Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
How is Zundel a war criminal? He was born in 1939...it's not like the Nazis had four-year olds staffing the gas chambers at Auschwitz.
I know your comments were directed at Looger, but I'm also going to reply to this. I've mentioned several times in this thread already that I disagree with Zundel's Holocaust-denial claims in the strongest possible terms. I am absolutely not defending his position. I am defending his right to express that belief, however erroneous it is.
So long as their demonstration was without violence, he has the right to peaceful assembly.
Speech becomes incitement when violence or the threat of violence results directly because of one's words. Unless it can be demonstrably proven that the works Zundel published impaired the right of Jewish people to have safety and security of their persons, he's committed no crime. As Firefly pointed out earlier in this thread, nobody has yet to provide a link to a news story showing a direct connection between Zundel and crimes committed against Jews.
In the wake of 9/11, conservative commentator Ann Coulter said that America should invade Muslim nations, kill their leaders, and convert their populations to Christianity. That, to me, sounds much more like someone inciting violence against a particular race than an individual making the ridiculous claim that the Holocaust didn't happen. Yet most reasonable people simply laughed about how clueless Coulter was, and she wasn't charged with any "hate speech" crimes (namely because laws like that don't exist in the US, and rightfully so).
|
I guess it's the burden of proof.
The article does say he was making material, but you are right, it does not say he incited violence. (or incited anything)
When is material wrong? We have laws against other material AND esp the areas you distribute it. Material against groups, material against content, material against public viewing...
I dunno, we're all looking for an answer one way or the other. It's very grey though.
I've contended all along I could be wrong. And the funny thing is I usually cry for freedom of speech. I just think this went beyond the bounds, and so did a few other courts.
I might be completely wrong.
But without an example we don't know if there was incitement or hate.
I guess innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately he WAS proven guilty.
So where is that example?