Holocaust denier jailed in Germany

[Looger]

the links don't seem to work, for anyone interested go to the thomas.loc.gov site and type in "hr 254" or "david's law", normal google will find the library of congress searches for you as well - they don't seem to work from my post.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Looger

this isn't some 'conspiracy' Daradon, it's the same old crap that's ALWAYS going on, that is power using an excuse to wedge in more power.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.254.IH:

EDIT: link sorta works:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00254:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.254:
before the house very soon, this bill, down in the excited states.

very serious implications here, worldwide.

interesting to note that zundel is an american citizen, and was jailed in canada and held without charge in germany for YEARS.

this is the same crap that went on in nazi germany, soviet russia, you name it - and it has absolutely nothing to do with neo-nazis and holocaust denial, a term which is sure tossed around a lot these days...

Hmmm they same thing they do to our citizens...

Not saying it's right, just saying your jumping off the deep end again.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by worth

I agree with most in this thread. The point is not that he denies the holocaust, the point is why should this be a crime. I'm sure the issue is touchy in Germany, but I don't understand how a person can be jailed for basically disagreeing with the norm. If everyone thinks hes crazy, let him preach on. No ones going to listen to him. I bet if you left it alone, no one here would have ever head of him. It is rediculious.

there's a few things at work here, one of which is the effort to ENTICE hate crimes, to make zundel some kind of hero - which he has become - to the skinhead types.

without hate crimes, without this huge 'problem', then no solutions to 'all this hatred' can be offered.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by worth

I bet if you left it alone, no one here would have ever head of him. It is rediculious.

I just googled to double check, but like Cow said at the start, Ernest Zundel lived in Canada for a fair long time. And there was controversy around him then. So h'e been around for a fair bit, for lack of better words...

[Cowperson]

A fair detailing of Zundel's history and the reasons for his problems in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel

Cowperson

[eazyduzzit]

I agree with Looger, surprisingly enough.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

A fair detailing of Zundel's history and the reasons for his problems in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel

Cowperson

Thank you Cow

He's not just a denier, he's not just using free speech. He's a publisher of hate crimes.

I get what your saying Loogs, but I don't buy it here. This is not someone tied to a tree or complaining about oil drilling or even shouting about 9/11 2001. This is a purposeful hate crime antiactivist.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Thank you Cow

He's not just a denier, he's not just using free speech. He's a publisher of hate crimes.

I get what your saying Loogs, but I don't buy it here. This is not someone tied to a tree or complaining about oil drilling or even shouting about 9/11 2001. This is a purposeful hate crime antiactivist.

I am all for free speech, but....at the same time (I know this is a wikipedia source, so I take it with caution) but....man. I think that's a little bit more than "free speech" especially when given the context, his history, etc.

[FlamesAddiction]

Assuming it is a free speech issue, should free speech be without limits?

I think it is like everything else in life. Moderation is the key. Too much of a good thing is not always a good thing. It's not inconceivable to think of times and places where free speech can cause more harm than good.

The trick is to find the line where you allow freedom of speech to the point where it enhances the citizens lives, but not to the point where the overall society is harmed.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Looger

there's a few things at work here, one of which is the effort to ENTICE hate crimes, to make zundel some kind of hero - which he has become - to the skinhead types.

without hate crimes, without this huge 'problem', then no solutions to 'all this hatred' can be offered.

I see what your saying that this kinda of action against zundel gets the skinhead type more excited and such. But at the same token would he get more attention and more followers if he was freely allowed to express his views? Or would he just be seen as a crack pot?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Assuming it is a free speech issue, should free speech be without limits?

I think it is like everything else in life. Moderation is the key. Too much of a good thing is not always a good thing. It's not inconceivable to think of times and places where free speech can cause more harm than good.

The trick is to find the line where you allow freedom of speech to the point where it enhances the citizens lives, but not to the point where the overall society is harmed.

Hey hey hey, no sucking up to the MODERATOR now...

I agree. Freedom is only your freedom until it crosses someone elses. Normal activism is a duty, and one could say those exercising it, are only crossing freedom because theirs has been crossed already. But in this circumstance, he's clearly pushing the bounds of freedom of speech where it's harmful for no purpose.

[Cowperson]

It should be noted in this thread that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unconstitutional the charge of "spreading false news" of which Zundel had been convicted by an Ontario court.

He eventually ended up in Germany after agreeing not to fight a deportation order.

Another fact based link on the law under which he was convicted and sentenced in Germany. I'm wary of Wikipedia as well but there's nothing politicized with this description:

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

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

Cowperson

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

It should be noted in this thread that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unconstitutional the charge of "spreading false news" of which Zundel had been convicted by an Ontario court.

He eventually ended up in Germany after agreeing not to fight a deportation order.

Another fact based link on the law under which he was convicted and sentenced in Germany. I'm wary of Wikipedia as well but there's nothing politicized with this description:

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

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

Cowperson

I love how you come in to push the debate one way, then come in again when it's swinging to push it another.

But I agree. It's up to personal opinion. What do you believe is reasonable and justified?

Maybe he shouldn't have been put in for 5 years (he'll probably do 2 and a bit) but on the other hand, I do think he's guilty of hate crimes.

I don't think this is a freedom of speech debate. If it is, there are a lot more debates/cases we should be opening up first.

[MarchHare]

He's not just a denier, he's not just using free speech. He's a publisher of hate crimes.

Is he? He's a publisher of ridiculous tripe, for sure, but after having read the entirety of the wiki article, I fail to see how the books he published ("Did Six Million Really Die?") are a crime. Anyone is free to publish a book stating that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, yet somehow it's a crime to publish an equally absurd book claiming the Holocaust didn't occur?

Zundel was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Canada in his original 1988 trial, with the verdict claiming that he had a right guaranteed by the Charter to publish whatever nonsense he wanted.

The way I see it is this:

If members of the KKK lynch a black man, they deserve to be thrown in prison.

If members of the KKK attend a rally, speak of the "inferior negro race", publish books about white supremecy, but don't actually physically harm anyone, they've committed no crime in my view. They're free to say and publish whatever nonsense they want, and the rest of us are free to scoff at them for being a bunch of ignorant racist pigs.

And so it is with neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. They're free to write and speak about whatever craziness they want; they haven't broken any just law until a Jewish person is physically harmed as a direct result of their actions.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I see what your saying that this kinda of action against zundel gets the skinhead type more excited and such. But at the same token would he get more attention and more followers if he was freely allowed to express his views? Or would he just be seen as a crack pot?

wow.

the ADL, b'nai bri'ith, et al make example out of guys like zundel, and do nothing but reinforce the oversimplified 'jews run everything' argument in the minds of the easily swayed.

this is theater, this is manipulation, this is setting the stage for some ugly ugly stuff.

the ADL in the states has already tried to equate use of the terms 'neo-con' or questioning the official story on 9/11 with anti-semitism, and questioning JUST THE NUMBER of jews killed in the holocaust with holocaust denial.

if the ADL etc. really wanted to lessen hate crimes and hate in general they would not make heroes out of crackpots, they would not stir the pot.

i better qualify this because so many on this site are complete brainwipes - i am not saying that the anti-defamation league is responsible for all hate, but i find it pretty orwellian that all they do is defame.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

And so it is with neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. They're free to write and speak about whatever craziness they want; they haven't broken any just law until a Jewish person is physically harmed as a direct result of their actions.

For the sake of discussion, just throwing this out there:

What is actually harm, though?

You have classified it as basically physically doing something (lynching someone, for e.g.).

Is it harm, if you as a memeber of one of the identified groups, are hearing "you are an inferior race" or "the holocaust never occurred because it is a conspiracy by jewish people" or whatever actually is said...?

Its a fine line, yes, but there is more than phyiscal overt harm.

(not saying that you don't know this etc, just more so to keep what I think is a good discussion going)

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Is he? He's a publisher of ridiculous tripe, for sure, but after having read the entirety of the wiki article, I fail to see how the books he published ("Did Six Million Really Die?") are a crime. Anyone is free to publish a book stating that the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, yet somehow it's a crime to publish an equally absurd book claiming the Holocaust didn't occur?

Zundel was acquitted by the Supreme Court of Canada in his original 1988 trial, with the verdict claiming that he had a right guaranteed by the Charter to publish whatever nonsense he wanted.

The way I see it is this:

If members of the KKK lynch a black man, they deserve to be thrown in prison.

If members of the KKK attend a rally, speak of the "inferior negro race", publish books about white supremecy, but don't actually physically harm anyone, they've committed no crime in my view. They're free to say and publish whatever nonsense they want, and the rest of us are free to scoff at them for being a bunch of ignorant racist pigs.

And so it is with neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. They're free to write and speak about whatever craziness they want; they haven't broken any just law until a Jewish person is physically harmed as a direct result of their actions.

Small step to a blueshirt parade on Portage and Main.

Where do you want to draw the line?

There's probably no easy answer, and I usually rail for freedom of speech.

But I believe this to be a hate crime. Just my opinion.

[worth]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If members of the KKK attend a rally, speak of the "inferior negro race", publish books about white supremecy, but don't actually physically harm anyone, they've committed no crime in my view. They're free to say and publish whatever nonsense they want, and the rest of us are free to scoff at them for being a bunch of ignorant racist pigs.

Dead on.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by worth

Dead on.

Again, what if you are one of the groups/individuals that has this nonsense published about?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by worth

Dead on.

'but don't harm anyone'

ok so when does harm begin? And I realize the easy anser is to ask that of me. But if you look above, I already drew my line.

What's your solution? Honestly, without judgement. Just wanna know. May argue it, but you're entitled to it.