Sheffield Forum
Your message here

Holocaust Denier Irving Freed

Home > General > General Discussions

Reply To Topic
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
20-12-2006, 14:45   #21
KJ_VENOM
Karaoke Master
KJ_VENOM's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Alive in Sheffield
Total Posts: 2,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordChaverly
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.
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...
_______
Andy Jay Karaoke Wednesday @ The Casbah, Thursday -Karaoke @ The Little Mester Dinnington, Fridays @ The Howard Hotel, City Centre, Sunday @ The Botantical. Eccalsall Road Karaoke now upgraded to 100,000+ songs
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 15:01   #22
LordChaverly
Registered User
LordChaverly's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Chavteau Whirlow
Total Posts: 6,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ_VENOM
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.
_______
The 'soothing voice of reason'
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 15:02   #23
Heyesey
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Total Posts: 12,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by KJ_VENOM
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?
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 15:09   #24
KJ_VENOM
Karaoke Master
KJ_VENOM's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Location: Alive in Sheffield
Total Posts: 2,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordChaverly
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
_______
Andy Jay Karaoke Wednesday @ The Casbah, Thursday -Karaoke @ The Little Mester Dinnington, Fridays @ The Howard Hotel, City Centre, Sunday @ The Botantical. Eccalsall Road Karaoke now upgraded to 100,000+ songs
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 15:14   #25
donkey
Registered User
donkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Total Posts: 4,928
By allowing his own opinions to interfere with the way he interprets historical data, Irvine has only done what most other historians do, albeit to a more extreme degree.

If this is to be a criminal offence, where do you draw the line? Should British historians who play down the more shameful episodes in our colonial past also be sent to the gulag?
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 15:15   #26
JoeP
A Regular Joe
JoeP's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Dun Moddin'
Total Posts: 14,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by donkey
By allowing his own opinions to interfere with the way he interprets historical data, Irvine has only done what most other historians do, albeit to a more extreme degree.

If this is to be a criminal offence, where do you draw the line? Should British historians who play down the more shameful episodes in our colonial past also be sent to the gulag?
Or British Historians who claim that there is nothing good about our colonial past, for that matter?

Stalin would have loved this!
_______
"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." - CG Jung
My homepage : http://www.joepritchard.me.uk
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 15:24   #27
donkey
Registered User
donkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Total Posts: 4,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP
Or British Historians who claim that there is nothing good about our colonial past, for that matter?

Stalin would have loved this!
One way you please Hitler, the other you please Stalin. So everyone should be forced to express moderate views at all times - on pain of death by crucifiction.
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 15:47   #28
AtticusFinch
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2005
Total Posts: 1,732
What Irving said was wrong but he shouldn't have been jailed for it. You don't jail Nazi sympathisers, you point and laugh at them. Even Deborah Lipstadt who intellectually jousted with him at Irving's libel trial against her in 2000 didn't think he should have been jailed for his comments.
_______
"I'm afraid of bears. I think that owls are a waste of time." - Stephen Colbert
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 16:04   #29
LordChaverly
Registered User
LordChaverly's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Chavteau Whirlow
Total Posts: 6,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by donkey
One way you please Hitler, the other you please Stalin. So everyone should be forced to express moderate views at all times - on pain of death by crucifiction.
'crucifiction'?

This is the best one word description of Christian history, doctrine and eschatology that I have ever come across. Well done.
_______
The 'soothing voice of reason'
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 17:51   #30
donkey
Registered User
donkey's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Total Posts: 4,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordChaverly
'crucifiction'?

This is the best one word description of Christian history, doctrine and eschatology that I have ever come across. Well done.
Sorry, I meant cross I fix I on.

Last edited by donkey; 20-12-2006 at 17:56.
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 21:32   #31
Teabag
Registered User
Teabag's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Total Posts: 1,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by angle20
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/st...925401,00.html
How about six million historical truths. We know it happened, aside from a few arm band wearers who would like to pull the wool over our collective eyes...it is Irving that is anachronistic, he longs to be in Germany during the thirties and forties. No decent person that would describe themselves as a 'historian' given the weight of evidence would ever deny the holocaust took place. Historians are interested in why and how it happened, not IF.

There are laws in society to stop incitement to hatred etc. You cannot simply say anything you want against innocent people who have been murdered in cold blood.

As for some posters suggesting that the countries that have signed up for holocaust denial legislation are themselves repressive...I think this has more to do with the fact that the holocaust took place on their home soil and they wish for it never to happen again.

Will Irving go round spouting his denial views again in public - I do not think so, therefore the legisaltion for me - works. Send that boy to jail
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 21:57   #32
purple_frog
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2006
Total Posts: 640
I strongly feel that to imprison someone for holding a view is inexcusable. There are many people with whom I do not agree, and this guy is one of them, but I maintain that they are entitled to believe what they like.

But what really bugs me is that people say that this sort of legislation is to prevent similar atrocities happening in the future .... well, day in, day out, most of us manage to ignore numerous similar atrocities that are currently ongoing worldwide. Darfur, anyone?!
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 22:26   #33
Heyesey
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Total Posts: 12,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teabag
There are laws in society to stop incitement to hatred etc. You cannot simply say anything you want against innocent people who have been murdered in cold blood.
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.
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 23:14   #34
TeaFan
Registered User
TeaFan's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: beyond the Ultraworld
Total Posts: 4,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordChaverly
I think we ought to be careful though about setting too fine a distinction between 'proper' historians and the rest.
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.
_______
"It would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated, as this would undermine the profile of paroxetine." - GlaxoSmithKline internal memo
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 23:15   #35
VARB
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Location: S8
Total Posts: 378
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 .
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 23:16   #36
TeaFan
Registered User
TeaFan's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: beyond the Ultraworld
Total Posts: 4,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by VARB
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 .
Sorry to have to break it to you, but Nick Griffin is a holocaust denier.
_______
"It would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated, as this would undermine the profile of paroxetine." - GlaxoSmithKline internal memo
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 23:25   #37
redrobbo
Forum Technophobe
redrobbo's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Total Posts: 7,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinnertomcat
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!
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 23:35   #38
Livewirex
Registered User
Livewirex's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2006
Location: Back of beyond
Total Posts: 651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heyesey
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.
_______
The last fight I had with the wife was my fault. My wife asked "What's on the TV?"
I said "Dust!"
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 23:41   #39
LordChaverly
Registered User
LordChaverly's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Chavteau Whirlow
Total Posts: 6,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by redrobbo
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
_______
The 'soothing voice of reason'
  Reply With Quote
20-12-2006, 23:41   #40
cgksheff
Registered User
cgksheff's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Total Posts: 22,387
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.
  Reply With Quote
Reply To Topic

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:17.
POSTS ON THIS FORUM ARE NOT ACTIVELY MONITORED
Click "Report Post" under any post which may breach our terms of use.
©2002-2017 Sheffield Forum | Powered by vBulletin ©2017

Nimbus Server