On Holocaust denial...

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I just stumbled about the fact Holocaust denial is not illegal in GB, and David Irving was never convicted for his claims.

Holocaust denial is a per se criminal offence in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and jail sentences.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial )
As you can see, GB and the US are not in this list. A scandal...when will they ever learn from history???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

 

[DexterJ]

I dont see how the topic title links to the content.

With regards to the Irving libel trial (which Irving lost)

The judge ruled that:
The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that 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. In my judgment the charges against Irving which have been proved to be true are of sufficient gravity for it be clear that the failure to prove the truth of the matters set out in paragraph 13.165 above does not have any material effect on Irving’s reputation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/

 

[Longasc]

Cute, you did you not see the missing connection between content and topic in a similar article.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I dont see how the topic title links to the content.

Nor do I. And I don't wish to discuss the topic as well; I know Irving isn't respected, and I know about that trial.

But, it is not illegal for him to claim the Holocaust and the Gas Chambers never existed. As much as it is not illegal to claim Dresden bombing was a Holocaust...

This thread is just a spin-off from the Dresden one, and can be closed once the other one is removed as well.

 

[wit>trope]

@Longasc and Doc,

You must not have read my post yet in the other thread where I point out that thread starter was simply quoting the headline of the article he posted. Just go to the link and you'll see:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/12/wdres12.xml

"German ruling says Dresden was a holocaust
By Hannah Cleaver in Berlin
(Filed: 12/04/2005)"

So don't blame him, blame Hannah Cleaver

 

[DexterJ]

yeah i saw that too.
Is it necessary to make denying historical 'facts' illegal? I don't think so. I could start denying the existance of King Henry the VIII, sure I'd have to start making up history to justify this but there is no need to ban me from saying it. Any credible historical enquiry shows that holocaust deniers are talking rubbish, I think it is better to show that it is incorrect rather than ban it. I realise the situation is different in Germany but I certainly dont think holocaust denial should be banned in Britain.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

cierdan: But, if I use a quote without quotation marks, or a notification that it resembles a quote...it's me who is to blame.

DexterJ: No, not necessarily. IMHO it is better to allow some idiots to express their opinion openly.
But, you see what happens if we in Germany allow freedom of speech - especially the British press will make the whole country responsible for such claims, and pretends we'd agree.

 

[DexterJ]

Urgh the British press certainly freedom of speech shouldnt be extended to most of that.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Moderator Action: Thread title changed; anyone who wants to try anymore funny stuff better be ready for the consequences.