Jail for not believing holocaust

STIR · Post by **STIR** » 21 Feb 2006, 09:42

An Austrian court sentenced British historian David Irving to three years in prison on Monday for denying the Holocaust during a 1989 stopover in Austria, dismissing his argument that he had changed his views.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Irving ... 30580.html

Guilty of the same narrow-mindedness that some Muslims showed over the cartoons IMO

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 21 Feb 2006, 09:54

David Irving is an idiot.
But he does not deserve to spend any time in jail for that....

...in the Alpine republic, where denying the Nazi genocide is a crime punishable by one to 10 years in prison.

What a load of balls. This is in fact more ludacris than the cartoons!

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 21 Feb 2006, 10:04

jamin_za wrote:What a load of balls. This is in fact more ludacris than the cartoons!

REVISIONIST!

clap that man in irons and off to the Gulag with him...

.. sad... just sad...

capanno · Post by **capanno** » 21 Feb 2006, 10:06

Yeah that is insane.

Were back to medieval times.

Macphisto · Post by **Macphisto** » 21 Feb 2006, 10:57

He is getting what he deserves.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 21 Feb 2006, 11:01

One day you will get what you deserve. And I will purchase the DVD.

lancelot · Post by **lancelot** » 21 Feb 2006, 11:20

Irvine should have been taken out years ago, let him spend the rest of his life as tour guide at Auswitz!

GreyWolf · Post by **GreyWolf** » 21 Feb 2006, 11:25

Speaking as a person whos mother's town was cleansed of all male inhabitants, and then tunred into a concentration camp, I would go with the 10 year sentence.

Macphisto · Post by **Macphisto** » 21 Feb 2006, 11:45

GreyWolf wrote:Speaking as a person whos mother's town was cleansed of all male inhabitants, and then tunred into a concentration camp, I would go with the 10 year sentence.

Speaking as a person whose grandfather's father died in Auschwitz I to would go for the 10 year sentence.

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 21 Feb 2006, 13:01

speaking as someone capable of rationalising what is *real* and what isn't...

free speech should be taken to mean that every once in a while, someone's opinion is not going to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. if that's the case you can elect, (as a fully functioning human animal), to engage said person in a forum whereby your two opposing world views can be put to the test and arbitration can be reached through a process deemed amicable by both parties...

OR

you can continue to wear the 50 year old blinkers applied by a bunch of reactionary politicos desperate to prove to the world that they aren't *all* bad-evil people, (ala the country that produced one of the most creatively evil creatures in history)..

that this type of law even exists is a joke... it is designed to save national face and has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue it is supposedly meant to manage... and the manner in which it has been used is even more so...

the man may be a deluded git with the intellect and emotional maturity of a squashed carrot, this is still no reason to incarcerate him... imagine what the world would be like if governments could *legally* lock you up for having the wrong type of ideas ... oh... wait.. that' s already happening isn't it...

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 21 Feb 2006, 13:04

You put it much better than I ever could, rusty!

Post by **Anakha56** » 21 Feb 2006, 13:12

im with rusty...

STIR · Post by **STIR** » 21 Feb 2006, 13:21

1G0R wrote:
GreyWolf wrote:Speaking as a person whos mother's town was cleansed of all male inhabitants, and then tunred into a concentration camp, I would go with the 10 year sentence.
Speaking as a person whose grandfather's father died in Auschwitz I to would go for the 10 year sentence.

Should people be jailed for disputing the accuracy of other historical records as well then? say doubting if Christians where really persecuted in ancient Rome?

Sojourn · Post by **Sojourn** » 21 Feb 2006, 13:24

lancelot wrote:Irvine should have been taken out years ago, let him spend the rest of his life as tour guide at Auswitz!

Agreed.
Rusty and gang, go research this before your liberally applied emotions get the better of you. ... oh... wait.. that' s already happening isn't it...

s

Post by **Anakha56** » 21 Feb 2006, 13:32

hmmm so i can now be imprisoned for saying the apartheid never happened? thats stupid, pitiful and absolutly sad

yes the holocaust happened and yes its a sore point in history but to get jailed for stating something that was incorrect? damn we better close every single school take every single child and put them in prison for challenging and thinking for themselves.

whats happened in the past is in the past, one cannot change it and to jail some1 for it is to be petty.

GreyWolf · Post by **GreyWolf** » 21 Feb 2006, 13:33

@rusty and jammin...
Its not about his freedom of free speach, its about a guy who is saying that something that happened and was horrible, didn't happen! He is in fact lying and/or delusional. A prison term is not enough for this freako... he needs to be put in a concentration camp himself.

Website · Post by **hamin_aus** » 21 Feb 2006, 13:38

Sojourn wrote: Rusty and gang, go research this before your liberally applied emotions get the better of you. ... oh... wait.. that' s already happening isn't it...

s

We are not the ones liberally applying emotions

Edit:
See Greywolf's last post. Very emotional, not at all rational.

@ Greywolf, I understand that the holocaust had a devastating effect on people, and still does to this day. I'm not trying to belittle what people went through.
But jailing someone for denying it took place is crazy.

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 21 Feb 2006, 13:42

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

meh...

I may not agree with a thing this particular person says/stands for/emotes/supports.. but this cannot detract from the point that he be awarded equal oppurtunity to voice said thoughts without fear of being imprisoned... in much the same way that he should be permitted to voice said POV/belief any one of his opposite number are permitted to publicise their own...

the issue in hand is that of should governments/legal institutions be permitted to censor what is inside *your* head... and take legal action based on those thoughts?!

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....

Sojourn · Post by **Sojourn** » 21 Feb 2006, 13:51

rustypup wrote:
Sojourn wrote:Rusty and gang, go research this before your liberally applied emotions get the better of you.
meh...

I may not agree with a thing this particular person says/stands for/emotes/supports.. but this cannot detract from the point that he be awarded equal oppurtunity to voice said thoughts without fear of being imprisoned... in much the same way that he should be permitted to voice said POV/belief any one of his opposite number are permitted to publicise their own...

the issue in hand is that of should governments/legal institutions be permitted to censor what is inside *your* head... and take legal action based on those thoughts?!

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....

You are simplifying the issue and in so make very valid points. Agreed on the simplified and very generalised version.

HOWEVER... this case is unique, not as simplified and as such carry its own merits. Based on those credentia, he deserves whats coming to him.

s

capanno · Post by **capanno** » 21 Feb 2006, 14:14

Rusty I agree with you. Emotions is running high. Think from a neutral POV, which I have, and then form an oppinion. Speaking in general, its dangerous to form an oppinion or make a decision in a situation that influences you emotionally.

STIR · Post by **STIR** » 21 Feb 2006, 14:33

Sojourn wrote:
rustypup wrote:
Sojourn wrote:Rusty and gang, go research this before your liberally applied emotions get the better of you.
meh...

I may not agree with a thing this particular person says/stands for/emotes/supports.. but this cannot detract from the point that he be awarded equal oppurtunity to voice said thoughts without fear of being imprisoned... in much the same way that he should be permitted to voice said POV/belief any one of his opposite number are permitted to publicise their own...

the issue in hand is that of should governments/legal institutions be permitted to censor what is inside *your* head... and take legal action based on those thoughts?!

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....
You are simplifying the issue and in so make very valid points. Agreed on the simplified and very generalised version.

HOWEVER... this case is unique, not as simplified and as such carry its own merits. Based on those credentia, he deserves whats coming to him.

s

Unique in what way? Granted, the guy is an attention seeking, arrogant a$$hole with no regard for peoples feelings, but being unpopular cannot be regarded as a reason to judge a person more harshly. Nor should it be reason enough to selectively apply an outdated law that’s only reason for remaining in existence to try and convince people that Austrians are not really such bad guys after all.

GreyWolf · Post by **GreyWolf** » 21 Feb 2006, 15:21

jammin... ofcourse I am emotional about this, but again I say: its not about freedom of speach or thought or policing it.

its about a guy who is trying to deny the truth. why is it so hard to understand that?

alternate history? what are you talking about rusty? these are the facts: millions of people died at the hands of the nazzi regime. There is no "alternate", there is no other "version".

lancelot · Post by **lancelot** » 21 Feb 2006, 15:23

There is a salient point here that seems to be missed by everyone, it is against Austrian law to deny any proven deed that was committed by the Nazi regime. He knew that and went to Austria anyway. Stuff freedom of speech or whatever, he broke the Austrian law and was arrested. The sentence was pronounced in a Court of Law. Now many are bitching that it is a stupid law, that it threatens freedom of speech, it is archaic, it is just plain stupid and whatever. Let him rather draw a few anti islamic cartoons.

David's web page:
david

Sorry about the edit!

rustypup · Post by **rustypup** » 21 Feb 2006, 16:12

GreyWolf wrote:alternate history? what are you talking about rusty? these are the facts

history is not cut and dried... there is a great deal of creative interpretation that goes on prior to it becoming "historical fact"...

it is open to continuous revision, as and when more "facts" or inaccuracies surface... propaganda is an insidious and terrible disease... historians are passionate people and cannot help but apply their own personal lien when recording what they see... take in case the history of the light brigade... but for a couple of bruised egos ,a ravening field commander and bad communication the whole incident would never have happened... and yet we have good old Tennyson commiting perhaps one of the most breathtaking acts of propaganda ever committed... for a large part of the nineteenth century the "historical fact" was that the brigade chose to sacrafice themselves to a higher cause... only once the eyewitness accounts were exposed and verified was the "historical fact" of the event re-looked and revised to reflect the truth, (the slaughter of the light brigade was anything but "heroic"...)...

@lancelot... I would happily sit and watch diseased rats gnaw on the still-living kidneys of this git... but that does not change the fact that the law itself was put in place to "balance" Austria's international image... as such the law is flawed .. it requires that a judge and jury rule on the accuracy & validity of the thoughts and beliefs of an individual... and dispense justice based on that judgement...

no more travel abroad for me until i learn to curb my terrible habit of thinking for myself... imagine what would happen if i were to make disparaging comments about mozart!

<draws outline of a cartoon with mozart bopping to SOAD..>

lancelot · Post by **lancelot** » 21 Feb 2006, 17:13

Sure but...........