jinnertomcat   10 #13 Posted December 20, 2006 KJ_VENOM Registered User   Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: shiregreen Posts: 775 Status: Online whatever his reasons for saying the holocaust didnt happen( nazi sympathiser, anti semetic or any of the other reasons) he stated it as fact. not as an opinion   Using your logic, if I state as a fact that the sun is made out of raspberry jelly, then I should go to prison. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
KJ_VENOM   10 #14 Posted December 20, 2006  Using your logic, if I state as a fact that the sun is made out of raspberry jelly, then I should go to prison.  no, actually an opinion like that wouldn't cause any offence to people, as i am fairly sure that such an opinion could not be used to de-villify people such as the Austrian born dark hair leader of the so called 'master race' and his evil regime  but the sun made of rasberry jelly just made me smile and think where could i get a slice of toast big enough Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Livewirex   10 #15 Posted December 20, 2006 KJ_VENOM Registered User   Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: shiregreen Posts: 775 Status: Online whatever his reasons for saying the holocaust didnt happen( nazi sympathiser, anti semetic or any of the other reasons) he stated it as fact. not as an opinion   Using your logic, if I state as a fact that the sun is made out of raspberry jelly, then I should go to prison.  Careful my friend there are some on here that believe every thing they read. Mind you if it was strawberry jelly i would be building a rocket ship as we speak. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
angle20   10 #16 Posted December 20, 2006 I'm glad Irving has been released.  Legislation in this area is anachronistic, as Timothy Garton Ash argued in a recent article in The Guardian:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1925401,00.html  No one can legislate historical truth. In so far as historical truth can be established at all, it must be found by unfettered historical research, with historians arguing over the evidence and the facts, testing and disputing each other's claims without fear of prosecution or persecution. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
BasilRathbon   10 #17 Posted December 20, 2006 You name any event in history and there'll be someone who claims it never happened, regardless of any evidence. You only have to look at this thread to see what I mean...................... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
LordChaverly   10 #18 Posted December 20, 2006 no, actually an opinion like that wouldn't cause any offence to people, as i am fairly sure that such an opinion could not be used to de-villify people such as the Austrian born dark hair leader of the so called 'master race' and his evil regime but the sun made of rasberry jelly just made me smile and think where could i get a slice of toast big enough  But many opinions cause offence. If we used this as a criterion for placing restrictions on freedom of expression, we may as well say goodbye to the notion of a free society. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
GabbleRatcht   10 #19 Posted December 20, 2006 I disagree with just about everything the man says and stands for, but would defend to the end his right to say and stand for what he likes. To imprison someone for their beliefs, however mis-judged and wrong, is an infringement of their human rights. :rant: I sort of agree with the freedom of speach aspect. But we have been given this right due to the bravery of people that fought against people that would seek to stop it.  However I say 'sort of' due to the fact that if you let some speak, and others believe, you can quite easily end up with a system where no one is allowed to speak openly.  Hitler, Stalin etc.  I defend my right to speak openly but there are regimes where you can't. I've sat in a hotel room in China watching BBC 24, and as soon as an item about China appears the transmission is stopped. As soon as the item has finished, it starts again. You can't get the BBC website in China.  How do you decide to allow someone to speak if their opinion will remove the right of others to speak?  Bit of a quandary that one:huh: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
LordChaverly   10 #20 Posted December 20, 2006 I'm glad Irving has been released. Legislation in this area is anachronistic, as Timothy Garton Ash argued in a recent article in The Guardian:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1925401,00.html  At last, there is something I agree with Garton Ash about. Miracles do happen! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
KJ_VENOM Â Â 10 #21 Posted December 20, 2006 If we used this as a criterion for placing restrictions on freedom of expression, we may as well say goodbye to the notion of a free society. Â i think in this country we have already when people who write a piece of fiction such as a play or book can be threatened with personal injury or worse. the legislation that was in the news last year meaning that a person could be prosecuted for starting a joke with ... Â a priest, a rabbi and an imam walk into a bar... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
LordChaverly   10 #22 Posted December 20, 2006 i think in this country we have already when people who write a piece of fiction such as a play or book can be threatened with personal injury or worse. the legislation that was in the news last year meaning that a person could be prosecuted for starting a joke with ... a priest, a rabbi and an imam walk into a bar...  So what was the punch line?  The first point you make presumably refers to the laws of libel, which are something different entirely. The second point refers presumably to the Religious Hatred bill, which, if my memory serves me right, was shelved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Heyesey   11 #23 Posted December 20, 2006 the legislation that was in the news last year meaning that a person could be prosecuted for starting a joke with ... a priest, a rabbi and an imam walk into a bar...  ..which is why said legislation got torpedoed and will never actually exist.    I'm still struggling to understand why people bang on about the millions of lives lost defending our right to free speech, and simultaneously argue that someone shouldn't have it. If Irving wants to claim the Holocaust never happened, let him, and then prove him wrong. Locking him up, quite apart from being morally reprehensible, makes it look like you're scared of his opinions and don't want them spreading. Why would anyone be scared of his opinions when there's so much, massively overwhelming, evidence that he's an utter fool? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
KJ_VENOM   10 #24 Posted December 20, 2006 So what was the punch line? The first point you make presumably refers to the laws of libel, which are something different entirely. The second point refers presumably to the Religious Hatred bill, which, if my memory serves me right, was shelved.  i wasn't aware the bill was shelved i just thought like all things to do with the government it was taking a lot of time to get passed  the punchline ..... they all said ouch, it was an iron bar held by a satanist Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...