Jail for not believing holocaust

[Anakha56]

nice post beerman...

[capanno]

beerman saves the day.

[GreyWolf]

indeed beerman... I agree with the austrians...they have a valid reason for having that law in their country

[Sojourn]

1. Should we expect every person travelling abroad to know every law of the country they are travelling to? NOT AT ALL. We should expect them to abide by "basic laws" i.e. the laws from their own country. Granted, if you're going to say something controversial, I guess you should find out whether it is legal or not. But we've agreed that the guy is an idiot and did not think about this before he made the statement.

You do, in fact, have to familliarise yourself with the country's laws you are travelling to. The "I didnt know" plea will be translated into ignorance. In no western based court will the "I didn't know" plea hold water. It's your duty to find out. RTFM.

s

[Sojourn]

We supposedly live in a moral society, a society that has values and absolutes, or so civilised people would like to believe. History teaches us the past, proven history is fact, it happened. From this fact we are supposed to draw conclusions, look at the bad, take heed and we should then attempt not to repeat it again. This admittedly does not always happen, WWI and WWII is an example.
Now the Germans, Polish and Austrians do not have "Nicht Wieder" written above the concentration camps because they had spare steel lying around, they put it up as a reminder of how low a nation, a people, any nation, any people can sink. Would the holocaust have happened if the Nazi Party was not in power, I think it would have. The timing, the circumstance and the poverty were in the correct mix, the Nazi’s proved a willing catalyst. So ashamed were these nations that they introduced a law in an attempt to win back some of the prestige they once enjoyed, they were embarrassed, just as the older generation there still are.
Now as the new "freedom" generation is upon us, the "know it all" young pioneers of this universe, all of a sudden I, if I want to call you a moron or worse, must be allowed to do so, no matter the hurt, embarrassment and just plain degradation it may cause. I draw the line, what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. Freedom of speech, the freedom of the media; are all fine concepts when applied against rule. If they are not, they become no more than tools in the hands of anarchists.
We have seen how whores have become sex workers abortionists are suddenly angels of mercy, terrorists become struggle heroes and politicians, why? Because we have no absolutes any more.
Fools like David Irvine are now suddenly to be forgiven for the hell and hurt that his denial beliefs caused, his so called repentance was no more than a ploy to prevent a jail sentence, "I am shocked" he said, no more shocked than the tattooed survivors of the Camps. Why should he be allowed to get away with the thrown down gauntlet to the Austrian Government, because of freedom of speech, I believe not. It is not the tail that wags the dog; he was wrong, is wrong and must pay the penalty like I would have to do if I denied that my brother committed murder, knowing full well that he did.

Lance for president.

s

[Macphisto]

We supposedly live in a moral society, a society that has values and absolutes, or so civilised people would like to believe. History teaches us the past, proven history is fact, it happened. From this fact we are supposed to draw conclusions, look at the bad, take heed and we should then attempt not to repeat it again. This admittedly does not always happen, WWI and WWII is an example.
Now the Germans, Polish and Austrians do not have "Nicht Wieder" written above the concentration camps because they had spare steel lying around, they put it up as a reminder of how low a nation, a people, any nation, any people can sink. Would the holocaust have happened if the Nazi Party was not in power, I think it would have. The timing, the circumstance and the poverty were in the correct mix, the Nazi’s proved a willing catalyst. So ashamed were these nations that they introduced a law in an attempt to win back some of the prestige they once enjoyed, they were embarrassed, just as the older generation there still are.
Now as the new "freedom" generation is upon us, the "know it all" young pioneers of this universe, all of a sudden I, if I want to call you a moron or worse, must be allowed to do so, no matter the hurt, embarrassment and just plain degradation it may cause. I draw the line, what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. Freedom of speech, the freedom of the media; are all fine concepts when applied against rule. If they are not, they become no more than tools in the hands of anarchists.
We have seen how whores have become sex workers abortionists are suddenly angels of mercy, terrorists become struggle heroes and politicians, why? Because we have no absolutes any more.
Fools like David Irvine are now suddenly to be forgiven for the hell and hurt that his denial beliefs caused, his so called repentance was no more than a ploy to prevent a jail sentence, "I am shocked" he said, no more shocked than the tattooed survivors of the Camps. Why should he be allowed to get away with the thrown down gauntlet to the Austrian Government, because of freedom of speech, I believe not. It is not the tail that wags the dog; he was wrong, is wrong and must pay the penalty like I would have to do if I denied that my brother committed murder, knowing full well that he did.

Lance for president.

s

Lance, I'll vote for you. What party are you?

[Sojourn]

Rusty and gang, go research this before your liberally applied emotions get the better of you.

fyi... i have done a fair amount of reading around this particular period... and probably have a better idea than most over the true shame that was comitted against the jewish nation... and the russians at the hands of their own leaders, (which was at times even worse, but for some strange reason hardly ever mentioned), and my mind is relatively capable in making a judgement call as to whether or not the holocaust took place, (it did..), but that still cannot be taken to mean that we run around arbitrarily imprisoning people because they voice an alternative history....

Your very broad "fair amount of reading around this particular period" should mayhaps be focused a bit more on the history of Austria, from the time of the anschluss up to today.

but that still cannot be taken to mean that we run around arbitrarily imprisoning people because they voice an alternative history.

The "we" you use so freely should be omitted. In its place, use the word "Austrians". You are correct in saying that "we" dont have a right to condemn. But the Austrians do - a point you seem to avoid conveniently.

The word "arbitrarily" is also used out of context in your sentence. You make it sound so nice and sweet, it rolls off the toungue and is probably very eloquent to the uninformed. Arbitrarily is synonym with randomly, indiscriminately, haphazardly, at random. I assure you NOTHING about this case was random. A very specific issue is being addressed by Austrian law. You just choose to muddle the water with your carefully worded misdirected arguments.

s

[rustypup]

they have a valid reason for having that law

surely that should read "had"...?

again... by speaking out in support of a law like this you are only paying lip-service to the concept of free speech...

we are all fine with free speech up to the point that we, in our fluffy little world, feel that it now is becoming a bit much and "inflamatory statements about something very sensitive to millions" -1GOR or "hurting history " -1GOR, THEN free speech is evil and should not be tolerated... we should lock them all up until they see the error of their ways, (ie. they must agree that we are right and they are wrong), and in so doing we are *protecting* the future?...

here it is ... in a world were you are permitted to believe what you want, you are going to have to face the fact that out there... somewhere... is the embodiment of your exact opposite... a creature so vile in your view that you will probably have to restrain yourself from reaching for the hockey stick... and here's the biggie... if you are not capable or mature enough to deal with this fact... tough... that's how it goes...

using some restrictive legal tripe to support your argument is not indicative of a strong argument ... it's the sort of thing you would expect in some banana republic where shutting dissidents up is a full time job...

[rustypup]

focused a bit more on the history of Austria, from the time of the anschluss up to today.

and this would presumably make me more ... less of an emotional liberal?
<added to the to-do list... perhaps you have a few books you would suggest that would make me think it's fine to imprison people for having bad thoughts?

The "we" you use so freely should be omitted. In its place, use the word "Austrians". You are correct in saying that "we" dont have a right to condemn. But the Austrians do - a point you seem to avoid conveniently.

.. at this point my diatribe has more to do with the general "we" and less to do with the nutty mountaineers...

The word "arbitrarily" is also used out of context

refer above... my opponents would have you believe that such laws are a *good* thing... but the application of this type of law is wide open to interpretation, (claimant, judge, jury), and abuse... so there is most assuredly going to be a very random component to its application...

i take it your stance is it's not fine to knock the validity of a historical event?...

You just choose to muddle the water with your carefully worded misdirected arguments.

I use carefully worded misdirection in an debate?

the error here is in thinking that I am discussing this particular case.. I am harping on about the existence and application of a law which has got to rank up there with the one that gets you flogged if you don't tie up your horse outside the house of negotiable virtue....

[GreyWolf]

sojourn..thats exactly what I am trying to say...only I am not literaly gifted

[Sojourn]

Using some restrictive legal tripe to support your argument is not indicative of a strong argument ... it's the sort of thing you would expect in some banana republic where shutting dissidents up is a full time job...

What exactly in the legal argument is "restrictive"? More of your misdirected eloquence? Please do away with the clever word play, used to disguise your self inflicted confusion.

Not to leech from lance's last post, but did you even read it?

s

[Sojourn]

...it's fine to imprison people for having bad thoughts?

He did not just have "bad thoughts". If you dont have the facts, what are you doing here?

The "we" you use so freely should be omitted. In its place, use the word "Austrians". You are correct in saying that "we" dont have a right to condemn. But the Austrians do - a point you seem to avoid conveniently.

.. at this point my diatribe has more to do with the general "we" and less to do with the nutty mountaineers...

As I said... totally misdirected arguments. The general "we" didn't imprison him, the Austrians did. So why point to the general "we"...

The word "arbitrarily" is also used out of context

refer above... my opponents would have you believe that such laws are a *good* thing... but the application of this type of law is wide open to interpretation, (claimant, judge, jury), and abuse... so there is most assuredly going to be a very random component to its application...

Not true. That law addresses a very specific issue and the man was jailed for just that. Open and shut case, so to speak.

i take it your stance is it's not fine to knock the validity of a historical event?...

In a nutshell, yes. It includes respect. It includes patriotism. It includes the fact that the world united against an invasion. If you cannot stand up and defend the small things you believe in, why argue in favour of the big ones?

You just choose to muddle the water with your carefully worded misdirected arguments.

I use carefully worded misdirection in an debate?

You know what I mean. Its easy to hide behind big words and high phrases. Keep it simple.

the error here is in thinking that I am discussing this particular case.. I am harping on about the existence and application of a law which has got to rank up there with the one that gets you flogged if you don't tie up your horse outside the house of negotiable virtue....

This is the nucleus of the issue... if you know where Austria is coming from and see it from their side you would understand. I am actually in your camp when it comes to freedom of speech... this is one case, however, where all thing being equal, this is more equal. yea, I can be as hypocritical as the next ou. Call me human.

I stand by this.

s

edit - restructured the quotes to align the text.

[rustypup]

What exactly in the legal argument is "restrictive"?

Free Speech: "The holocaust never happened"
Mountanieer: "BUSTED! Your evil will never be allowed here!"
Free Speech: "mmmph! mmrrrm mph!.."

restrictive...

as for lancelot's post.. i agree for the most part, but the point at which he would draw the line has a definition i do not share...

freedom of speech only has value when it has no fear of law... again... how do you define a "good" thought versus a "bad" thought...

He did not just have "bad thoughts".

omw... he actually lent voice to his opinion... got a number of idiots together and made a big noise over how the holocaust never happened... wahey... send the sods up... we cant have that sort of behaviour...

again... I make no bones about the fact that the man is the complete git... but using the law to shut him up shows weakness where there is supposed to be strength.. unless the austrian government believes their country is infested with undercover nazis who are just waiting to be liberated by some free-speaking mind-murderer who has ... said ... and written... some nasty things... aargh! the public shouldn't be exposed to this sort of thing! lock him up ! lock him up!

The general "we" didn't imprison him, the Austrians did. So why point to the general "we"...

because the general "we" refers to a collection of individuals that includes a number who would happily stand by and agree to the incarceration of another individual for being a prat..

this discussion is more about the existence and application of an intrinsically flawed law.. it had no basis the in protection of people, history or sensibilities and everything to do with saving national face... using it as a means to gag a raving lunatic achieves the exact opposite.. it lends a loudhailer to him and his falsehoods...

[Sojourn]

@rusty - I understand your sentiments and agree with you- in a perfect world it makes logical sense. We do not live in a perfect world nor is everything logical. I am SO overstating the obvious here, but the bottom line is, I do see your point. All things being equal, I agee with you. Just not with this specific case. The defense rests.

s

[lancelot]

1GOR, I stand for the Heid's! Highly educated indepentant dudes!

[Macphisto]

1GOR, I stand for the Heid's! Highly educated indepentant dudes!

Respect! How are the power outages affecting business Lance?

[lancelot]

You know 1GOR, our office is opposite the main Escom head office for the Western Cape, so guess what, we have not had one power outage since this bull started!
But others are being affected very badly, just imagine the smaller fruit shops and so that depend on power for their fridges and cannot afford generators. There are many who are suffering, I heard that Patricia De Lille is getting together a class action to sue Eskom for compensation!
But I did hear on the radio that Koeberg has started its generator and tell us that we will have full power by tomorrow lunchtime, where have I heard that before?
Just to keep this on topic, David Irvine for the Nobel Peace prize! 8O

[hamin_aus]

David Irvine for the Nobel Peace prize!

Maybe the Nobel P*es prize.
If it were up to me he would not be going to jail though.
Maybe a nice padded cell....

[STIR]

The most annoying aspect of this whole thing for me is that the bumbling Austrians, in a ridiculous attempt to come across as the good guys and the spearhead to prevent a resurgence of nazism (haha), have not only set a dangerous legal precedence but have also given this clown and his neo nazi supporters great exposure.

Instead of just dismissing him as the fool that he is, he will now write his memoirs in a comfortable Austrian prison and likely make a fortune from them. The guy is 67 so in 10-15 years a large portion of the proceeds from this book will undoubtedly be left to some crazy political body of his choice.

So at the end of the day, the enforcement of this law will add fuel and momentum to the very movement it was suppost to destroy. If I didn’t know any better I would think that Hitler had planned this himself.

[hamin_aus]

Now from a land that still has a degree of freedom of speech:

Holocaust denier sues survivor, calling Auschwitz memoir vicious lies

A notorious Holocaust denier convicted of attacking Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel in an elevator has now set his sights on an 80-year-old Pembroke Pines, Fla., woman whose memoir recounts her ordeal in the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp.

In a lawsuit filed in Broward Circuit Court, Eric Hunt alleges that the "The Fifth Diamond: The Story of Irene Weisberg Zisblatt" is full of "vicious lies" and "fantastical tales" that turn Jews into haters and torment non-Jews.

Zisblatt's son-in-law, who is a lawyer, called Hunt's lawsuit "absurd" but expressed concern for his elderly relative's safety.

"This lunatic has assaulted a survivor in the past," Stuart Mermelstein of Miami said, "and is posing a danger to my mother-in-law simply for speaking out and writing a book."

Zisblatt's autobiography recounts how she, five siblings and their parents were packed into a boxcar for the trip from Hungary to the extermination camp.

Her mother gave Zisblatt, 13, four diamonds. (In her book's title, Zisblatt herself is the fifth diamond.) To keep the gems safe, Zisblatt relates, she repeatedly swallowed them during her time in captivity.

Zisblatt, who appeared in director Steven Spielberg's 1999 Academy Award-winning documentary "The Last Days," was the only member of her family to survive World War II. The precious stones she hid are still in her family.

Hunt, 25, of Archbald, Pa. filed the libel suit in Broward Circuit Court on Oct. 6 and is demanding a jury trial and punitive damages of "not less than $60 million."

The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Peter Weinstein.

"In terms of the hatred spewed in this complaint, it clearly has no legal or factual bearing whatsoever," Mermelstein said. "It's a ridiculous pleading, and our concern is really directed not to the complaint, but to the motives and intent of Eric Hunt."

Also named as defendants in the suit are Spielberg; Zisblatt's co-author, Gail Ann Webb; Authors & Artists Publishers Inc. of New York; and its CEO, Joan Mayor.

"Zisblatt blatantly stole other Jewish people's experiences during World War II and passed them off as her own in order to further the Jewish political agenda and profit off of these fantastical tales," Hunt, who is representing himself without an attorney, wrote in his lawsuit. "The defendants must not go unpunished for tormenting Gentiles and instilling hatred in Jews using such hideous lies."

In 2007, Hunt accosted Holocaust survivor and scholar Wiesel, 81, in a San Francisco hotel elevator in an alleged attempt to force Wiesel to recant his own recollections of the Holocaust.

Hunt was convicted in 2008 of false imprisonment, battery and elder abuse. A judge sentenced him to two years in prison but gave him credit for time served and good behavior. The judge ordered Hunt to undergo psychological treatment.

At sentencing, Hunt apologized and said he had suffered a "severe mental breakdown."

"I had been sucked into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories on the Internet," Hunt said in August 2008. "I don't believe any of that garbage now that I'm taking my medication."

America pwns Austria.
Not only is this douche bag NOT in jail for denying the holocaust - he is allowed to sue a survivor for telling her story!

[StarBound]

[Anakha56]

Wow thats just messed up...

Surprised this one did come through onto here...

http://msn.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10604126

Students' Nazi Facebook photos 'ignorant'

A group of Auckland Grammar School students are facing disciplinary action after photos of them bowing down in front of Nazi regalia appeared on Facebook.

The images showed the boys, in school uniform, kissing a swastika, making a Nazi salute, and kneeling in homage before a Nazi flag at an Auckland War Memorial Museum exhibition, Radio New Zealand reported.

The photos were posted on social networking website Facebook, but have now been taken down.

Returned and Services' Association national president Robin Klitscher said the boys' actions were disgusting.

"Above all it's profoundly ignorant and I think that is probably what causes the greatest offence," he said.

"Would these young folks have done the same thing in front of the holocaust exhibition, for example."

Auckland Grammar School principal John Morris said there was absolutely no justification for the immature and unthinking actions of the boys.

All the students involved had been interviewed after the school became aware of the photos on Friday, and their families would be informed today, he said.



- NZPA

[hamin_aus]

Resurrection!

Austria, that bastion of free speech that gave us internet superheroes like Josef Fritzl is at it again!

Nazi Cake a Recipe for Trouble for Austrian Pastry Shop

An Austrian baker is pleading the same defense that many Nazis used at Nuremberg -- "I was just following orders" -- after baking a cake festooned with swastikas and a baby raising its right hand in a "Heil Hitler" salute.

Bakery owner Manfred Klaschka says he made the cake -- at a cost of $128 -- at the request of a customer.

"If it's requested, it's made," said Klaschka, according to MSNBC. "I don't want to be pulled into this because I'm a confectioner, and there's nothing more to it."
Nazi Cakes Causes Problems for Austrian Pastry Shop
Alamy
A Nazi party suit pin depicting a black swastika on a red flag. An Austrian baker has come under fire for creating cakes loaded with Nazi symbols.

Klaschka faces jail time because Austrian law prohibits any type of propaganda that glorifies symbols from the World War II period. The bakery, Tortendesign, is located in Maria Enzersdorf, Austria.

According to the Mauthausen Committee, founded in 1997 to maintain the legacy of former concentration camp inmates, pictures of the Nazi-Hitler-themed cakes are kept in a binder that customers are allowed to peruse.

The Holocaust survivors' group has asked Austrian prosecutors to press charges against the bakery.

Oh hai guise, Austria here, we are so ashamed that our grandfathers helped kill 4 million Jews that we are going to do something that they loved doing - make it illegal (and punishable by incarceration) for you to have an opinion we don't like.
That will show the world how different we are from them!
kthxbai

[Stuart]

I see what you're saying, jamin, but ...

Austrian law prohibits any type of propaganda that glorifies symbols from the World War II period.

You have to admit that it's pretty stupid to make the thing in the first place if you know it's illegal.

[hamin_aus]

Austrian law prohibits any type of propaganda that glorifies symbols from the World War II period.

Not the point of the argument.

The argument is should having a contrary opinion be a crime?
Should expressing a view that others disagree with be punishable?