It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

NEWS: Austria Holds 'Holocaust Denier'

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
David Irving was taken into custody on the basis of an arrest warrant issued in Vienna in 1989 when he allegedly gave a speech denying the existence of the gas chambers used by the Nazis to murder millions of Jews and others during the Holocaust.




posted on Nov, 18 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   


WyrdeOne where did you get that point from?

Don't the fleas actually have any responsability in the matter.


Fleas didn't bring the plague into muslim lands, and fleas didn't spread it by hurling the dead, via catapult, into densely populated cities.

The Christians thought it a great tactic, and I think the muslims liked it enough to eventually start using it.



What ethnic group do you blame for the Spanish flu in 1917? - The spanish? How about Aids? - Sub Saharan Africans?


Christians are an ethnic group now?

When did that happen. Two Christian parents have a kid, and he's automatically Christian by blood?

In any case...

This is a total tangent, so I'm gonna end it here.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
This is illogical. We're talking about people here, not dollars. Once you get past the numbers you'll see it. And we're not talking about all of the people the Nazi's killed, just the ones in the camps that they treated as less than human.


Ohh, I am not saying it in that context. To be honest, one life is far too many, however let alone will it help [for some people] to finally find out the whole truth to the family members of the victims it can also help. However there is one important thing, the magic number of 6million is something pumped into children in the United Kingdom for 5 to 7 years of their education for at least three months of those years. So roughly 15months solid is spent on it. I would rather they gave the most accurate information and if more information is brought to light they gain it.


Originally posted by intrepid
Ok, I'm getting a picture here. Are you worried about a unified Germany?


Not Germany, but more the whole of the European Union. With the formation of E.U. wide political parties, if we are not careful we will face another threat. Look at the last French election...

Nationalism in Europe and racism are two very large things and when people are not allowed to freely ask questions it plays into these peoples hands.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Nationalism in Europe and racism are two very large things and when people are not allowed to freely ask questions it plays into these peoples hands.


I really do not understand this conclusion.

And furthermore:

The Holocaust is one of the most documented moments in human history and people are allowed to ask questions - of course they are.

Austria and some other countries have tough laws against denial of the Holocaust and revival of Nazism, but not against asking questions.

But Holocaust deniers do no just ask questions and conduct research. They know what answer they seek before they ask the question and before they conduct the "research."

- Like David Irving, Ernest Zundel and more.



[edit on 19-11-2005 by Riwka]



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
He is trying to say that laws like this give ammo to the European far right.



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riwka
But Holocaust deniers do no just ask questions and conduct research. They know what answer they seek before they ask the question and before they conduct the "research."

- Like David Irving, Ernest Zundel and more.


And more? But not all.

This law can be used to punish anyone who questions it.

If I conduct a piece of research, which questions it I am breaking their laws if I conclude that the offical version is incorrect.

That is not good, how can you think that this is good?



posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Thanks, Dani.


But then

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Czech Republic
  • France
  • Germany
  • Israel
  • Lithuania
  • Poland
  • Slovakia
  • Switzerland

    would be typical "far-right countries"?



  • posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 03:59 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Riwka
    Thanks, Dani.


    But then

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Czech Republic
  • France
  • Germany
  • Israel
  • Lithuania
  • Poland
  • Slovakia
  • Switzerland

    would be typical "far-right countries"?



  • None of them are typical far-right countries, but all have a large neo-nazi element, (expect Israel i think) Eastern European countries have very large far-right parties. The UK,Frane and Germany have these, who are large, but not that powerful in voice. But UK has a growing movement.



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:11 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium

    This law can be used to punish anyone who questions it.



    Wrong, Odium.

    These laws are laws against denying the Holocaust - NOT against asking questions, NOT against serious historical research.

    From Yad VaShem to the research center in Melbourne - from Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw to the various centers in .U.S., U.K. ....there are research centers all over the world.

    Where is the problem?


    [edit on 19-11-2005 by Riwka]



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:14 PM
    link   
    Riwka, I assume you do not remember the French Presidential Election of 2002?

    Let us take a look back.

    First Place: Jacques Chirac Rally for the Republic (RPR) 5,666,440 19.88%
    Second Place: Jean-Marie Le Pen Front National 4,805,307 16.86%

    4million people, who agree with the Front National.

    If you would like, I can outline their policy for you? But let us just say, they don't like immigrants [even second generation or even third], gays and many other people.
    The sort of people I'd like in Governemnt. [Sarcasm off.]



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:16 PM
    link   
    Riwka, denial is a loose term in the legal field.

    It depends upon the Government at the present time and its agencies, however denial can be used on anyone who disagrees with the official version of the story. It is that simple.



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:39 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium
    on anyone who disagrees with the official version of the story. It is that simple.


    Wrong, Odium.

    The law is against those who deny the FACTS, against those who want to rewrite history.
    Holocaust denial is s a form of racial abuse directed at Jews. But only that, ist is always a threat to YOUR OWN society.


    [edit on 19-11-2005 by Riwka]



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:46 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium

    Riwka, I assume you do not remember the French Presidential Election of 2002?



    ohhh, the poor French.... just because they are forbidden to deny the shoah by law?

    Do you think citizens of Fraternité- Egalité- Liberté-France value freedom less than you do?

    Mon Dieu....



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:49 PM
    link   
    Riwka, I am afraid I am not wrong.

    Denial:


    Source
    A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.


    Now, unless you can give to the number how many people died it is denial to go against the grain of 6 million. That figure is constructed by the evidence at that time and is accepted by Government [socially constructed.] If I do not believe this, I am refusing to accept their doctrine. It is simple, under both the Literal and British Rule [and in some respects the Mischief.] [European Communities Act 1972.]

    Sorry to inform you, but laws change over time dependent on who is in power to put you on trial. Although the law might have started out to arrest people who claim the holocaust never happened, it can be used to brance out to anyone who disagrees with the official verdict.

    This is why I said this case will be so important if it'll get to the European Court of Justice, not just for the Precedent it sets but also because of the impact it could have. If the law sets out to punish those who 'deny' the holocaust, it can easily be abused.



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:50 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Riwka
    Thanks, Dani.


    But then

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Czech Republic
  • France
  • Germany
  • Israel
  • Lithuania
  • Poland
  • Slovakia
  • Switzerland

    would be typical "far-right countries"?



  • I just gave statistics to show the support for 'Far Right' Parties in one of these questions. I'd rather not get it dragged off topic, onto if the French like liberty or not.



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 04:58 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium

    Now, unless you can give to the number how many people died it is denial to go against the grain of 6 million. That figure is constructed by the evidence at that time and is accepted by Government [socially constructed.]



    Odium - I know this will be a one-liner - but serious: are you kidding?


    Originally posted by Odium

    Although the law might have started out to arrest people who claim the holocaust never happened,



    I am not sure about the French, but since I am intersted in this Irving case, I know it about Austria.

    The law is against full or partial denial of the Holocaust.


    [edit on 19-11-2005 by Riwka]



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:03 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium

    I just gave statistics to show the support for 'Far Right' Parties in one of these questions. I'd rather not get it dragged off topic, onto if the French like liberty or not.


    And you know what?

    I am very sure, if there were a fascist movement in your country, fueled by Holocaust denial, which posed a genuine threat to democracy you would have such an law within very short time.



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:14 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium
    Riwka, I am afraid I am not wrong.

    Denial:


    Source
    A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.



    Actually, in the true sense that you did not give an accurate nor an appropriate definition, you are wrong/mistaken, Odium.
    A common dictionary definition does not do justice to the term: holocaust denial or denier. As such, the definition of holocaust denial or holocaust denier is readily found, discerned, and defined appropriately enough.


    Before discussing how Holocaust denial constitutes a conspiracy theory, and how the theory is distinctly American, it is important to understand what is meant by the term "Holocaust denial." Holocaust deniers, or "revisionists," as they call themselves, question all three major points of definition of the Nazi Holocaust. First, they contend that, while mass murders of Jews did occur (although they dispute both the intentionality of such murders as well as the supposed deservedness of these killings), there was no official Nazi policy to murder Jews. Second, and perhaps most prominently, they contend that there were no homicidal gas chambers, particularly at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where mainstream historians believe over 1 million Jews were murdered, primarily in gas chambers. And third, Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule.

    While Holocaust denial began as a German and French conspiracy theory, its antecedents are both specifically American and an encapsulation of 2,000 years of European antisemitism.

    Holocaust Denial, a Definition

    David Irving fits such a definition quite appropriately.
    He has lectured before in Austria, and lecturing on/peddling Holocaust denial material. An arrest warrent was issued by Austria then. Austria never sought to extradite him from the UK. He then returns, hence this topic, knowing he had such an arrest warrent issued against him, to lecture/peddle more holocaust denial material. He was appropriately arrested, and furthermore, deserved to be arrested: one, for blantant disregard for the arrest warrent issued against him, and two, for blantant disregard of the host nations laws.




    seekerof

    [edit on 19-11-2005 by Seekerof]



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:21 PM
    link   
    No, I am not.

    You are dealing with this in a legal context now and your knowledge of how things [words] can be abused in the British and European legal systems seems to be lacking. Many times laws are made to do one thing and end up doing another. [Floodgate effect.]

    The term fact can have many meanings, some of which are socially constructed and others which are not. Unless you know for sure an event it is socially constructed upon the evidence you punlish, document and give validity too. This can be seen with the Holocaust in the difference between Islamic and European Nation's views upon it.

    So all a law saying to "Deny the facts of the Holocaust" or to "Deny the Holocaust" is doing, is making something which can [and probably will] be abused. With more pointless crimes and pointless criminals.


    Originally posted by Riwka

    Originally posted by Odium

    I just gave statistics to show the support for 'Far Right' Parties in one of these questions. I'd rather not get it dragged off topic, onto if the French like liberty or not.


    And you know what?

    I am very sure, if there were a fascist movement in your country, fueled by Holocaust denial, which posed a genuine threat to democracy you would have such an law within very short time.



    And when you begin to ban these parties, you feed them even more. No democratic society can refuse people the right to vote on any party they so desire. France again is a good example. When it came down to the two top candidates in the run off, the 'Far Right' got hammered by about 80% to roughly 20%.

    However, the banning of parties doesn't help cure the problem. How will it? Those people will still hold their views and now they can't do it in a legal way... in fact this helps them out more than it harms them. If someone is claiming immigrants are harming the Nation and the Government officials are in it to make money off of the immigrants, banning that party and arresting that person begins to give some validity to that claim.

    Let these people make their statements, so that the law won't be abused and that the true historic facts can put these people into their place instead of validating their claims.

    Seekerof, this is why I listed the rules after. In British law, when you are attempting to place someone on trial you take a 'law' and begin to 'argue' if they fit into it or not. This is how it is abused, using things like the 'Literal' rule. Holocaust Denial is anyone who disagrees with the Government version of the Holocaust.

    There are tons of rules, I think there are 8.

    The defence then argue that using 'such and such a rule' this isn't breaking the law. Once they decide if a law has been broken they then move on to the next stage and so on and so fourth, with the exception of things like muder, rape. This is also why I used the term abuse onto people who are not Irving.

    Basically, the British [English] Dictionary doesn't define Holocaust denial. A lawyer for the State can thus argue that this denial is anyone who doesn't believe the doctrine/belief of the holocaust, set down by the education system/state/Government.



    posted on Nov, 19 2005 @ 05:32 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Odium

    And when you begin to ban these parties,


    Odium, I thought we are talking about holocaust denial?

    Public denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offence in France.

    Did the French ban parties?



    new topics

    top topics



     
    7
    << 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

    log in

    join