Princeps Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) British Historian David Irving has been jailed for 3 years (Austria) for "Denying the holocaust" http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profi...ticle346741.ece A fairly ignorant and inflammatory pov to be sure, and I wasn't in court, I don't know the full facts, but is this right (morally)? Could it have happened anywhere else? Free speech? Also, it seems that in many Western countries, Jews are (acitvely and overtly) afforded special privileges when it comes to this type of thing (one recent example was London Mayor Red Ken calling a reporter a "concentration camp guard" - no crime there you might think, but wait, the reporter was Jewish), as are Muslims in other areas (of law - religion, for example). Is this true, or am I a bigot for suggesting this? What do you think? I'd be especially interested in the views of members that consider themselves a minority in their country of residence. Edited February 21, 2006 by Princeps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 ...Also, it seems that in many Western countries, Jews are (actively and overtly) afforded special privileges when it comes to this type of thing (one recent example was London Mayor Red Ken calling a reporter a "concentration camp guard" - no crime there you might think, but wait, the reporter was Jewish), as are Muslims in other areas (of law - religion, for example). Is this true, or am I a bigot for suggesting this? ... Since 6 million Jews living in the Western countries, Poland, Ukraine, etc., were slaughtered for nothing more than being born Jewish perhaps that's a special privilege I'd be prepared to allow. I suspect collective societal guilt is involved in these laws--read "Ordinary Men" by Christopher Browning or "Hitler's Willing Executioners" by David Goldhagen. Irving knew the law in Austria, knew he'd been at odds with it and chose to go there anyway. He's got only himself to blame, I suspect he enjoys the aura of martyrdom it brings to the eyes of quite a few. I've lurked at a few sites sympathetic to holocaust denial and white-supremacy (I slow down to gawk at car wrecks as well), he's a hero to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 I don't think there is any group so special that someone should go to jail for verbally stepping on their toes. It would be like me suggesting all Christians and Muslims should be jailed because their holy texts bad mouth paganism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sextus Roscius Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) While Irving is stupid and definately ignorant of facts and I can't agree with him, Austria can't and should not have jailed him. It is proof to the world that the Austrian Government is willing to override the right to free speech and freedom of opinion to some one becuase of there thoughts, as well as empowering a group of people to become better or more important than others. While I don't agree with Irving, Austia's decision is a conflicition and a debasement to democracy. Whether he is right or wrong, you can't jail him becuase of what he thinks. The very basis of democracy, is that all people are equal, no matter where they come from or what they've been through. Austria has just made sure they aren't Edited February 21, 2006 by Sextus Roscius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Irving knew the law in Austria, knew he'd been at odds with it and chose to go there anyway. That doesn't make the law right or justify the imprisonment of an historian. Moreover, it strikes me as the height of hypocricy to demand that the Muslim world appreciate the value of free speech over religious sensibilities (in the case of Salmon Rushdie and the Danish cartoons of Muhammed) while there is no outrage in the West when a man is jailed for his anti-Semetic* opinions. He's got only himself to blame, I suspect he enjoys the aura of martyrdom it brings to the eyes of quite a few. I've lurked at a few sites sympathetic to holocaust denial and white-supremacy (I slow down to gawk at car wrecks as well), he's a hero to them. But that's exactly what makes the law worse than ineffective--it creates sympathy for behavior that is otherwise completely unsympathetic. Even his chief accuser in the case realizes this and asked the court to let him go. * Yes, I know that Arabs are technically Semites too. Put the flamethrower down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 I find this all so "totally" dumb. I know its moronic to deny the Holocaust and all, but jail someone for voicing out their opinions for 3 years is absolutely detestable and stupid as it can get... totally totally...ugh I can't express how.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) He shouldn't have been jailed, it's ridicolous, while I agree his comments are insensitive to Jews, you just can't jail a guy for stating his opinion. Same applies to any religion. But when it comes to the head of a state like Ahmadinejad, who is trying to build nuclear weapons then it's a different story. He should be assassinated before he gets his hands on a nuke, pure and simple. Edited February 21, 2006 by tflex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 That doesn't make the law right or justify the imprisonment of an historian. Moreover, it strikes me as the height of hypocricy to demand that the Muslim world appreciate the value of free speech over religious sensibilities (in the case of Salmon Rushdie and the Danish cartoons of Muhammed) while there is no outrage in the West when a man is jailed for his anti-Semetic* opinions. It does make him an idiot not worthy of sympathy in my mind. Looking at it from the perspective of Germans it's a bit different. Anti-semitism--if what Goldhagen and a few other historians have stated are true--was rife in Germany before the Nazis took power. It didn't just rise from the Hitler and company, and we know the ultimate outcome after they took the reigns. From the perspective of a civilized culture that has to bear the burden of the end result of anti-semitism and responsible for the gold-standard of genocide I see the rationale and argument for holocaust denial laws. Perhaps the Austrians by virtue of cultural affinity share that sentiment. Viggen could chime in on the validity of that better than myself. As for Islam, perhaps a few laws against against the demonization of Christians and Jews might be in order(not likely or effective I know). Not a bad insight to see the connection between the cartoons and Irvings jailing, but really, the death of 6 million Jews and another 6-10 million Poles, Gypsies, etc aren't in the same league. The Islamic world won't see that I'm sure. Admittedly I'm not prepared to argue dispassionately regarding them. I frankly feel, at best, a stoney indifference and at worst nauseous disgust towards that religion and culture. Two tours there are still a bit fresh, maybe in time. But that's exactly what makes the law worse than ineffective--it creates sympathy for behavior that is otherwise completely unsympathetic. Even his chief accuser in the case realizes this and asked the court to let him go. That's actually the best point against the laws and some anti-holocaust threads on another site back it up. I chose not to link to them, but it's scary reading, although they're a bit disgusted that he tried to apologize and pray for the victims. Look, I know I'm not arguing a popular stance regarding free speech, I'm even contradicting my own strongly held beliefs in that area. Maybe I'm in a reviling mood tonight, I just spent two days going toe-to-to with some Brit soldiers on another site attacking the U.S. Army's performance in Iraq that ended up with accusations of gun-toting 'merican nuts, slavery, inbred Southerners and counter-accusations of poor dental hygiene, English slavers and Boer concentration camps. Irving makes a pretty good target you've got to admit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) another site attacking the U.S. Army's performance in Iraq that ended up with accusations of gun-toting 'merican nuts, slavery, inbred Southerners and counter-accusations of poor dental hygiene, English slavers and Boer concentration camps. Irving makes a pretty good target you've got to admit. That site can go to hell... Anyways David Irving can make a good target to anyone, but do those people actually want him to suffer physically? What happened to the European 'we love peace and freedom of speec' secularism stuff. Edited February 21, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sextus Roscius Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Irvings is half right on the point that Hitler himself did not over see the operations of the Halocaust personaly, that was the job of the S.S. which techniquely means Himmler Also, I personaly find that just about everying Irving states can be disproved by simnply skimming over Mein Kampf by A. Hitler himself.... Which clearly indicates that Hitler was aware of what was going on and was indeed, knowledgable of and assisted the construction of the execution devices in concentration camps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 While Irving is stupid and definately ignorant of facts and I can't agree with him, Austria can't and should not have jailed him. It is proof to the world that the Austrian Government is willing to override the right to free speech and freedom of opinion to some one becuase of there thoughts, as well as empowering a group of people to become better or more important than others.While I don't agree with Irving, Austia's decision is a conflicition and a debasement to democracy. Whether he is right or wrong, you can't jail him becuase of what he thinks. Frankly, this guy was well aware of the law in Austria before he started his campaign. Obviously his goal was sensationalism. The law is there for a reason (and its much more detailed than not allowing someone to say that the holocaust didn't happen), but Viggen as an Austrian might be able to explain further. Personally I don't like any law preventing free speech, but please be aware of its origin. To blast Austria for trying to preserve its own role in history (good or bad) does seem a bit misplaced to me. A law designed to prevent a repeat of that role may not be the most 'free' thing, but its certainly honorable. The US has plenty of laws regarding racial discrimination and yet I hear no outcry against them as not allowing free speech. Yes we may allow 'this group or that group' to rally, but despite what they say in private, they must be considerably more careful in a public setting. Some laws are good and some are bad, but I can find better things to scoff at than a country owning up to its past, even if I personally find it to be unneccesary. Yes I'm not a fan of the Jewish culture of victimization, and this law helps perpetuate that, but then again I've never been held in a concentration camp regardless of my ethnicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Maybe I'm in a reviling mood tonight, I just spent two days going toe-to-to with some Brit soldiers on another site attacking the U.S. Army's performance in Iraq that ended up with accusations of gun-toting 'merican nuts, slavery, inbred Southerners and counter-accusations of poor dental hygiene, English slavers and Boer concentration camps. You have my sympathy. Arguing with European anti-Americans makes me see red--to have to deal with stupid American provincialism simultaneously would leave me in the mood to jail everyone! (I am assuming you weren't the one hauling up the old 'poor dental hygiene' argument, right Virgil? Please!? ) Personally I don't like any law preventing free speech, but please be aware of its origin. To blast Austria for trying to preserve its own role in history (good or bad) does seem a bit misplaced to me. A law designed to prevent a repeat of that role may not be the most 'free' thing, but its certainly honorable. The Austrians and Germans I know are among the most anti-racist people I've met, and I do understand their desire to stamp out all traces of Naziism. HOWEVER, the honorable thing would be to embrace the principle that is the most anti-fascist one imaginable--individual liberty, even liberty to say repugnant things. I simply can't see the sense in atoning for past violations of individual rights by means of further violations. BTW, I'm not claiming any kind of American superiority on this issue. Quite the contrary, American college campuses (including the one where I teach) have all kinds of insidious speech codes, and they're borne of exactly the same premise that gave rise to the Austrian ones. Needless to say, I condemn these codes as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) Maybe I'm in a reviling mood tonight, I just spent two days going toe-to-to with some Brit soldiers on another site attacking the U.S. Army's performance in Iraq that ended up with accusations of gun-toting 'merican nuts, slavery, inbred Southerners and counter-accusations of poor dental hygiene, English slavers and Boer concentration camps. You have my sympathy. Arguing with European anti-Americans makes me see red--to have to deal with stupid American provincialism simultaneously would leave me in the mood to jail everyone! (I am assuming you weren't the one hauling up the old 'poor dental hygiene' argument, right Virgil? Please!? ) I have to admit I did, but I think I added a decent enough twist. While making fun of Americans and their poor skills at geography one asked me where the state of East Virginia was (he claimed to have stumped an American soldier once with that question). I answered it was right next to the UK School of Dentistry. Edit: Apologies to Pertinax, Princeps, Andrew Darby and the rest of the UK contingent who I hold in high regard (and who's dental hygiene is I am sure immaculate) but one has to defend one's country. Edited February 21, 2006 by Virgil61 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 My...I've never heard of the dental hygience jest until now...I don't think we use it to joke anymore in my generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viggen Posted February 21, 2006 Report Share Posted February 21, 2006 Well I can legally say such stupid words as nigger* in austria without getting into trouble with the austrian law, can you (USA)? so whats the difference? There are historical reasons for those kind of laws and they were (in this particular case) made after WWII by countries involved like Germany, France and Austria with the help of the Allies... The british court said once in a (different) ruling about Mr. Irving Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist, and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism He is barred from entering countries like USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Germany, Canada, Italy etc.. So to make him a symbol of free speech and get funny about austrian laws is a bit strange in my opinon... cheers viggen *I would never say that though and just used it as an example, as i respect humans way too much, regardless of their color, faith or nationality... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.