1
   

Holocaust denier gets three years

 
 
Zippo
 
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 12:26 pm
Austria jails Irving for 3 years

Quote:
"I'm very shocked," Irving said when he was leaving the court room. His lawyer said that he had already lodged an appeal. The prosecutor declined to comment before he had read the full verdict.


  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 9,117 • Replies: 169
No top replies

 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 01:08 pm
Bravo the Austrian Jury !

I believe Irving was arrested in Austria when he arrived to address a rally of right-wing extremists.
No doubt the verdict correctly took that into account.
0 Replies
 
Louise R Heller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 01:40 pm
fresco wrote:
Bravo the Austrian Jury !

I believe Irving was arrested in Austria when he arrived to address a rally of right-wing extremists.No doubt the verdict correctly took that into account.


Your belief is WRONG.

The author gave that speech in the 1980's but he hadn't been to Austria since so couldn't be prosecuted until his recent visit.

HOW we differ from totalitarian regimes like Stalin's???? I'm Austrian and I think we live under laws WORST than Stalin's!!!
0 Replies
 
Louise R Heller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 01:42 pm
Please excuse me for asking but didn't the British Parliament recently turned down some similar law??

10 years in prison maximum is the penalty in Austria, I salute the British people for turning down that madness!!!
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 03:08 pm
fresco wrote:
Bravo the Austrian Jury !


Definitely a step in the right direction.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 03:18 pm
fresco wrote:
Bravo the Austrian Jury !

I believe Irving was arrested in Austria when he arrived to address a rally of right-wing extremists.
No doubt the verdict correctly took that into account.


Shame on Europe! (and on the Austrian Jury).

Europe needs to decide whether it supports Free Speech or not. This verdict is pure hypocrisy.

How can you defend your right to offend millions with religiously charged cartoons at the same time as you send someone to prison for speaking his beliefs that offend you.

This verdict...especially now... boggles the mind.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 03:22 pm
This is madness. You only create a martyr for those who really do have evil intent. Irving is clearly a bit of an oddball, he knew when he went to Austria that he was liable for arrest, and he's already spent 4 months in gaol. Another 3 years for something he said 17 years ago, and which he has now retracted and admitted his mistake is ridiculous. He's 68 years old too. Even Deborah Lipstadt said it was stupid to gaol him.

[Revisionist historians have been doing what Irving is doing, or attempting to do, since historians wore short pants. Should those "Deniers" of the moon landings be ridiculed or prosecuted? If someone disputes the number of people killed in the Holocaust, is he gaoled only if he estimates less than 6 million? What if he estimates 9 million? Is that worth 3 years gaol too?]
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 03:34 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Even Deborah Lipstadt said it was stupid to gaol him.


Yep, that's right. However, ...

Quote:
... in the case of the Holocaust, Lipstadt says she recognises a case for laws in the lands that formed the heart of the Third Reich.

"Germany and Austria are not so far past the Third Reich. So I can understand that the swastika symbol, Mein Kampf, Holocaust denial, being a neo-Nazi and all the rest have a certain potency there that they would not have in the United States," she says.

"And Austria is a democracy. If the citizens of Austria were against these laws, they could change them. Austria and Germany are different, but I would not support those laws being instituted elsewhere."
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 03:46 pm
Irving is British not Austrian.

If people want to make the case that (say) 3 million people were killed rather than 6 million, should that really be illegal?

Is there no such thing as historical fact? What have people got to be afraid of?

The Turkish government denies to this day they implemented a programme in 1915 of genocide against the Armenians. According to austrian law, they should be putting themselves collectively in gaol rather than applying to join the EU.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 03:54 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Irving is British not Austrian.

If people want to make the case that (say) 3 million people were killed rather than 6 million, should that really be illegal?

Is there no such thing as historical fact? What have people got to be afraid of?

The Turkish government denies to this day they implemented a programme in 1915 of genocide against the Armenians. According to austrian law, they should be putting themselves collectively in gaol rather than applying to join the EU.


I think (not entirely sure) that only denying the Holocaust is illegal. I don't think that disputing it would be a crime.

And I think that it's quite obvious what the people who wrote down the law were afraid of, don't you think so?

And re Turkey: isn't the official acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide a precondition the European Union set (amongst lots of others, of course) for continuing the membership talks with Turkey?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 04:10 pm
old europe wrote:


I think (not entirely sure) that only denying the Holocaust is illegal. I don't think that disputing it would be a crime.

I understood that minimising it was also illegal. So presumably if one were stupid to say in Austria 5,999,999 when one meant 6,000,000...

Actually I dont know, the whole thing seems daft to me, especially when the affect of gaoling Irving will just make him a hero and martyr to the really nasty people who still lurk in the undergrowth


And I think that it's quite obvious what the people who wrote down the law were afraid of, don't you think so?

No I really have no idea. It makes no more sense to me than passing a law making it illegal to deny the moon landings, or saying there were only 5 and not 6. Surely its a matter of historical fact

And re Turkey: isn't the official acknowledgement of the Armenian genocide a precondition the European Union set (amongst lots of others, of course) for continuing the membership talks with Turkey?

I think so. But Turkish greed for European tax money is only slowly overcoming their wish to cover up the shameful past

0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 04:25 pm
old europe wrote:
I think (not entirely sure) that only denying the Holocaust is illegal. I don't think that disputing it would be a crime.

Well, that's a sorites paradox. If it would not be a crime to say that 5,999,999 Jews were killed, then it wouldn't be a crime to say that 5,999,998 Jews were killed. And if that weren't a crime, then it wouldn't be a crime to say that 5,999,997 Jews were killed, etc. etc. etc. Eventually, it wouldn't be a crime to say that only one Jew was killed in the Holocaust. At what point does disputing the numbers become denying the fact?
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 04:29 pm
Louise_R_Heller wrote:

HOW we differ from totalitarian regimes like Stalin's???? I'm Austrian and I think we live under laws WORST than Stalin's!!!


Well..... except that under Stalin's regime you would not be able to write this and if you did dare to, you'd be lucky if you got away with your bare life and was sent to Siberia for the rest of your life...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 04:33 pm
I really hate this law. I think it's dangerous to jail people because they deny something.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 04:36 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
old europe wrote:
I think (not entirely sure) that only denying the Holocaust is illegal. I don't think that disputing it would be a crime.

Well, that's a sorites paradox. If it would not be a crime to say that 5,999,999 Jews were killed, then it wouldn't be a crime to say that 5,999,998 Jews were killed. And if that weren't a crime, then it wouldn't be a crime to say that 5,999,997 Jews were killed, etc. etc. etc. Eventually, it wouldn't be a crime to say that only one Jew was killed in the Holocaust. At what point does disputing the numbers become denying the fact?


Excellent point.

Here's the German law (my translation):

§ 130

(3) Whoever denies or minimizes publically the importance of an act named under §6 art 1 of International Code of Penal Law [=genocide] committed under the rule of National Socialism, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with a prison sentence of up to five years, or with a fine.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 04:37 pm
Again, I think that the term "in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace" is the operative one....
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Feb, 2006 06:27 pm
Louise R Heller,

"He was arrested and has been held since November when he returned to Austria to give a lecture to right-wing students, the BBC reports."

Did the BBC get it wrong ?

The report below gives the flavour of the courtroom proceedings.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2049459,00.html
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 08:23 am
thanks for the sorites paradox joe

OE "in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace"..

If one person is disturbed by denial of the Holocaust, that is not a disruption of public peace.

If two people are disturbed that is not a breach of the peace

Therefore if 9999 or 10000 are disturbed, that also is not a breach of the public peace Smile
0 Replies
 
Louise R Heller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 08:38 am
fresco wrote:
Louise R Heller,

"He was arrested and has been held since November when he returned to Austria to give a lecture to right-wing students, the BBC reports."

Did the BBC get it wrong ?

The report below gives the flavour of the courtroom proceedings.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2049459,00.html


Reading comprehension seems to be in short supply around here.

The BBC correctly reports the charges stem from a speech Irving gave 17 years ago.

That's SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO capitalized in hopes that Fresco will get it.
0 Replies
 
Louise R Heller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Feb, 2006 08:42 am
old europe wrote:
Again, I think that the term "in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace" is the operative one....


Exactly.

That criterion is NOT met by opinions expressed 17 years ago which the author admits REVISING IN THE INTERVENING YEARS.

This is Stalinist policy, criminalizing and jailing people for something they THOUGHT seventeen YEARS ago.

There was no rioting then, was there???

There was no rioting this time, was there???

This is the most grotesque abuse of legislative power!!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Holocaust denier gets three years
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/05/2022 at 02:19:47