<p>I'm a hypocrite in the Emersonian sense, but I don't apply my rules capriciously to one regime and then not to another.</p>
<p>I believe that freedom of speech, with very few pertinent exceptions (clear and present danger), is the most important right. No matter how much you dislike what people are saying.</p>
<p>the word "similar" was used not because i thought he should be tried based on canadian laws, obviously. it was used because although i am unfamiliar with austrian laws, i assume that there WERE similar laws because why else would he be convicted? it was obviously because he was convicted of a crime likely SIMILAR to our anti-hate laws.</p>
<p>and denying the holocause in the manner that mr. irving did was inciting hate against the jewish people-therefore, it WAS anti-semitism. </p>
<p>i don't think that any of you are at all familiar with anti-hate laws. you are guilty of breaking this law if you incite hate against a group of people, in a setting that is NOT simply among your own friends and acquaintances, but rather, in a setting in which you are spreading these feelings to a larger group, which mr. irving, as a "respectable" historian, was doing. since he was considered to be an expert on WWII, prior to this scandal and to some, still is, he was guilty of spreading these feelings since people who accepted his authority on WWII might be influenced to believe him. </p>
<p>the deal here is that he is entitled to his beliefs-until he starts spreading hateful and largely unproven beliefs to impressionable people.</p>
<p>It's still incredibly silly from a civil rights standpoint. Civil rights should extend even to those we disagree with and dislike.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the word "similar" was used not because i thought he should be tried based on canadian laws, obviously. it was used because although i am unfamiliar with austrian laws, i assume that there WERE similar laws because why else would he be convicted? it was obviously because he was convicted of a crime likely SIMILAR to our anti-hate laws.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That makes no sense, what are you on about?
'Similar' was in regard to Denmark and Austria, not whatever you're carrying on about.</p>
<p>How is it inciting hatred against Jews, BTW? Seems like awfully tenuous logic to me.</p>
<p>
<p>the deal here is that he is entitled to his beliefs-until he starts spreading hateful and largely unproven beliefs to impressionable people.
</p>
<p>Your arguments are quite unfounded katiebee as you mix your own emotions with them and thus lose credibility. Denying the Holocaust may be a sign of ignorance but it is definitely not an indicator of anti-semitism as Mr. Irving clearly apologized for his earlier statements in 1989, where he outrightly denied that the Holocaust, and has now changed his views to that the Holocaust is still somewhat "exaggerated" to some extent. You can't impose your beliefs on someone else katie and Irving has every right to have his own opinion. He is not inciting hatred against Jews at all because there is no indication that he is even prejudiced to Jewish people, and in addition, he acknowledged that milllions of Jews perished in the Holocaust if my recollection of the article is correct. In all of his books, he most definitely included the suffering of all Jews during WWII.</p>
<p>This whole episode shows just how insecure and hypocritical many Jewish nations in Europe with regards to their attitude to an event like the Holocaust. It's almost like they expect Hitler to reemerge or something because they just don't seem to be able to move forward from their past hardships. What kind of message are Jews sending to Islamic nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia, who actively practice censorship of any publications contrary to the government's views, if they are still overskeptical and angry over the Holocaust and refuse to let bygones be bygones?</p>
<p>just imagine what americans would say if a reputable historian on terrorism repeatedly and publicly denied the events of September 11th. i can't even fathom the outcry that would occur...it's extremely similar, except that the holocaust caused more death and destruction and was focussed on a more narrow group-corporate americans rather than jews.</p>
<p>now, i am not demeaning 9/11, i'm merely drawing a comparison and stating that thoughts of free speech would largely fly out the window for many, not all, people who are defending mr. irving now.</p>
<p>9/11 was focused on corporate Americans? Since when?</p>
<p>
[quote]
just imagine what americans would say if a reputable historian on terrorism repeatedly and publicly denied the events of September 11th.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He'd be lambasted, ostracized, and publicly humiliated.</p>
<p>I don't think he'd be jailed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Jewish nations in Europe
[/quote]
</p>
<p>EAD,</p>
<p>Last time I checked, there weren't any Jewish nations in Europe. There are nations with Jews in them, but there's only one "Jewish" nation in the world.</p>
<p>Well someone's credibility has been shot...</p>
<p>"Your arguments are quite unfounded katiebee as you mix your own emotions with them and thus lose credibility. "</p>
<p>contrarily, i believe that i am the only one on this board who has any comprehension of on what legal grounds that these charges were laid. others repeatedly tout free speech, which is not necessarily as prevalent a right in Austria as it may be in the United States. the reason why i believe Mr. Irving to be rightfully imprisoned is because his past behaviour has proven him to be guilty of violating anti-hate laws, laws that no one else here seems to have even heard of.</p>
<p>katiebee,</p>
<p>
[quote]
contrarily, i believe that i am the only one on this board who has any comprehension of on what legal grounds that these charges were laid.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Awww, you're so smart! You want a cookie?</p>
<p>
[quote]
others repeatedly tout free speech, which is not necessarily as prevalent a right in Austria as it may be in the United States. the reason why i believe Mr. Irving to be rightfully imprisoned is because his past behaviour has proven him to be guilty of violating anti-hate laws, laws that no one else here seems to have even heard of.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm well-aware of why Irving was charged. I just thing the charge is silly and unfounded. How does not agreeing with the mainstream historical interpretation equate to hate?</p>
<p>"This whole episode shows just how insecure and hypocritical many Jewish nations in Europe with regards to their attitude to an event like the Holocaust. It's almost like they expect Hitler to reemerge or something because they just don't seem to be able to move forward from their past hardships. What kind of message are Jews sending to Islamic nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia, who actively practice censorship of any publications contrary to the government's views, if they are still overskeptical and angry over the Holocaust and refuse to let bygones be bygones?"</p>
<p>Wow, another poster struck by "Jews control everything" syndrome. Austria is 0.125% Jewish.</p>
<p>
[quote]
contrarily, i believe that i am the only one on this board who has any comprehension of on what legal grounds that these charges were laid.
[/quote]
You're also being rather foolish. The question isn't the legality of it, but of the "fairness", were the charges just.</p>
<p>wow, you seriously got me there with the cookie comment. not only is that blindingly original, but you really kept up that semblance of intelligent discussion we had going on! </p>
<p>you may think the charge to be silly and unfounded, but from a legal standpoint, i believe the opposite is true. we'll have to agree to disagree, since it doesn't look like either of us is going to change our minds.</p>
<p>"How does not agreeing with the mainstream historical interpretation equate to hate?"</p>
<p>What if people in prominent positions began to say that blacks were never slaves, or that the Europeans never landraped the Indians? Think of the consequences.</p>
<p>It's one thing to disagree why Napoleon didn't leave Russia sooner, but it's another thing to claim that a genocide that defined an entire people, an entire era, never happened (or, "temper" your views and call it greatly exaggerated). The scary thing is that at one point, Irving was a respected historian whose works were widely-read (and this is the difference between him and people who deny the moon landing). What if David Duke started writing carefully-worded college coursebooks? In these types of cases, I support censorship.</p>
<p>
[quote]
wow, you seriously got me there with the cookie comment. not only is that blindingly original, but you really kept up that semblance of intelligent discussion we had going on!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then don't claim to be some saving grace amongst the peons. Most of us are well-aware of why he was charged. We just think it's a poor decision.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you may think the charge to be silly and unfounded, but from a legal standpoint, i believe the opposite is true.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are bad laws, you know.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we'll have to agree to disagree, since it doesn't look like either of us is going to change our minds.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hate people who pull this, because it's a cop out. It's basically saying, "I don't have enough faith in my own argument to keep it going, so I'll just leave and try to act "above it all."</p>
<p>No, I don't think he belongs in jail. He has the right to say what he feels.</p>
<p>I keep thinking of Voltaire's quotation, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it."</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hate people who pull this, because it's a cop out. It's basically saying, "I don't have enough faith in my own argument to keep it going, so I'll just leave and try to act "above it all."
[/quote]
Or it could just be they have something better to do. Not everyone has the time and patience to argue all night on the internet.</p>
<p>i'm obviously aware of "bad" laws as you so eloquently put it. in my opinion, anti-hate laws do not fall in that category. </p>
<p>and my statement was hardly a cop-out...more like we both seem to be extremely stubborn, and because i'm about to go to bed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What if people in prominent positions began to say that blacks were never slaves, or that the Europeans never landraped the Indians? Think of the consequences.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>People would quickly disprove their claims and move on, as has happened with Irving. </p>
<p>I guess I just believe too strongly in the Millian perspective of, "How do I know I'm right if I never test my beliefs?"</p>