Freedom of Speech and crazy laws

I was under the impression that democracies endorsed freedom of speech as one of their basic tenants. Having this crazed thought, it amazed me to see that in Germany an Australian bloke is set for trial and jail because of a view he holds.
Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Switzerland all have laws tat make it illegal to deny the holocaust and I'm rather surprised that America doesn't.
Now I'm not trying to start a discussion about the Jewish extermination, it just seems to me that the only thing that could be harmed by someone denying is another persons feelings. Where's the body? Interestingly, this bloke is gonna do five years if he doesn't recant; and this other mongrel 75 year old in Mackay who raped a 6 year old girl is only gonna do 6. (Different countries and laws but humanity has a categorical imperative to protect it's children IMHO)
I think I may have ADHD btw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gingermick

I was under the impression that democracies endorsed freedom of speech as one of their basic tennets.

---

That's where you are wrong. I think only the USA has a guaranteed right to freedom of speech because it is written into their constitution, and no other democracy has that guaranteed right.

The general assumed freedom of speech is limited by the various laws of libel etc and as a result of the holocaust in Europe most EU countries have that law.

A good thing to IMO and it's a shame that we don't have such laws.

Others may disagree but we lived under the Nazi joke of their brutal and repressive occupation and very close friends of my family were carted of to the gas chambers and exterminated just because they were jews.

The thought that someone could deny that that didn't happen is abhorrent to me, and if they do let them rot in jail until they recant. :((:((:((:((:((:((:((:((:((


Peter.

I'm with Sturdee. Revisionists have a way of destroying the lessons of the past. The holocaust was too horrible to risk allowing lies to be voiced. Even the worst lies will be accepted as truth by some people, hence the injunction. Some truths are far too important to be denied.

The sentancing of criminals here is another matter...the courts seem to be unable or unwilling to attach real penalty to real crimes. (My last break-in was performed by a career criminal with over twenty convictions. How a person like that isn't doing life is a mystery to me.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gregoryq

I'm with Sturdee. Revisionists have a way of destroying the lessons of the past. The holocaust was too horrible to risk allowing lies to be voiced. Even the worst lies will be accepted as truth by some people, hence the injunction. Some truths are far too important to be denied.

---

That's just about exactly what I was going to say. Just look at the number of people who believe silly conspiracy theories, like Nasa faked the moon landings.
The only thing I would say is that some use a narrow description of the holocaust to mean only the persecution of Jews by the Nazi's, which may diminish the fact that the Nazis killed almost as many again from other cultural, social and genetic backgrounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

Cheers
Michael

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mic-d

That's just about exactly what I was going to say. Just look at the number of people who believe silly conspiracy theories, like Nasa faked the moon landings.
The only thing I would say is that some use a narrow description of the holocaust to mean only the persecution of Jews by the Nazi's, which may diminish the fact that the Nazis killed almost as many again from other cultural, social and genetic backgrounds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust

Cheers
Michael

---

Excellent point. We all know about the Jews, because of sheer numbers. But this was a crime against anyone who did not fit the Nazi ideal, or who opposed their ideology. It was a crime against humanity, and should never be forgotton, nor should we allow anyone to deny it publicly.

Perhaps we need an offence of 'Public lying', making it an offence to promulgate falsehoods.
Guess a few politicians would have to change their ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

A good thing to IMO and it's a shame that we don't have such laws.

Others may disagree but we lived under the Nazi joke of their brutal and repressive occupation and very close friends of my family were carted of to the gas chambers and exterminated just because they were jews.

The thought that someone could deny that that didn't happen is abhorrent to me, and if they do let them rot in jail until they recant. :((:((:((:((:((:((:((:((:((


Peter.

---

Im with Sturdee. My family was lucky they were in this country so the Nazi's werent an issue as such for them (They were more worried about the japanese), but my wifes family were lucky to survive the era unscathed (Though her grandparents wouldnt talk of the period). I have visited the site of auswitch (?), and anybody that has been there and can deny something bad happened at that place has something wrong with their head. The place is dead, even the wildlife aviods it, and I was brought up to notice things like that as a warning sign. It is a very insettleing place to be, I have never felt that anywhere else that I have travelled.

Lock up anybody that trys to deny the happening, while they are at it, can we extend that rule to Japan?

As much as I find these type of people abhorrent, I think they should be allowed to speak. Then all these morons will be out in public for all to see rather than outlawing them and making them go underground and becoming more subversive. Just because we make it against the law it wont ( and hasn't) stopped people or organisations preaching their drivel. And if we try to stop this type of speech what do we stop next?

There are separate issues here.

The only right guaranteed under the Australian constitution is free trade across state lines. The federal court has upheld the right to free speech being "implied" in the constitution. The constitution specifically states that only the federal government may raise taxes but that has been ignored and sidestepped for decades and more blatantly every passing year.

The US constitution does NOT grantee the right to free speech. It is guaranteed under a separate related document, the bill of rights, along with the right to bear arms and many other things. Laws are tiered, with the constitution at the top, legislation, common law and council by laws at the bottom. I suspect both the australian and US constitutions are avilaible online if you care to have a read.

The morality of free speech and how it's used, and the awful injustice in the legal system are separate issues.

Queenslanders will note that nearly every week Captain Bligh is increasing police powers in this state, all for use against us, not "real" criminals. The latest is the right to enter and search private property on suspicion of underage drinking. So if you've got kids and alcohol on the same property or police have the suspicion of that being the case they basically have cart blanch now to rape and pillage their way through your home. Good eh ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by damian

The US constitution does NOT grantee the right to free speech. It is guaranteed under a separate related document, the bill of rights, along with the right to bear arms and many other things.

---

Although I don't want to change the subject from the main issue, and that is the denial of the holocaust, you are wrong as the so called Bill of Rights actually are the first 10 amendments to their constitution and thus part of their constitution.


Peter.

Perhaps this discussion should not bog itself down on the legal right to free speech, but the moral right.
I was a child in the Second World War and endured being bombed for three years in the dock area of south east London. It left me with no love for the Nazi system. Before there were safeguards about what children should see, I remember -vividly- seeing newsreel shots of Belsen concentration camp. I firmly believe the Holocaust took place.
As much as I consider that to deny the Holocaust is, at best historically not tenable, and at worst comes close to being an action to incite racism, However, I uphold the right of any man to say what he believes,.Remember McCarthyism in the USA? Fear ruled then in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
If statements and beliefs are out in the open then they can be countered. To threaten a person with five years jail is the wrong thing to do, all it achieves is to make such a person a martyr to others of the same ilk..

Jerry

In regard limiting free speech (especially with jail terms), who gets to decide what we are and are not allowed to believe and openly talk about ... were does it stop ... it must be remembered that the Nazis were into limiting free speech (albeit to an extreme).

If some fool wants to say the holocaust never happened (or any other such rubbish), let him/her ... it will only hurt you if you let it.

I believe that a lot of these law were brought in because there was a rash of right wing politicians in Europe claiming that the holocaust didn't happen, and to stop them running and to stop the idea taking shape, they outlawed the denial of the events.

Just something to think about. A lot of Japanese think they were defending themselves in WW2, as that is what they were taught in schools. It doesn't take long for the facts to be distorted if the govt wants them to be

Peter, quite right. I should have gone and looked at it before I posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gra

I believe that a lot of these law were brought in because there was a rash of right wing politicians in Europe claiming that the holocaust didn't happen, and to stop them running and to stop the idea taking shape, they outlawed the denial of the events.

---

But until they "act out" it's somewhat preemptive to make what they believe in (and talk about) illegal. I tend to agree with previous posters - I would rather have the nut jobs in the open, than drive them underground.

Quote:

---

Just something to think about. A lot of Japanese think they were defending themselves in WW2, as that is what they were taught in schools. It doesn't take long for the facts to be distorted if the govt wants them to be

---

I wonder if anyone in Japan spoke out about what really happened ... maybe they didn't feel they had the freedom of speak openly.

I think when you start making expressed thoughts illegal, it becomes a slippery slope, that ultimately favors those in power, and is to the detriment of the many.

Vernon,

I know a lot of people who are deeply offended by this blokes opinions. I know a lot of people who are offended by the Japanese denial of war crimes, by the denial of the whole stolen generation, the dispossession and massacre of the Tibetans etc. I think its different when you are a victim and there is a systematic denial of your experience. It is part of the dehumanisation that goes on as part of these kinds of conflicts. There was a terrific movie that explored the Rwandan conflict that showed this phenomenon brilliantly. But a mature society must have dialogue and disagreement. There must be a degree of freedom of expression.

But where do you strike the balance? I dont know, but I know revisionism must be managed carefully and always be fact based. There are multiple dialogues in any historical conflict and they all need to be heard but verifiable facts must rule.

I really wonder what drives this guy, does he belong in jail? I dont know.... The little Ive read of his stuff doesnt stack up, he ignores photographic evidence for starters. Reminds me of those who have the bumper sticker "911 was an inside job" or the websites claiming the moon landing was photographed in the back blocks of Kennedy Space Centre.

edit; written while the last three posts were being added,

Unless the repsective governments are prepared to enact Chinese-style Web censorship, these laws are pointless. Anyone who want to read revisionist history or conspiracy theories can simply do so on-line.

How far do these laws go in relation to variation from the "approved" version of history? Would I be be jailed if I had the audacity to point out that anti-semitism has a long history predating Nazism in Europe or that in many of the Nazi-occupied countries, some of the local populace were only too willing to persecute their Jewish neighbours?

If people put up an alternative version of events with no evidence, they will simply be written off as crackpots. Put them in jail and you create martyrs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dion N

How far do these laws go in relation to variation from the "approved" version of history? Would I be be jailed if I had the audacity to point out that anti-semitism has a long history predating Nazism in Europe or that in many of the Nazi-occupied countries, some of the local populace were only too willing to persecute their Jewish neighbours?

---

You are right that anti-semitism has indeed a long history and also some of the local populace helped in the persecution of the jews, but in my former country immediately after the war all those that aided and helped in the carting of people, like animals :((, to the extermination camps were duly and efficient executed and thus removed from the gene pool.

As someone closely touched by this issue I believe that any revisionist of the holocaust is equally guilty of crimes against humanity as the sadistic SS guards of the extermination camps were, hence they ought to be put to death and thus removed from the gene pool as well.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and the hell with the politically correct do-gooders I say.

Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

... I believe that any revisionist of the holocaust is equally guilty of crimes against humanity as the sadistic SS guards of the extermination camps were, hence they ought to be put to death and thus removed from the gene pool as well.

---

Peter,
Wouldn't such an action simply mirror what they did and take you down to their level? i.e. they don't believe what you believe, they live/behave in a way you don't agree with, so they must die (I'm not referring to the people that actually did the deeds, only those espousing Nazi values in todays society).

It has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with avoiding becoming what you claim to detest - what happened to people you spoke out openly against the Nazis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

Peter,
Wouldn't such an action simply mirror what they did and take you down to their level? i.e. they don't believe what you believe, they live/behave in a way you don't agree with, so they must die (I'm not referring to the people that actually did the deeds, only those espousing Nazi values in todays society).

It has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with avoiding becoming what you claim to detest - what happened to people you spoke out openly against the Nazis?

---

Spot on Vernon, I'll probably get flamed for this but this is what is happening in Israel, the treatment of the Palestinians is nothing short of disgraceful, not as many have died yet but the continued war of subjugation sees them living in the worlds largest open air prison/concentration camp. I think there may be some who didnt learn the lesson of the holocaust but choose instead to repeat it. The glorification of the military by the state of Israel harkens back to black times.

Didnt Shakespeare make some anti semetic comments in the Merchant of Venice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vernonv

Peter,
Wouldn't such an action simply mirror what they did and take you down to their level?

---

No, it is dealing with the reality that some people because of their actions or their beliefs in trying to erase those awful actions of the past no longer deserve to live in a society, hence remove them.


Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

An eye for an eye,.........Peter.

---

An eye for an eye and the world will go blind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

No, it is dealing with the reality that some people because of their actions or their beliefs in trying to erase those awful actions of the past no longer deserve to live in a society, hence remove them.

---

Hi Peter,
I agree that if they act on their beliefs, they should be dealt with. However if we limit free speech, then whoever is in power can decide what they want the masses to "believe" and punish those that they feel are opposed to their beliefs ... much like the Nazis did.
I would rather allow a few crackpots a voice, than to be denied my own voice should I wish to use it in defense of what I believe in. I can see your point of view, and although I don't agree with it entirely, I'm glad that both you an I can freely express our opinions without fear of prosecution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

I believe that any revisionist of the holocaust is equally guilty of crimes against humanity hence they ought to be put to death and thus removed from the gene pool as well.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and the hell with the politically correct do-gooders I say.

Peter.

---

Peter,

It would appear that you consider anyone who doesn't hold with your views deserves death. As for the eye for an eye argument, do you fully condone the actions of "Muslims terrorists".? After all, their view is that their lands have been invaded, their values attacked and their people slaughtered. Are they terroists or patriots? Perhaps in the interests of free speech and understanding you might clarify your position.

Jerry

Jerry,

My views on the Nazi holocaust, and those that deny that happening as a first step to reestablish such regime, is clear and not inconsistent with the so-called Muslim terrorists.

If you refer to muslim terrorists as the Taliban in Afghanistan and the muslims in Iraq than they are indeed freedom fighters fighting an invader (the US and its coalition- including us) not unlike the european underground fighting against the Nazies during WW2.

Similarly our past involvement in the Vietnam war was wrong.

The palestinians is again in a different catogory as they left Palestine themselves and were not expelled by the new Israel state.

But the terrorist attacks outside these countries eg 9/11 and the Bali bombings are criminal acts as it was against civilians and not in the war affected area.

I know this view is not popular. My objection to our involvement in these dirty and senseless Asian wars is not against our soldiers, who have no say in their involvement, but the politicians who sent them to these wars.

Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Jerry,

If you refer to muslim terrorists as the Taliban in Afghanistan and the muslims in Iraq than they are indeed freedom fighters fighting an invader (the US and its coalition- including us) not unlike the european underground fighting against the Nazies during WW2.


Peter.

---

Perhaps you would like to ask some odinary Afghans or Iraqis if they enjoyed their "freedom" under the Taliban or the areas controlled by the "Al Queda in Iraq" organisation. These groups advocate a return to strict Islamic sharia law and a 12th Century mindset. They seek to denigrate the rights of women (the Taliban regularly try to destroy girl's schools) and impose all sorts of ridiculous impositions on people's freedoms (the Taliban outlawed the flying of traditional Afghan kites as "un-Islamic.")

The only freedom they seek is the freedom to impose their religious veiw on all Muslims and they are quite prepared to use the most horrific and barbaric means to achieve this.

The WW2 "underground" in Occupied Europe: some of the partisan groups were actively fighting, not to restore the democratic status quo, but to impose socialism/communism - a system that hardly allows any more freedoms than Nazism.

As for history and revisionism, it is like science. There are plenty of theories but the people who can produce evidence are the ones who are accepted. Censorship of opinion is diametrically opposed to democracy. There will always be those who seek to cast historical events in a different light to advance their particular political ends. Just google Kenneth Windschuttle and his book "The Fabrication of Aboriginal History" for an Australian example of the politics of history.

The genocide* against Jews in WW2 has been used gain and again by Israel as political justification for their actions. There are some in the pro-Israel lobby who act as though they are the only race/nation subkject to mass genocide in history. Genocide is as old as history itself. Rwanda. Stalin and the Ukranian peasants. Pol Pot in Cambodia. The break up of the former Yugoslavia. Overplaying the genocide for political purposes is just as grubby as underplaying it, but we rarely hear Israel being criticised in this regard.


* I don't like to use the term "Holocaust" as the original meaning of the word is a sacrifice offered to God. This underscores the sort of religious undertones that the pro-Israel lobby assigns to the genocide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sturdee

Jerry,

My views on the Nazi holocaust, and those that deny that happening as a first step to reestablish such regime, is clear.



If you refer to muslim terrorists as the Taliban in Afghanistan and the muslims in Iraq than they are indeed freedom fighters fighting an invader.


.

The palestinians is again in a different catogory as they left Palestine themselves and were not expelled by the new Israel state.


But the terrorist attacks outside these countries eg 9/11 and the Bali bombings are criminal acts as it was against civilians and not in the war affected area.



Peter.

---

Point one
you express your belief that anyone who doesn't agree with your views should be exterminated. I'd say you have made that very clear.

Point two
If, as you maintain, Iraqi and Afghan fighters are freedom fighters struggling to rid their countries of invaders, then should not Hamas be included in that reasoning? Israel has extended it's territories well beyond the 1948 area. Remember the Palistinians had no say in that first agreement. The war guilt of the Western World was foisted on them.

Point three,
Aren't you being "revisionist" in your historic view here. What evidence have you that the Palistinians left Palistine, themselves? In World War One it was Arab blood that was shed to oust the Ottoman Turks from Palistine.

Point four
Terrorist attacks outside these countries are criminal acts as it was against civilians.

Recently Israel invaded Lebanon. JUST before they withdrew they dropped thousands of cluster bombs. These are intended to harm civilians, especially children. I would argue that in the timing and intent it was a criminal act.

Reasoned discussion helps clarify points of view. Let's keep this discussion reasoned.

Just one other point and that is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Such a doctrine engenders more hate. To be flippant for a moment, all you end up with are two toothless, blind opponents who still hate each other.

Two men I admire are Nelson Mandela and Weary Dunlop.. Both suffered and both were intelligent to see the blind alley of hatred led nowhere.

Mandela spent 28 years in a prison. Saw friends such as Steve Bilko murdered, knew of the Soweto massacre and could see reconciliation was the only path. Suppose he had wanted retribution? There would have been a total bloodbath in South Africa

Weary Dunlop spent four years in a hell hole and watched his comrades starve to death. He had the courage to face down his captors by refusing to allow a sick man to return to work.. For that he was "punished". He openly stated his forgiveness of the Japanese.

Jerry

I agree with point one but only in regards to the denyingh of the truth about the Nazi holocaust, not otherwise. People are free to disagree with my other views.

Israel's situation is complex. The original area of Palestine that became the State of Israel was originally promised to the Jews for their help in WW@ and also to assauge the allies guilt.

The original area was settled by both Jews and Arabs and when it became the state of Israel many arabs remained but many others left. The surrounding countries, instead of accepting them as citizens, forced them (some of them by choice) into refugees camps where they still live in the hope of expelling the jews and returning.

Further increases of territories by Israel was the result of wars, not started by Israel but by defending themselves. I believe that Hamas might have a case for forcing Israel back to 1948 borders, but realisticly that time has passed and the Arab world would do better by trying to absorb the Palestine people rather than fight a futile effort.

I agree with point 4 that that action by Israel was purely criminal and should have been critized by all thinking nations.

Finally as to Mandella and Dunlop, many think of them as great role models. I do to some extend, but forgiving the Japs as Dunlop did is not what I would have done.

Ofcourse we may disagree on these things, and as it doesn't involve denial of the holocaust, you're not in danger.:D In any case further debate is not going to convince either to change our views, so I consider the debate closed.


Peter.

Peter,
I have to respect your view that, for you, the debate is closed.
However I have a little knowledge of the complexity of the formation of the Jewish state of Israel and would like to correct one point you made. The original promise of a Jewish homeland was made, not during the Second World War, but in the First. Chaim Weismann was a scientist as well as being an ardent Zionist. His contribution in explosive production was important to the UK and through the Balfour Declaration a promise was made to him, whilst at the same time the Arabs were led to believe they had been promised Palistine. There were other factors that influenced the UK's decision, but they are not necessary to this debate.

However we are back to the original reason I entered the debate. Denying a person the right to express a viewpoint, however much one might disagree with that viewpoint, is the only way to reach the truth. One might not change the original person's beliefs, (no one can change a bigot) but others have the opportunity to weigh the arguments and reach what we hope is an understanding of the truth.

Jerry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dion N

Perhaps you would like to ask some odinary Afghans or Iraqis if they enjoyed their "freedom" under the Taliban or the areas controlled by the "Al Queda in Iraq" organisation. These groups advocate a return to strict Islamic sharia law and a 12th Century mindset. They seek to denigrate the rights of women (the Taliban regularly try to destroy girl's schools) and impose all sorts of ridiculous impositions on people's freedoms (the Taliban outlawed the flying of traditional Afghan kites as "un-Islamic.")

The only freedom they seek is the freedom to impose their religious veiw on all Muslims and they are quite prepared to use the most horrific and barbaric means to achieve this.
.

---

Hi Dion

Saddam and his followers were/are Sunni muslim's and were more liberal than the Shia (see Iran). There was never a link between Saddam and Bin laden as they are at opposite sides of the fence. It would be kind of like suggesting the Israelis and Palestinians love each other.

Shia hate Sunni's (saddams crew) more than they dislike westerners as they view Sunni's as having corrupted Islam by following a different family line of Mohommad when one of the line died without having a son. Saddam would have crushed any shia lead attempt to control and he did this from time to time.

Hence there were no Al Qaeda controlled areas of Iraq prior to the invasion of Iraq. Al Qaeda has been able to gain a foothold in Iraq due to the fact that the US sacked anyone linked to Saddam or the baath party and this included the majority of Sunni's. This created a vaccuum where Al Qaeda, or as is the case, brothers to the cause fundamentalist cause, could easily enter the country.

Getting back to the initial discussion, I have no problem with him being charged if he made the stupid statements in a country that the law applies to, but to attempt extradition to a country where the law is in force when he wasnt in the country is very poor.

cheers

dazzler

Dazzler,

Glad to see you clarified the religious argument, So often the grab bag term "Muslim" is used with no clear understanding of the differences you so clearly point out. It is like "Christian" to cover say the conflict in Ireland, or perhaps not distinguishing between American evangelistic Baptists and the Catholic church. After all they are just "Christians", Ignorance and fear breed conflict.

I restricted my argument to the moral issue of allowing a point of view to be aired so it can be countered. Your attack on whether the man should be extradited for a crime he did not commit in Germany whilst a legal issue is also moral and I agree with you . It is easy to be sympathetic to Germany's attitude to holocaust denial when one sees the attitude of a large part of the public to the death of the Austrian right wing politician who expounded similar views. Germany rightly fears neo nazism among some is not dead there. But England should not involve itself in what would be an illegal and immoral act.

Jerry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerryc

Dazzler,

I restricted my argument to the moral issue of allowing a point of view to be aired so it can be countered. Your attack on whether the man should be extradited for a crime he did not commit in Germany whilst a legal issue is also moral and I agree with you . It is easy to be sympathetic to Germany's attitude to holocaust denial when one sees the attitude of a large part of the public to the death of the Austrian right wing politician who expounded similar views. Germany rightly fears neo nazism among some is not dead there. But England should not involve itself in what would be an illegal and immoral act.

Jerry

---

A magistrate in the UK lower courts has dismissed the extradition request, but the Crown prosecutor has appealed the decision to a higher court...