Teabag   10 #1 Posted December 20, 2006 According to BBC news, David Irving who was sentenced to two years in an Austrian prison for denying the holocaust is to be released from prison on probation. Should he have been released or should the sentence been extended as some argued? Furthermore, is it time for Britain to have 'holocaust denial' legislation?    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6196073.stm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
BasilRathbon   10 #2 Posted December 20, 2006 Imprisoning someone for expressing an opinion sounds like the sort of thing Nazis would do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
LordChaverly   10 #3 Posted December 20, 2006 In my view he should never have been sentenced in the first place, because there should be no such law.  However wrong our opinions may be, we should have a right to hold and express them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
KJ_VENOM   10 #4 Posted December 20, 2006 He shouldn't have been imprisoned for having an opinion, and as far as i can see he wasn't. he was jailed for stating as fact the the holocaust didnt happen against all the evidence that it did  as for his new crusade  Quote. He said he would urge an academic boycott of historians from Germany and Austria until the nations stopped jailing historians.  why does he want to boycott proper historians is it because he isn't one Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Till Man   10 #5 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: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Teabag   10 #6 Posted December 20, 2006 These are the countries that currently have 'holocaust denial' legislation Austria Belgium Czech Republic France Germany Israel Lithuania Poland Romania Slovakia Switzerland  Should Britain join this list?  I feel uneasy about imprisoning people for expressing their beliefs...although curiously at the trial Irving denied saying any of the things he was accused of saying ...that says it all for me.  There are 6 to 9 million people in the twentieth century who were unable to voice their opinion. People such as Irving will never again go round saying that the holocaust did not exist...that is the point of the legislation. You cannot make you grubby living on the backs of six million unarmed men, women and children who were murdered in cold blood. If you do, then if proved so...off to prison. That seems morally justified to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
LordChaverly   10 #7 Posted December 20, 2006 He shouldn't have been imprisoned for having an opinion, and as far as i can see he wasn't. he was jailed for stating as fact the the holocaust didnt happen against all the evidence that it did as for his new crusade  Quote. He said he would urge an academic boycott of historians from Germany and Austria until the nations stopped jailing historians.  why does he want to boycott proper historians is it because he isn't one  I think we ought to be careful though about setting too fine a distinction between 'proper' historians and the rest. To give an example, during the Cold War the historian Robert Conquest wrote several works about the persecution and mass murder of many millions of Soviet citizens (not least in Ukraine) during the Stalin years. Many of the statistics and estimates of numbers he cited were regarded as gross exaggerations by many other historians (in particular, those of leftist persuasion). However, since the end of the Cold War, further evidence has come to light which proves that Conquest was right all along.  I hasten to add that I am not drawing any parallels here with the disputes about the Holocaust, but am instead counselling caution in relation to the putative distinction between 'proper' historians and the rest. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
LibertyBell   10 #8 Posted December 20, 2006 I hate to write anything in support of this disgusting man but no, there is no moral or human rights justification for locking him up. What purpose does it serve? He ain't gonna change his mind is he?  OTOH he knew the law when he did what he did and got what was coming to him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Livewirex   10 #9 Posted December 20, 2006 He should never have been imprisoned. Stupidity is not a crime in my book, maybe a little psychiatric help would be more fitting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
LordChaverly   10 #10 Posted December 20, 2006 These are the countries that currently have 'holocaust denial' legislation Austria Belgium Czech Republic France Germany Israel Lithuania Poland Romania Slovakia Switzerland  Should Britain join this list?  I feel uneasy about imprisoning people for expressing their beliefs...although curiously at the trial Irving denied saying any of the things he was accused of saying ...that says it all for me.  There are 6 to 9 million people in the twentieth century who were unable to voice their opinion. People such as Irving will never again go round saying that the holocaust did not exist...that is the point of the legislation. You cannot make you grubby living on the backs of six million unarmed men, women and children who were murdered in cold blood. If you do, then if proved so...off to prison. That seems morally justified to me.  If you play this numbers game, then you would have to add to the total you cite the millions of Armenians, Soviet citizens, Chinese, Cambodians, Rwandans, among many other ethnic groups, slaughtered in the 20th century. Our study of history would become another branch of law. Moreover, the countries which have this legislation tend to have authoritarian traditions of one kind or another, involving various restrictions on free speech. I don't think we ought to follow them down this path. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
KJ_VENOM   10 #11 Posted December 20, 2006 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  this is not two academics arguing over what killed off the dinosaurs where they both have evidence to back up their points of views, this is something that has happened in living memory some of the people that lived through this are still alive, when the allied forces libetrated places like Auschwitz had film cameras that showed the crematoriums that also showed the shower houses and Zyclon B gas that was used to murder innocent people for nothing other than being jewish, homosexual or not one of the 'master race' the evidence that the holocaust actually happened is overwhelming  the laws in the countries named are there to make sure people who have thoughts of painting the nazi regime as harmless are not able to  i would like to see this country have this law Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
LordChaverly   10 #12 Posted December 20, 2006 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   You appear to have a quite touching faith in the distinction between 'fact' and 'opinion'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...