not. It is not an anti-semitic political or racist message. What is being criminalized is not making false historical claims, but rather having anti-semitic thoughts. Hence, thought crime.

I thought you wanted to see revisionism illegalized, but you've stated that you do not. It's probably not necessary to continue to debate the crux of our discussion.

[Donny the Punk]

You are free to speculate on the motives of a historian if you like. You still haven't given me a single good reason for making revision illegal.

Historical revisionism is not illegal, it happens all the time in universities all over the country, including mine. Holocaust deniers are not revisionists: their appropriation of the label is a cynical ploy to appear legitimate in scholarly circles. It is Holocaust denial that is illegal. This is the point cerebus is making.

[Helios Panoptes]

Historical revisionism is not illegal, it happens all the time in universities all over the country, including mine.

I have seen fit to shorten "holocaust revisionism" to "revisionism" under the assumption that context would indicate my meaning.

Holocaust deniers are not revisionists: their appropriation of the label is a cynical ploy to appear legitimate in scholarly circles.

They are revisionists. They are making a historical claim contrary to an accepted interpretation of historical evidence. You mean not that they are not revisionists, but that they are unsuccessful revisionists. There are already many topics on this forum in which you can make this argument.

It is Holocaust denial that is illegal. This is the point cerebus is making.

I have stated quite clearly that it is holocaust revisionism that is illegal. He, too, informed me that historical revisionism is not being made illegal. I responded: Holocaust revisionism is being criminalized. You and I are discussing whether this legislation is appropriate or not.

[Donny the Punk]

I have seen fit to shorten "holocaust revisionism" to "revisionism" under the assumption that context would indicate my meaning.



They are revisionists. They are making a historical claim contrary to an accepted interpretation of historical evidence. You mean not that they are not revisionists, but that they are unsuccessful revisionists. There are already many topics on this forum in which you can make this argument.



I have stated quite clearly that it is holocaust revisionism that is illegal. He, too, informed me that historical revisionism is not being made illegal. I responded:
Was there a point to splitting my very short paragraph into three parts while ignoring all of it? As I stated - and you haven't disagreed - historical revisionism, including that of the Holocaust, is not illegal here and is practised on a daily basis. That Holocaust "Revisionism" (capital R, read: denial) is speaks to the fact that they're not one and the same. Again, this is cerebus' point.

[WFHermans]

Jews made telling the truth illegal.

Jesus was right, they are the sons of the devil.

Only a kike would ever dream to make it against the law to tell the truth.

[Helios Panoptes]

Was there a point to splitting my very short paragraph into four parts while ignoring all of it?

Yes. I address each claim separately for clarity's sake. By the way, I have ignored none of it.

As I stated - and you haven't disagreed - historical revisionism, including that of the Holocaust, is not illegal here and is practised on a daily basis.

Of course, I have not disagreed. I am having a discussion with cerberus about whether holocaust revisionism should be illegal or not. I am not stating that it is illegal where you are, nor that historical revisionism of every event is illegal.

That Holocaust "Revisionism" (capital R, read: denial) is speaks to the fact that they're not one and the same.

The reasons behind the illegalization of HR have been discussed in this topic. You agree that it should not be illegalized(that is the discussion). Unless you wish to change your position and argue that it should be made illegal, you have no relevant point.

Again, this is cerebus' point

First, I do not need a summary. Second, his name is cerberus(you know, the dog that guards Hades), not cerebus. You are wasting my time.

[Donny the Punk]

Yes. I address each claim separately for clarity's sake. By the way, I have ignored none of it.

Of course, I have not disagreed. I am having a discussion with cerberus about whether holocaust revisionism should be illegal or not. I am not stating that it is illegal where you are, nor that historical revisionism of every event is illegal.

The reasons behind the illegalization of HR have been discussed in this topic.

First, I do not need a summary. Second, his name is cerberus(you know, the dog that guards Hades), not cerebus. You are wasting my time.
Crime of crimes, mistyping someone's name. :p As for your discussion, why don't you give us an example of Holocaust revisionism that is illegal and we'll see whether it is actual historical research or simply denial.

[seanbam]

Is what I contribute so low quality that almost no one ever replies?

Whether there was a holocaust/genocide/extermination or not does it justify the current subtle/covert everyday holocaust/genocide/extermination of this western world system? Abortion, suicide, crime, wars (Iraq etc), stress, diet, etc.

[Donny the Punk]

The Holocaust is the justification for suicide and "stress, diet, etc."? :confused:

[seanbam]

Oh yes I see what you mean (oversight) but on 2 counts it doesn't matter 1) the holocaust if it happened is not OK but the current systems destroying peoples' lives is OK (and is denied), 2) the holocaust like racism accusation tactic is used to turn public away from anti-system alternatives, to prop up this system.

[Ahknaton]

Oh yes I see what you mean (oversight) but on 2 counts it doesn't matter 1) the holocaust if it happened is not OK but the current systems destroying peoples' lives is OK (and is denied), 2) the holocaust like racism accusation tactic is used to turn public away from anti-system alternatives.
I agree. The problem I have is not with the orthodox historical account of the Holocaust, but with what you might call the ""Holocaust mythos" that surrounds it, particularly the notion that Jewish suffering is "unique" (therefore entitling them to special treatment, and legitimising certain double standards) despite numerous other genocides in the 20th century. Another element of the mythos is the notion that "the soul of Western civilisation died at Auschwitz", as if the entire White race (even those whose grandparents fought on the Allied side) from here to eternity must carry a burden of guilt for the crimes of Nazi Germany, and that our right to ethnic and nationalist identities has somehow been forfeit by German National Socialism.

It's very telling that Jewish Holocaust prima donnas make such a big deal out of the collective guilt of the entire world for "allowing the Holocaust to happen". Deep down they know that we are all being forced to pay for what the Nazis did, for example by accepting mass immigration so that Whites are no longer a majority, precluding the possibility of the reemergence of racial nationalism. Therefore they feel compelled to somehow "prove" that we are all guilty for it, and thus deserve our fate. It's really quite galling when you think that this is their thanks to those who fought the Nazis and liberated the camps.

[fieldmouse]

why don't you give us an example of Holocaust revisionism that is illegal and we'll see whether it is actual historical research or simply denial.

I think this misses the point. Holocaust revision is regularly re-named "denial" and thus discriminated against.

The problem is the very possibility of intervention into hisorical debates. If its wrong, it deserves critique and dismissal *after the fact*, not an a priori jail term for the author.

Such prejudice is evident by the fact that Cerberus thinks that revisionists are anti-semitic. It's a priori dismissal, which is where the real denial is going on.

[cerberus]

Holocaust revision is regularly re-named "denial" and thus discriminated against.
"Revisionism" is nothing but a term which is adopted to "dress up in" , it implies that some effort is being made to reexamine historical fact.
"Denial" hits the nail on the head, it calls a spade a spade and it pulls no punches.
The "revisionist" to make "his" point(s) has to set aside fact and ignore it or at best to "question" it.
If the sum of all the "questions" asked amounted to anything there would be no problem , as it is " revisionist history" is more ammusing and racially offensive than it can ever be constructive.
Above all its an insult to the dead.
If its wrong, it deserves critique and dismissal *after the fact*, not an a priori jail term for the author.

It has yet to produce anything which is note worthy. As for being seriously considered by historians , its not.
That is why the term "court historians" has been wheeled out.
You will find that the terms you mention are the product of the "revisionist" , useful sound bites for the ignorant.
Such prejudice is evident by the fact that Cerberus thinks that revisionists are anti-semitic
Fieldmouse , would you know the obvious if it stood on your big toe ?
May I refer you to Mrs Rimland- Zundels address to IHR , which you can download from the IHR site.
Mrs Rimland -Zundel speaks so well of her "Ernst" and his trials and tribulations , much of which he brought on himself as a prince amongest self promoters.
She does lapse into spate of antisemetic comments,and boy does she spit them out , but what the heck -she is preaching to the converted and the crowd applauded warmly at the end by which time she had recovered her smiling "I am a little woman act".
It may come to a shock to you but the " Holocaust" was not a Jewish "only" experience.
I keep mentioning it and I make no apology for it - a straight line runs from
T4 throught to the gas chambers at Treblinka and Auschwitz.
German children as much victims as Jewish children and those of other races killed because Himmler could not aford to have a generation of "avengers".
Under the venere of "revisionism" lurks racist motivation.

[Trojan]

Such prejudice is evident by the fact that Cerberus thinks that revisionists are anti-semitic. It's a priori dismissal, which is where the real denial is going on.

There may be a handful of misguided souls, but most prominent deniers are clearly anti-semitic, Zundel among the most obvious.

[cerberus]

Only a kike would ever dream to make it against the law to tell the truth.
You mean a lie like "Rommel died of wounds".

Whatabout this SS division WFH , have you forgotten about it ?:nono: :p

[WFHermans]

Someone is removing my posts.

[cerberus]

Someone is removing my posts.
Must be the Jews.;)