German Court Fines Bishop Williamson 12,000 Euros for Denying Holocaust

reply to post by octotom


My bad, wrong country.

I also was not implying that Cologne was safe from air raids, rather, the safest place to hide during such air raids in Cologne were the factories listed in my latter post.

reply to post by InSpiteOf

My bad, wrong country.

No worries. I was quite surprised to when I learned that such a "French" sounding city was in Germany, too.

I also was not implying that Cologne was safe from air raids, rather, the safest place to hide during such air raids in Cologne were the factories listed in my latter post.

Okay, I understand. I must've just missed that when I read your post the first time.

Denying a god or prophet is totally different from denying a genocide, frankly the holocaust[these are facts not about an imaginary 'god'].Most countries in Europe had records [specially here in Holland ] about the number of people being deported with the trains, most of them didnt returned, shot in the back of the head or more efficiently the gaschamber. Besides i dont have to tell you how horrible that is, you should know how sensitive this is in Germany, why should you want to deny the holocaust, just why? Its insulting to the survivers and the relatives of the dead..I think if people in my country deny the genocide of Srebrenica i think they should get a fine too, there is just no reason for discussion, these are facts and are related to respect for the dead..

reply to post by Foppezao


I disagree. Open and honest discussion can only strengthen the truth, not diminish it. If people wish to voice their opinion on the validity of a topic, regardless of emotional appeal, they should have that right.

The only thing locking up or fining dissenters does is make it seem like there is something to hide, giving more strength to some of the more racist theories.

As many of us are aware, unbiased history is something of an oxymoron. Only through critical examination of the issue can we arrive at something that resembles the truth.

Originally posted by DataWraith

Your NOT ALLOWED to say anything against the JEWS PERIOD.

That doesn't seem to have stopped you.

Your ignorance is breathtaking. The holocaust denier laws have nothing to do with being pro-Jew, you can say what you like about the Jews, what you can't say is that the MURDER of the 6 million PEOPLE (Note - not just Jews - mental invalids, Romanian gypsies, Russian POWs etc etc etc) in the nazi holocaust can't be denied, because it is the single biggest nail that keeps the coffin lid on the resurgence of naziism in Europe.

But you can just go on saying it's all another part of the great Jewish conspiracy, and completely fail to see the bigger picture.

I blame the schools.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Retseh]

Originally posted by Retseh
because it is the single biggest nail that keeps the coffin lid on the resurgence of naziism in Europe.

Nonsense.

The only thing keeping a fascist resurgence down is social and democratic gains won by the citizenry. Give it time, when industrial profits are in recession and the government no longer serves the needs of big business, in will come the social roll backs.

The laws in Germany are reactionary.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Nonsense.

The only thing keeping a fascist resurgence down is social and democratic gains won by the citizenry. Give it time, when industrial profits are in recession and the government no longer serves the needs of big business, in will come the social roll backs.

The laws in Germany are reactionary.

So how come the UK and Austria have both seen major moves to the extreme right, while Germany, the home of Naziism has not.

The laws in Germany aren't reactionary, they are visionary.

I strongly disagree that people who question past events should be fined or jailed. This is very dangerous to the concept of freedom of speech and reflects badly not only on those being accused, but also on the victims of the event. You cannot openly allow the questioning and examination of one event and then deny the same for another. Either history is allowed to be revisited and examined or it is not. In a society upholding freedom of speech, this idea of not revisiting the past is ludicrous.

Unfortunately, this is not a clear-cut issue. You have many different groups of people with different motivations. I believe they include the following:

1) People with relatives that suffered and died in the Holocaust who are very sensitive when people question the numbers as they see this as trying to make the event seem trivial, which is understandably insulting and hurtful.
2) People that have researched the events and believe that numbers are relatively accurate and thus condemn re-analysing the event.
3) People that have researched the events and believe that the numbers are exaggerated and feel for the sake of truth, the event should be re-analysed.
4) People that have a strong hatred for the State of Israel, and try to highlight the connection between the aftermath of this event with the current day nation.
5) Jewish people, without relatives who suffered during the event, who have been conditioned to take great offence whenever the Holocaust is questioned.
6) A small faction of extremist Jewish people who use the events of the Holocaust to maintain the moral high ground when committing unjust acts against gentiles.
7) People that hate Jews for being Jews. They see the act of re-examining this event as an effective tool for angering and upsetting Jews. Thus, they strive when any details about the event are questioned and brought into the mainstream.
8) A faction of Pro-Palestine supporters that gain support for their cause by making Israel seem like an illegitimate nation that should never have existed.

Doesn't cover everyone, but those different groups do indicate why the issue is sensitive and why people are reluctant to comment on it.

Adding further to the problem is a lack of education towards youth of today:
- Jewish schools annually acknowledge the events of the Holocaust, but do not educate their students to the fact that many non-Jewish people also died during the event. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed
- Some Islamic schools that teach their pupils that the Holocaust was a myth concocted by "Jews" to steal "Muslim lands"
- People that allow their children to joke about and trivialise details about the event without knowing adequately the explicit details of the event
- People that state as fact that certain things did not happen, yet have never set foot on physical locations that would contradict their views

Who would have thought that the remedy to most of these problems would be better education in all sides?

reply to post by Retseh


Your definition of extreme right must be missing a key point or two. The suppression of free exchange of information, regardless of how misguided we may judge it to be, is paramount to an open and free democratic society.

There are a number of reasons why there has not been an outward mobilization of fascism in Europe. I say outward because quite frankly, the reactionary class answers fascism offered still exist: Upwards redistribution of wealth and property (the privatization of perfectly solvent businesses), government support of industry (tax exemptions, pork barrel military projects), private industry feeding at the public trough (bailouts anyone?). The list goes on.

You don't see jackbooted thugs marching down the streets because of the current and relevant conditions of labour versus capital. With strong unions and political mobilization, the citizenry attempts to control more of the government than industry.

In nations such as the US and UK, industry is taking over government office through lobbyists, corporate sponsorship of political candidates, and coercion. A move to the right is a move for big business; a move for autocracy and ultimately the reactionary regime of Fascism.

Germany's laws are not visionary; they are not born out of some higher moral purpose. They are a reaction to corporate media propaganda.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by Picao84
Why is anyone charged by denying the holocaust? Its just expressing an opinion.. I dont see anyone being charged because he dont believes we really went to the moon.

Why is denying the holocaust related right away with anti-semitism? He just doesnt believe an historical fact that he did not observe. Same could be said about many many things in history that are contested.

In Germany, denying those actions publicly is actually a crime. If he had said it in Britain or most anywhere else, there just would have been a lot of noise.

On your question, I must ask how you could not have almost immediately thought the guy is an anti-semite? If you were to deny the Trail of Tears you would get a similar reaction from most American Indians and their friends. Or someone who has been assaulted or raped if you said you did not believe it happened. Those events are touchy subjects. Rejecting the events is easily equated with rejecting the person(s). For many, they are the same thing.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
reply to post by Foppezao

 

I disagree. Open and honest discussion can only strengthen the truth, not diminish it. If people wish to voice their opinion on the validity of a topic, regardless of emotional appeal, they should have that right.

The only thing locking up or fining dissenters does is make it seem like there is something to hide, giving more strength to some of the more racist theories.

As many of us are aware, unbiased history is something of an oxymoron. Only through critical examination of the issue can we arrive at something that resembles the truth.

I agree we should have debates about past events, especially terrible events such as world wars, and how to prevent them and learn from the rise of totalitarian states..But denying the holocaust is dangerous, if more people do this history rewrites itself and future generations might have a very dangerous look on these things, about Jews and Nazi's. If history has so many sources about the holocaust there's no reason to deny it, but we might question how we keep records and data about people. In Holland local counties had too many data about people and their religion, thats why many jews got deported from here, its an interesting link with all the security/privacy debates going on now concerning the big brother thing. But if somebody denies the holocaust in front of me i would smack him or her in the face, hells yeah...

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Picao84

 

The thing that I think is funny is that he didn't even deny the holocaust in Germany; but in Sweden. If Germany is going to start doing this, which is wrong anyway, are they going start handing out fines to all the people in the rest of the world that deny the holocaust?

He gave the interview in Germany, that's why the German court had the authority to fine him:



What Germany is trying to accomplish with the law against denying the holocaust is to suppress another rising of the Nazi party and the continued persecution of the Jews, gypsies, gays, political dissenters, etc. It wouldn't be hard for Germany to experience a resurgence of Nazi sympathy; the potential is still smoldering under the surface and even now erupts sometimes in acts of violence against foreigners, etc.

We in the U.S. value freedom of speech, even when that speech is potentially dangerous to others. But even here that freedom is not absolute. You cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, for example, and you cannot threaten the life of the president.

There has been some sympathy for the idea of toughening up on "hate speech" here in the U.S. (there are laws against it in Canada) but it probably won't get much traction in our society, where freedom of speech is considered a fundamental right.

The fact remains, though, that hate speech can and does result in the abridgment of the rights of some citizens and sometimes leads to violence against others.

Ernst Zündel is doing a 5 year sentence.
Sylvia Stolz (his lawyer) is doing 3.5 years for defending Ernst Zündel in court.
Horst Mahler (former RAF Member) has become 6 years.
Siegfried Verbeke got 1 year jail time.
Germar Rudolf was released this year after a sentence of 2.5 years.

So why did Williamson only get a fine?

reply to post by Sestias


Ethnic cleansing smoulders within each race or community.

I dont think that he or anyone should have been punished or an opinion. reminds me of a bumper sticker I want. I think therefore I am dangerous.

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

The suppression of free exchange of information, regardless of how misguided we may judge it to be, is paramount to an open and free democratic society.

So then, you would allow hate speech on an open and unrestricted basis, no matter what the content?

If so, we are at polar opposites.

In nations such as the US and UK, industry is taking over government office through lobbyists, corporate sponsorship of political candidates, and coercion. A move to the right is a move for big business; a move for autocracy and ultimately the reactionary regime of Fascism.

I think you're confusing conservatism with capitalism, the 2 are not codependent, China is the prime example, where radical socialism now exists alongside a booming capitalist economy.

Social disorder breeds revolution, the flavor can be communist or fascist in nature - but that doesn't mean that during prosperous times, people should be allowed to preach hate without consequence, and denying the Holocaust is just that.

Germany's laws are not visionary; they are not born out of some higher moral purpose. They are a reaction to corporate media propaganda.

On the one hand you say that corporations prosper from extreme right wing philosophies, and you then say that in Germany corporations are actively trying to quell such thoughts via their propaganda. Which is it to be?

When I see that kind of double dipping against an entity, it's usually a sign that your own personal agenda is in play. Simply put, you come across as just another anti-capitalist who wants to blame everything on big business. Bizarrely, even including the creation of laws intended to outlaw Holocaust denial.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Retseh]

Originally posted by Retseh

Social disorder breeds revolution, the flavor can be communist or fascist in nature - but that doesn't mean that during prosperous times,people should be allowed to preach hate without consequence, and denying the Holocaust is just that.

How is questioning the number of people killed in the Holocaust hate speech?

I am not a Holocaust denier but what is wrong with someone saying that they don't believe 6 million people were killed by the nazis? Let them believe that if they want.

Originally posted by Retseh
So then, you would allow hate speech on an open and unrestricted basis, no matter what the content?

If so, we are at polar opposites.

What is, and is not, considered hate speech is subjective. You are advocating suppression of opinion.

I think you're confusing conservatism with capitalism, the 2 are not codependent, China is the prime example, where radical socialism now exists alongside a booming capitalist economy.

Capitalism and Communism are above all, competing economic orders. The governmental system in China is Totalitarian.

Social disorder breeds revolution, the flavor can be communist or fascist in nature

Despite accepted academic history, fascism did not rise from a popular social movement, started by the citizenry of Italy or Germany. Fascism is not a popular revolution, it is a reactionary regime bred from the merging of business and government.

- but that doesn't mean that during prosperous times, people should be allowed to preach hate without consequence, and denying the Holocaust is just that.

With respect, the bishop in question was not denying that large scores were killed during the holocaust, he was initially arguing that the numbers were skewed based on a now debunked article claiming the gas chambers were impractical.

Regardless, my belief is that it is better to encounter opinions I would brand as hate speech, and smash them with sound reasoning, rather than to simply legislate the speaker. Better that we both have the right to voice our opinions, than neither of us. To me, making an opinion illegal is not dealing with the issues that created the opinion in the first place. Its putting your fingers in you ears and covering you eyes, hoping the problem will go away.

On the one hand you say that corporations prosper from extreme right wing philosophies, and you then say that in Germany corporations are actively trying to quell such thoughts via their propaganda. Which is it to be?

Freedom of speech was a democratic gain won through hard social struggle. Those that control the lions share of the wealth; those that are in power, did not give it to us because it seemed like a good idea, it was an uphill battle. The suppression of hate speech is just one step towards the suppression of dissenting ideas. Letting the government establish a norm of opinions is a dangerous thing.

When I see that kind of double dipping against an entity, it's usually a sign that your own personal agenda is in play. Simply put, you come across as just another anti-capitalist who wants to blame everything on big business. Bizarrely, even including the creation of laws intended to outlaw Holocaust denial.

This is an opinion based website, is it not? Posts hold agenda's as we try and sway others to our sides.

As I said, the suppression of free speech, regardless of its content, is a dangerous thing.