Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Holocaust Denying
This seems to cropping up rather a lot at the moment, what with David Irving being arrested in Austria and now the Iranian president denouncing it as a myth, saying that
"They have created a myth today that they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a principle above God, religions and the prophets".
Just how on earth can holocaust deniers even attempt to justify what they are saying, and is it only Germany and Austria that have laws regarding this?
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Supernick. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
For me its like saying the earth is flat. You know its not, I know its not but there are still people out there who would have u believe it is. So there are people who would have you believe 6 million Jews never died. Its not just the Jews who died either. Gypsies, mentally impaired, Russians, the list goes on.
My husband knew an ex SS officer while he was in Germany working and he was there. he said it happened. we have no end of evidence to say it did, but there you go. I think the Iranians have got a bug in their shorts over Isreal. Paticularly the president and its anything to attract attention. This is not going to go well for Iran.
It's just another form of conspiracy theory. They can believe what they like doesn't make it true. Doesn't matter what the evidence is you can always find someone who will deny it. Just ignore the idiots, treat them the same as all the other conspiracy theorists, moon hoax, titanic, 2 towers, they're all idiots who have got one story into their head and will ignore all the evidence. Just deny them the oxygen of publicity.
Going only on the Arab point of view, (although I believe the Iranians say they are not Arabs), and i'm not being racist when I say this. They will believe, more than most, what they are told by their leaders, eg, after the six day war, the Egyptions held a victory parade, and the populace in general, actually believed that they had won, so, for the Iranian leader to keep saying things like this is very worrying, it appears he's trying to goad the Israeli's into some sort of action, then the Arab world will feel they they will be justified in taking an action to try to wipe Israel off the face of the world.
To follow up on your post, chessman, a few months ago the US Military sold the Israeli government a number of BLU-109 bombs, commonly referred to as �Bunker-busters�. They are designed to drill deep underground and through concrete before detonation, hence the name. It raised very little comment in the UK press, however, bearing in mind the current US � Iranian stand-off over Iran�s policy to pursue and develop nuclear weapons, it was felt that the US was encouraging Israel to launch a pre-emptive strike to prevent the facilities becoming operational (acting as proxy for the US). Particularly since, should Iran develop, use or sell nuclear weapons in the Middle East the most likely threat of use would be against Israeli assets.
Iran upping the ante with these anti-Semitic comments could prove to be a dangerous (if not explosive) game.
Iran upping the ante with these anti-Semitic comments could prove to be a dangerous (if not explosive) game.
Its beneath contempt of course, but its all down to centuries of built in anti semitism, the deniers know full well it happened, and putting it in its crudest way don't give a ****, but instead of being honest about their feelings, they hide behind the absurd extreme right wing conspiracy nonsense.by racist nazis like irving. its their way of trying to make their putred views sound more politically acceptable [that it never happened]..you'll be surprised how many people are out there with the same evil and sick views. thankfully they are well in the minority.
I certainly would not criticise anyone who genuinely believes in any given point of view.
Those who express a point of view which does not match their true beliefs (for political gain) are of course a different matter.
The question this thread hangs on is: Is freedom of speech and expression more or less dangerous than the suppression of speech and expression.
My position will always be that within a democratic framework, there is never any need for such suppression.
If a fraudulent standpoint is put across, there will always be evidence which proves such a position is fraudulent, negating the need for limits to be put on personal freedoms.
I would be interested to hear people's opinions on those nations who DO treat holocaust denial as an offence.
Why do they feel the need to do this? How far can such laws be taken? Could they go down the road of banning political parties for not fitting in with the accepted agenda?
Or is this simply another (less obvious) facet of democracy in action?
I believe that the countries that treat holocaust denial as an offence are completely right to do so, yes everyone is entitled to their opinion, but denying that such a terrible masacre happened is not an opinion, its complete disregard for the facts.
I think that countries have such laws so that the memory of the people that were killed cannot be forgotten or belittled, and hopefully so it cannot happen again.
Jeremy Clarkson made a Hitler salute on his show the other night which has sparked outrage and so it should. If it had been in Austria or Germany he would have had 6 months in jail for it.
It all sounds very laudable to proclaim that within a democracy the indiviual has the right to free speech, and can therefore say whatever they like. Within a democracy however, along with rights, individuals also have responsibilities to the rest of society.
Those people who are holocaust deniers are peddling their own version of history, completely disregarding the overwhelming evidence. They are doing this usually to further their own particular agenda,and in my view should be punished for it.
After all, we now have laws on the statutes which can be used against people making inflammatory comments designed to stoke up race hatred.Given the current tensions, I am sure most people think this is a good idea.
best to ignore them! the media should not give these types - including terrorists - as much attention as they do. it only serves to propogate their evil and ignorant messages. and this sort of stuff should definitely be illegal everywhere. the iranian prez is obviously just using it for his own twisted political agenda - i doubt he truly believes it himself.
Hang on a sec - Jezza Clarkson would face 6 months in prison? I am assuming it was on Top Gear - a satirical look at motoring.
So, should Mel Brooks be treated in the same way for Springtime?
How about John Cleese?
Whilst people should never forget, a prison sentance for a mockery is just outrageous
With regard to Jeremy Clarkson, the man took the mick out of a german car, big deal. Nothing he said was seriously disrespectful or intended to cause anyone pain and anyone who took offence clearly misunderstood his motives. With regard to Holocaust denial, whilst clearly the Holocaust took place and there can be no doubt about that, it is fundamentally wrong to deny people their opinion, however odious that might be.I am a Catholic from Belfast whose wife is Jewish so we know all about people's odious opinions first hand.My wife lost members of her family in Theresienstadt and she will agree that only freedom of speech keeps anyone safe and needs to be cherished at all costs.It's what makes our society different from the perpetrators of the Holocaust.Interestingly no-one ever sems to pull up the US Govt on the fact that they strongly dispute another holocaust, that of the Native American Indians.According to them the systematic removal from their lands and subsequent starvation and murder was merely an "unfortunate historic event".
rjkh - I agree 100%. Free speech should never be suppressed because the words themselves only have as much weight as they are given by that society. I believe that introducing such laws indicate that there is a latent problem in certain aspects of that society, but legally banning talking about it merely masks the problem without resolving it.
1 to 16 of 16
