Holocaust Denier Irving Freed

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, of course you shouldn't go to prison, but.... maybe the psychiatric hospital beckons?

The UK doesn't have a holocaust denial law, and nor should it. We'd be making martyrs out of idiots and fools..... as well as the BNP!

Actually you can, because it's impossible to incite hatred against someone who's already dead.

 

If I want to argue that the Holocaust never happened, I should have every right to do so. If you want to argue that it did, then so should you. Which of us is right is neither here nor there; the evidence will determine that, and it will, of course, be you, since arguing it never happened will make me look like an utter bloody idiot.

 

Suppressing an opinion is bad no matter WHAT the opinion may be. Those who espouse it can then claim that they are being denied an opportunity to speak, which gives their cause credibility. If what they had to say was utter gibberish, nobody would be so scared of it as to try to stamp it out; and it it wasn't utter gibberish, then it would be criminal to stamp it out. So either way, let him speak.

You might be advised not to try to incite hatred against a certain prophet or it might prove your theory wrong, big style.

No, of course you shouldn't go to prison, but.... maybe the psychiatric hospital beckons?

 

Psychiatric hospitals are precisely where academic critics of the Soviet regime and other Soviet dissidents tended to end up in the post-Stalin era. Not a good idea

He was imprisoned, not for holding a view, but for publically expressing that view in a way and in a place where it was forbidden.

There are places in this country where it is against the law to publicly proclaim your views.

You might be advised not to try to incite hatred against a certain prophet or it might prove your theory wrong, big style.

Nope. I can advocate violence against Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha as much as I want and will merely look like an idiot because they're all dead. (Or possibly immortal, and it would still be pointless...)

Inciting violence against people who *worship* any of them, is a whole different kettle of fish...

Bias is one thing, but a court did find that he'd deliberately manipulated source material in order to make his racist views seem more like historical fact. Surely once you've done that, you can't be taken seriously as a historian. Joan Peters would be another fine example.

There is an important distinction between being taken seriously as a historian and being taken to court for your views on historical events.

The Joan Peters case is indeed a good example. No reputable historian is likely to take Joan Peters seriously, as her 'From Time Immemorial' has been conclusively proven to be garbage. However, no one, to the best of my knowledge, has suggested that she be jailed for her views. The court of informed public opinion has condemned her (thanks in no small measure to the efforts of Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky) and this should suffice. Its a moot point as to whether Sheffield Library should still have this garbage on its shelves (I believe it still does) but I would not wish to ban it

Making it a crime to deny the Nazi holocaust is wrong not only because it's an unjustified restriction on free speech but also because it allows people to continue under the delusion that the Nazi holocaust was a unique event unparalleled in human history and somehow deserving of singling out above and beyond all others rather than one of a number of examples of mass ethnic cleansing in recent human history.

Such exceptionalism allows us to ignore the extent to which ethnic cleansing is a danger potentially lurking within pretty much any society rather than a one off event.

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

Irving and the other holocaust deniers should not go to prison they should be allowed to debate their vile opinions with real historians then face public ridicule when shown to be liars and frauds , locking up these morons gives them the oxegeon of publicity as this case shows without destroying this growing myth .

Do you think that maybe your protestations against laws criminalising holocaust denial might be a little less hypocritical if you weren't active supporters of the BNP a party with policies to ban media criticism of it's racist and homophobic policies. And which indeed wants to ban programs such as say for example Eastenders, Doctor Who and Friends and pretty much all modern shows which deviate from your narrow world view?

There is an important distinction between being taken seriously as a historian and being taken to court for your views on historical events.

 

The Joan Peters case is indeed a good example. No reputable historian is likely to take Joan Peters seriously, as her 'From Time Immemorial' has been conclusively proven to be garbage. However, no one, to the best of my knowledge, has suggested that she be jailed for her views. The court of informed public opinion has condemned her (thanks in no small measure to the efforts of Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky) and this should suffice. Its a moot point as to whether Sheffield Library should still have this garbage on its shelves (I believe it still does) but I would not wish to ban it

Yeah, it's still there. I've been tempted to photocopy the Finkelstein essay and staple it inside.

Nope. I can advocate violence against Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha as much as I want and will merely look like an idiot because they're all dead. (Or possibly immortal, and it would still be pointless...)

 

Inciting violence against people who *worship* any of them, is a whole different kettle of fish...

That's not what you said

Quote Hessey "Actually you can, because it's impossible to incite hatred against someone who's already dead."

The word you used was "Hatred" which is the dangerous thing to do as i said previously.

I think it is right that places such as germany and Austria have such a law, although I am not entirely sure they should be able to apply it to a British Citizen. The Germans murdered millions of people and they shouldn't be allowed to forget that. If one of them decides to openly say that the Germans didn't commit these crimes, or that the camps were holiday camps, or similar nonsense then they should go to gaol.

How about six million historical truths.

A reply I gave on a previous occasion (to Plain Talker):

The 6 million figure has a life independent of empirical evidence. It first appeared in an article by Ben Hecht (a Jewish Hollywood script writer) in the February 1943 edition of Reader's Digest magazine. It thus pre-dates many of the purported events. The figure continues to be repeated today despite, for example, 3 million officially being lost from the Auschwitz death toll.