It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Tony Blair new role includes making HOLOCAUST denial a criminal offense.

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 01:58 PM
a reply to: projectbane

I don't deny the holocaust at all really but on the other hand I just do not care about it. I have NO sympathy towards any jewish person who talks to me about it and I just do not care one bit. When we have starving children and rampant crime and our liberties are being dissolved by the day - i just do not care about Jewish plight at all.

Your post is a prime example of why it's important to remember the Holocaust and educate people about it.

I realise the Holocaust isn't an event which impacts you on a daily basis but it was an incredibly traumatic and deeply disturbing experience for those who suffered.

To deny it happened is absurd. Should it be a crime to deny it? I'm not too sure...I can't think of any other historical event off the top of my head which has been so well documented and has physical evidence yet people deny it. It's a bit like saying the First World War didn't actually happen. Yes there are trenches and battlefields and cemeteries but it never actually happened.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:02 PM

originally posted by: Kram09
It's a bit like saying the First World War didn't actually happen. Yes there are trenches and battlefields and cemeteries but it never actually happened.

This is ATS give it time..............

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:39 PM

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: projectbane

originally posted by: Gothmog
Why would anyone want to deny it , it is history. It is against the law in Germany , some states in the US , and a few other countries as well.

I understand what you are saying but why is it a criminal offense? There have been worse things in history. Why do they get such special privilege?

Our right to think what we want is being taken slowly but surely. What happens if next month its a criminal offense to say 9/11 was an inside job, or denying the moon landing in 69 ever happened and making that a criminal offense.

I do not necessarily think it should be a crime. Although , due to the heinous acts committed I imagine to deny it would be what we in the US would consider "hate speech".
This was one of the major genocide operations ever in the history of the world.Thats why it ranks above most others .

I agree in principle but of course there's a lot more to it than just how a person should FEEL about it when someone says something that is just so insensitive they can't fathom how or why it should be allowed to be said.

Unfortunately, we have to think about the fact that things like this are almost certainly being exploited to make the foot in the door technique possible. And right there, you just have to ask yourself if you wanted to start small and gradually ratchet up the censorship, where would you start?

Well, isn't it obvious? You'd start with things like racism or antisemitism. Because people are (rightly) offended and upset by overt bigotry and intolerance. That turns this issue into an emotional easy button to get millions and millions of people to turn off their brains long enough to open the door for more censorship. And by that, I don't mean these people are stupid. I mean people are easier to manipulate when they're emotional.

While things like racism and antisemitism obviously never go away, these little flashes that put them in the headlines are usually pretty brief and they last just long enough for censorship advocates to exploit them. They can get a lot of mileage out of some fool making a racist statement in public and having the news media pick it up and put the same 5 seconds on repeat for 5 years.

edit on 5-6-2015 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:48 PM

originally posted by: Gothmog
Why would anyone want to deny it , it is history. It is against the law in Germany , some states in the US , and a few other countries as well.

That's true. Why would anyone want to deny it? Makes no sense.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 03:53 PM
a reply to: wmd_2008

A quick look at some of the groups that promote it as never having happened will show you why.

Send me that information please. I would like to take "a quick look" in order to appreciate where you are going with that. I get the impression these groups you allude to are highly influential in the world such as the Brookings Institution? I have no doubt that a well informed person such as yourself has heard of the Brooking Institution (Est.1916) considering the fact it has played a prominent role towards "The Engineering of Consent" and policies for the past 100 years...

Brooking Institution:

The Engineering of Consent:

History As A Weapon

[The] American business community was also very impressed with the propaganda effort. They had a problem at that time. The country was becoming formally more democratic. A lot more people were able to vote and that sort of thing. The country was becoming wealthier and more people could participate and a lot of new immigrants were coming in, and so on.

So what do you do? It's going to be harder to run things as a private club. Therefore, obviously, you have to control what people think. There had been public relation specialists but there was never a public relations industry. There was a guy hired to make Rockefeller's image look prettier and that sort of thing. But this huge public relations industry, which is a U.S. invention and a monstrous industry, came out of the first World War. The leading figures were people in the Creel Commission. In fact, the main one, Edward Bernays, comes right out of the Creel Commission. He has a book that came out right afterwards called Propaganda. The term "propaganda," incidentally, did not have negative connotations in those days. It was during the second World War that the term became taboo because it was connected with Germany, and all those bad things. But in this period, the term propaganda just meant information or something like that. So he wrote a book called Propaganda around 1925, and it starts off by saying he is applying the lessons of the first World War.

The propaganda system of the first World War and this commission that he was part of showed, he says, it is possible to "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies." These new techniques of regimentation of minds, he said, had to be used by the intelligent minorities in order to make sure that the slobs stay on the right course. We can do it now because we have these new techniques.

This is the main manual of the public relations industry. Bernays is kind of the guru. He was an authentic Roosevelt/Kennedy liberal. He also engineered the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup which overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala.

His major coup, the one that really propelled him into fame in the late 1920s, was getting women to smoke. Women didn't smoke in those days and he ran huge campaigns for Chesterfield. You know all the techniques—models and movie stars with cigarettes coming out of their mouths and that kind of thing. He got enormous praise for that. So he became a leading figure of the industry, and his book was the real manual.

—Noam Chomsky

So, why the campaign to make it a criminal offence for those who do happen to question history if it is the truth?

A: To "regiment the public mind every bit as much as an army regiments their bodies."

edit on 5-6-2015 by Involutionist because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 04:55 PM

originally posted by: projectbane
So, Tony Blair the former PM of the UK recently stepped down from his role as Middle Eastern Envoy.

He is about the take up a new role in Europe for the European Council on Tolerance and Reconcilia­tion (ECTR).

Its main priority is racial based work however one of its main goals is the following:

The body campaigns for European countries to make Holocaust denial a criminal offence, clearly define racism and anti-Semitism, and to pay for security at synagogues and Jewish schools.

It is not about clearly define anti-semitism. It is about clearly re-define anti-semitism, since "semite" have a quite clear meaning already:

Semite |ˈsiːmʌɪt, ˈsɛm-|
a member of any of the peoples who speak or spoke a Semitic language, including in particular the Jews and Arabs.
ORIGIN from modern Latin Semita, via late Latin from Greek Sēm ‘Shem’, son of Noah in the Bible, from whom these peoples were traditionally supposed to be descended.

This is from the Oxford English dictionary. I assume that they will skip the "Arab" part going forward.

Come to think of it, isn't the zionists being a bit anti-semitic by so clearly disliking the Palestinians, who are semites?

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 04:59 PM

originally posted by: Boeing777
a reply to: Blaine91555

The holocaust did happen without a doubt but more people were involved in it than just Hitler. Prescott Bush is just one of many.

And IBM.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 05:07 PM

originally posted by: WilhelmTell
Here are some sources on British genocide:
and Here is some information on American Genocide:
and Israel:
With that being put out there, why don't you take it upon yourself to look in to the various attacks, wars, and atrocities that these and numerous other nations have commited. I'm not trying to bully jews or others by saying the Germans weren't the first, last, or worst, to do dark things to other people.
If this isn't good enough, and if you simply won't research yourself, then either you are dense or perhaps one of those paid shills I keep hearing about.

One of the mostly forgotten ones is what the Turks did to the Armenians (mainly because the Armenians are Christian):

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 05:14 PM

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: payta

It does not make questioning the event illegal. It makes denying it ever occurred illegal. There are plenty of facts showing the holocaust indeed occurred.

The Turks denies that the Armenian genocide ever happened.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 05:15 PM

originally posted by: Britguy
Jews are nothing more than another self opinionated religious cult, whose beliefs put them above all others. Unfortunately, they seem to occupy some very high places around the world today, helped of course by the Holocaust narrative and labeling any opposition as anti-semitic and stifling criticism. Most people are conditioned to shy away from any debate by that constant conditioning, and those who are aren't are prosecuted.

That is not quite the jews, but rather the zionists.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 05:25 PM
I am really just amazed that Blair keeps taking on these jobs, and that he keeps getting offered them.

He did though, clearly state that he was going to "Let God be his judge" over the invasion of Iraq, perhaps he actually does believe, and realises that he has a lot of balancing out to do if he doesn't want his arse handed to him on a plate on Judgement Day.

Of course, the important matter, judgement wise, is that in invading Iraq he acted as an elected representative of the British people, whether he thought he was acting as God's emissary or not, his judgement, ultimately belongs to us who by majority voted him in. And the Iraqi people obviously. I should imagine that Blair's god is very much well aware of that fact too.

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 09:52 PM
a reply to: luciddream

Because when you make freedom of speech a punishable offense, you're only deluding yourself about living in a democracy.

edit on 5-6-2015 by Kharron because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-6-2015 by Kharron because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 10:20 PM
a reply to: WilhelmTell

Uhuh.. and this they will pay for. Be sure of that.

History seems to repeat itself in some kind of fractal spiral type of way. Repeating and rhyming correlative to collective karma. Historic irony, poetic justice.

(I hear the US really is the "New Atlantis" and European colonialism was a repeat of the colonisation done by survivors of Atlantis..(Incidentally, the Third World immigration to the West nowadays is the karmic response to the aforementioned colonisation.) my sources are really sketchy though, so take that with a grain of salt)

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 05:35 AM

originally posted by: CynicalSinningSaint
a reply to: Xcathdra

So asking questions isn't illegal?

What if I went to the UK and didn't flat-out "deny" that the Holocaust took place, but made evidence-based presentations regarding the common roots between political Zionism and Anti-Semitism in the early 20th century? or how the emergence of German Nacional Socialism was sponsored by Jewish Wall Streeters? What if I soundly explained that a man named Baron William de Ropp, a Khazarian Jew (non-semitic converts from the caucus region) acted as an advisor to Adolf Hitler? or insinuated that the Holocaust, or burnt offering in Koine, was a plot to eliminate the Jews who refused to resettle in a proposed holy land? Would this be considered criminal?

Yea, I'd get branded an anti-semite and, for all intents and purposes, that's tantamount to being a terrorist!

Excellent. Clearly someone with a deeper grasp and understanding of historical fact than most people on here.

This usually shuts the pig-headed, pseudo-intellectual bullies up rather smartly; along with their disingenuous, mock-outrage at anyone daring to question the Zionist OS, or any other morally/legally/ethically/socially questionable undertaking they've had their destructively corrupt hands on throughout history.

People would do well to read your short post and explore some of the key planks you briefly touch on in a little more depth and detail for themselves. It certainly changes the shape in which one views or approaches this current debate/argument.

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:03 AM
a reply to: CynicalSinningSaint

I don't know what to believe anymore what I do know is the victors write history,and the distrust in governments I'm having a hard time keeping up with all the lying going on....
I found this video interesting food for thought

Ursula Haverbeck wants an answer to a simple question. Following the events in Paris, the Je Suis Charlie campaign called for the protection and promotion of freedom of opinion and speech. In the same spirit, Ursula Haverbeck points out that with mainstream historical authorities now accepting that Auschwitz was not the scene of the murder of millions of Jews in homicidal gas chambers, there is no established "scene of the crime". She has challenged official bodies including ministers of the various German states to provide an answer – to define the scene of the crime. They have so far failed to do so, and she must therefore conclude that there is no substantiation to the official history of Auschwitz.

here's a link to the The Leuchter Report

The Leuchter Report is one of those rare and most precious documents. Prepared and written by Fred A. Leuchter, a consultant in the United States for the design, construction and maintenance of execution gas chambers, the Report sets out the methodology and findings of the first forensic investigation of the actual sites in Poland where the gassings are alleged to have occurred. Leuchter's conclusion, after inspecting the sites and having samples analyzed by a competent laboratory, taken from the walls and floors for total cyanide content, was unambiguous: the alleged gas chambers could not have been used, then or now, as execution gas chambers.
and lastly you can be thrown in prison in Germany for denying the Holocaust

like I said not sure what to believe anymore it as the more I read the less I know but I do find the subject compelling especially in recent years some of the claimed survivors have been busted for making up their stories.I remember reading about Herman A. Rosenblat it shocked me that someone would make up a story about such a serious subject.

was a Polish-born American writer who wrote a fictitious Holocaust memoir titled Angel at the Fence,[1] purporting to tell the true story of a girl who passed him food through the barbed-wire fence at the Schlieben sub-camp of the Buchenwald concentration camp in World War II.[2] The book was planned to be published in 2009 by Berkely Books, but was cancelled after it turned out that many elements of his memoir were fabricated and some were contrary to verifiable historical facts. Rosenblat later admitted to lying on purpose with the intention of bringing joy

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 07:18 AM

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: Gothmog
Why would anyone want to deny it , it is history. It is against the law in Germany , some states in the US , and a few other countries as well.

Just broadcast on the most popular channel in germany.

German Television Exposes Holocaust Lies: Historic Broadcast Shocks Germany

she really causing an uproar in Germany! good for her like some else said the truth doesn't need a law to protect it.
I find it odd that the survivors were paid for their suffering...was the citizen of Japan(Hiroshima/Nagasaki) paid by the U.S government?
on a side note I thought this was hilarious
Herman Rosenblat explains himself

edit on 6-6-2015 by TWILITE22 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 10:14 AM
The Holocaust did happen. For reasons that still remain unexplained, it has been exaggerated and misrepresented. The truth fears no examination.

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 11:16 AM
a reply to: salamanda

Excellent. Clearly someone with a deeper grasp and understanding of historical fact than most people on here.

I can only speak for myself...

I do NOT deny the holocaust happened (only to Jews). I do, however, question the narrative...the "reasons" for it happening.

People would do well to read your short post and explore some of the key planks you briefly touch on in a little more depth and detail for themselves. It certainly changes the shape in which one views or approaches this current debate/argument.

I, personally, was well aware of those points before commenting. Again, perhaps this is why the push to make questioning "the official story" a crime?

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 05:52 PM

originally posted by: Involutionist
a reply to: salamanda
I do NOT deny the holocaust happened (only to Jews). I do, however, question the narrative...the "reasons" for it happening.

It is good to question any history. The history that we do know tells us that records were destroyed as a matter of course during conquests through out history. Great libraries gone, time and time again. The victor does write the history, and Churchill himself stated that history would be kind to him because he intended to write it. Awareness of the horrors being committed in mainland Europe were played down according to who did what in that rewrite. Churchill's "memory" is still preserved by an official historian, he controls his version of events even from the grave.

There was clearly a decision, strategically made, to over emphasise the Final Solution of the Jewish Question in order to detract from the complicity of investors in the UK, US, and Sweden in enacting that Final Solution. The vast majority of the Nazi party funding came from outside of Germany and throughout the war they maintained their interests in the companies that they owned shares in, such a Bosch and IG Farben. By engineering the Cold War, the story of the Eastern European experience of terror from both the Soviets and the Germans, as well as their own neighbours, was buried until the war came down. Since then our understanding of the social landscape of the second world war has changed considerably and it is much more correctly understood as an extension of events leading up to the First World War and progressing through to the Balkans war, and still in the Ukraine.

Eurasia has been struggling to live with itself since forever, but since the middle of the 19th century the emphasis of that conflict has been firmly on the soils of the Ukraine. Everyone in the world wants access to that breadbasket. Churchill had read Mein Kampf, he knew what Hitler wanted. He had also read Halford MacKinder, so he also knew that whoever held the Geographical Pivot, controlled the World Island.

The Holocaust seems to trouble people in terms of money and numbers. The "New Germany" was funded by monies siphoned out of Germany in the closing months of the war by Allen Dulles from his base in Berne, Swtizerland. The US and the UK benefitted considerably in terms of personnel and intellectual property. IBM, Bechtel, ITT, Ford, GM, all benefitted from slavery. The only crime that was actually a crime prior to Nuremberg was only brought against those who wore a German uniform, no civilians, certainly no non-German citizens, were charged with profiting from slavery.

There are vast swathes of second world war history that shed light on the reasons why the Holocaust, and other genocides happened in the 20th century, and why they continue today, but it seems all people want to do is discuss the numbers. I do believe that there is an inability to learn from the experience, (Never again, my arse.) due to a lack of all the pertinent details. Whether they are waiting for all possible suit filers to be dead, or whether there is something legitimate that we need protecting from remains to be seen. No one has even had real access to the Soviet archives since they were stashed away in 1945, David Irving I think got a peak, but he is easily led into showing his prejudice which has rendered his view mute.

Historical revisionism is necessary, but cherry picking, sticking your fingers in your ears and calling people liars, can be offensive if not substantiated. I don't see the need for a specific law, defamation, incitement to cause hatred, pretty much covers the offences committed in print or in public forums, by those tried and found guilty. They only reached court in most cases because of a refusal to comply to requests to amend the offending behaviour. They could have compromised, they chose not to, there is something admirable about that, even if I don't agree that they have any basis to their argument. Free speech can sometimes be abused.

posted on Jun, 6 2015 @ 06:07 PM
a reply to: projectbane

What an interesting issue, it seems that no matter how you slice it, those in power in any country that have some resemblance of democracy and freedoms wants one side of the population to give them away their rights to thinking and make up their minds so certain groups of people do not feel offended.

If this becomes the trend, I am afraid that we as humans are going backwards rather than forward, those countries that never had freedoms of any kind do not have to worry at all.

Sometimes I wonder what is the true intentions of those that seems to think that people needs to be banned in the way of their thinking.

One thing is hate speech and another hating speech completely.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in